# Amazon Files Suit Against Book Stuffers [MERGED]



## Kristen Painter (Apr 21, 2010)

https://twitter.com/DavidGaughran/status/981899871778230273


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Kristen Painter said:


> https://twitter.com/DavidGaughran/status/981899871778230273


Thanks for posting. Have retweeted.


----------



## FelissaEly (Jan 15, 2017)

So happy about this, came across one the other day that was listed at over 3,000 pages-blatantly stuffed with a bunch of books that they also published individually, essentially 'double dipping' I really hope this will improve things on Amazon.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

I wish Amazon had done this long ago, but it's good to know the company is taking action now. In the long run, allowing such nonsense to continue is damaging to Amazon's reputation.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

https://twitter.com/DavidGaughran/status/981893826288803840

From David Gaughran this morning:

"HUGE NEWS: Amazon has filed suit against a UK self-publisher in Washington federal court, seeking to confirm an arbitration award against him for using clickfarms and bots AND BOOK STUFFING."

David explains more as the article is behind a paywall. Whenever this topic has come up here, folks who do this have said it's fine with Amazon despite emails that explicitly say it's not fine. They have pointed to Amazon's inaction against it as evidence--and, well, it's been hard to argue with that. If it really violated Amazon's TOS, wouldn't they do something?

Well, now they have.

David provides quotes from the stories to show this:

"Amazon's demand also explicitly said that book stuffing and rank manipulation artificially increase the payout at the expense of other authors."

Worth a read.

ETA: Kristen beat me to it!


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Can't wait to see what all the stuffer-defenders have to say about this.

I'd imagine there's a lot of formatting going on right now 

_Edited to remove names. Evenstar, Moderator._


----------



## Shane Lochlann Black (Mar 3, 2015)

Is this farewell to the box set and collection market?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

This is an important topic of interest to the community. (Thank you, Kristen, for posting.)  Advance warning, we'll be watching this thread closely. Let's keep the discussion to the issues involved and avoid personal comments, thanks.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## countwordsmith (Aug 13, 2015)

What is book stuffing? It doesn't mean you can't have box sets, does it? And have the individual books still on sale?


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

Glad to see Amazon has cracked down on that nonsense. Also glad to see that they specifically mentioned book stuffing and how it affects other authors in the program. Amazon unquestionably states that YES, these scam practices DO affect all authors in KU, and are TOS violations.



















And IMO, there are a few people that owe David an apology.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

countwordsmith said:


> What is book stuffing? It doesn't mean you can't have box sets, does it? And have the individual books still on sale?


Book stuffing is when authors take all their books and stuff them into the back of every other book to artificially inflate their page count, and thus their Kindle Unlimited payout, at the expense of their fellow authors. Some authors even stuff in newsletters to inflate the page count as much as possible.

The authors in this particular case have also been accused - by Amazon - of using clickfarms and bots, and purchasing reviews - a huge surprise to everyone, I'm sure.


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

I'm glad they are doing something about it. 

But my biggest issue is that it never should have worked in the first place. Amazon told us they knew EXACTLY how many pages were being read in KU books. We trusted them to keep track without any transparency whatsoever. Then this came along and showed us they weren't tracking pages the way they had promised they were all along. 

It is still amazing to me that a large group of authors is willing to sign onto a program where they don't know what they are being paid upfront, and not only is the formula used to calculate payment 100% behind closed doors, but has been proven to be inaccurate and easily manipulated. 

The whole program is shady af.


----------



## countwordsmith (Aug 13, 2015)

dgaughran said:


> Book stuffing is when authors take all their books and stuff them into the back of every other book to artificially inflate their page count, and thus their Kindle Unlimited payout, at the expense of their fellow authors. Some authors even stuff in newsletters to inflate the page count as much as possible.
> 
> The authors in this particular case have also been accused - by Amazon - of using clickfarms and bots, and purchasing reviews - a huge surprise to everyone, I'm sure.


Ah, okay, thanks. I wonder about a limit to back matter though. I hardly have any (just one page) but then there are authors with several pages of info, including the first chapter of the next book. With this, a first chapter of the following book in a series that is already on sale would be prohibited if they cracked down on it as well.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

Lexi Hall said:


> Is this farewell to the box set and collection market?


What I was told by KDP:
Amazon allows box sets in KU; books in the KU box set must be exclusive to Amazon and may not be published by more than one account. So you can include your book in a multi-author KU boxset, but you cannot list that book individually for sale via your own KDP account. Authors are permitted to package their own books into box sets and publish via their own account. Box sets must clearly list the contents on the product page, and links in the front of the book skipping to the back are not permitted. Publishing the same book repeatedly under different titles in order to inflate page count is not permitted.

I want to say Amazon knows the difference between a stuffed book and a legitimate box set. One provides a poor customer experience; the other provides a good customer experience. I'd like to say they won't go after legitimate box sets, but it truly beats the heck outta me most days trying to figure out what Amazon is going to do next.


----------



## The Fussy Librarian (May 3, 2011)

Glad to see Amazon pursuing this. I hope they commit the legal resources needed to collect damages. Otherwise, these people will just pop up under a new name and continue to scam the system.

Jeffrey


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

This discussion comes up in every stuffing thread. I'll make it simple:

*Genuine bonus content - as in a chapter of the next in the series = fine.

Actual box sets advertised as such etc. = fine.

Stuffing several novels and/or newsletters in the back of all of your books to inflate your page count and payout = cheating and against the TOS.*

It's really not that complicated, with respect. If you want to dig into the finer points, there are multiple older threads where all these hairs are split repeatedly.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I've always wished they'd just say one title, one book, period in KU and be done with it. Like when you file a single-title copyright with the copyright office. Crystal clear, easy to enforce. Sadly, they don't ask me for my fabulous suggestions! But I wouldn't be surprised if that happens. Single title, max 1,000 KENPC or the like.


----------



## FelissaEly (Jan 15, 2017)

Lexi Hall said:


> Is this farewell to the box set and collection market?


I don't see why this would be good-bye to single author box sets, box sets aren't 'stuffing' unless somehow they are (I genuinely don't know, haven't come across a stuffed box set though I also haven't looked that hard). What I've typically seen is a single book by an author that is somehow thousands of pages and the look inside confirms through the table of contents that they have their other individual titles listed after the 'main content' of the book AND also available for sale alone.

There used to be great information about boxed sets in Amazon's KDP help pages... but now I can't find it *sigh*

Anywho! I don't see it affecting legitimate box sets.


----------



## Ryan W. Mueller (Jul 14, 2017)

EB said:


> What I was told by KDP:
> Amazon allows box sets in KU; books in the KU box set must be exclusive to Amazon and may not be published by more than one account. So you can include your book in a multi-author KU boxset, but you cannot list that book individually for sale via your own KDP account. Authors are permitted to package their own books into box sets and publish via their own account. Box sets must clearly list the contents on the product page, and links in the front of the book skipping to the back are not permitted. Publishing the same book repeatedly under different titles in order to inflate page count is not permitted.
> 
> I want to say Amazon knows the difference between a stuffed book and a legitimate box set. One provides a poor customer experience; the other provides a good customer experience. I'd like to say they won't go after legitimate box sets, but it truly beats the heck outta me most days trying to figure out what Amazon is going to do next.


Thanks for posting this. I was wondering about box sets because I'm planning on doing one for my first series once I get the whole thing published. I was worried I couldn't put it into KU like the original books.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Usedtoposthere said:


> I've always wished they'd just say one title, one book, period in KU and be done with it. Like when you file a single-title copyright with the copyright office. Crystal clear, easy to enforce. Sadly, they don't ask me for my fabulous suggestions! But I wouldn't be surprised if that happens. Single title, max 1,000 KENPC or the like.


Ultimately Amazon might have to implement one of these cruder solutions because these guys are relentless, and will find any hole in the fence (and any way to justify cheating the system and their fellow authors).

It would be sad to see innocent authors punished by not getting paid for genuine content that exceeds 1000 KENPC (which is often a good deal less than 1000 book pages) or not being able to use box sets. Maybe the time has come for box sets, with all the various shenanigans surrounding them.

But maybe it doesn't have to be that terrible. If Amazon brought in a rule saying one piece of content can only exist once in the Kindle Store, one presumes that would be easier to police in an automated sense. And if they allowed us some kind of paperback-esque bundling options, that could replace the marketing power of box sets, particular if we had some kind of control over the deals presented etc.

The solutions don't have to be all terrible. The status quo couldn't continue though.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

dgaughran said:


> Ultimately Amazon might have to implement one of these cruder solutions because these guys are relentless, and will find any hole in the fence (and any way to justify cheating the system and their fellow authors).
> 
> It would be sad to see innocent authors punished by not getting paid for genuine content that exceeds 1000 KENPC (which is often a good deal less than 1000 book pages) or not being able to use box sets. Maybe the time has come for box sets, with all the various shenanigans surrounding them.
> 
> ...


Agree on all that. Especially the slipping-through-the-hole-in-the-fence thing. I suspect the enforceable-by-automation solution will have to be pretty cut & dried.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Agree on all that. Especially the slipping-through-the-hole-in-the-fence thing. I suspect the enforceable-by-automation solution will have to be pretty cut & dried.


Agree it would need to be strict via automation. I wonder if they could come up with a button in the KDP dashboard to "combine" several of your own books into a box set and publish it, with the restriction that each book can only be combined in one box set. That could easily be automated.


----------



## solo (Dec 19, 2017)

dgaughran said:


> Can't wait to see what all the stuffer-defenders have to say about this.
> 
> I'd imagine there's a lot of formatting going on right now


LOL. And a lot of lawyer consults.

_edited quoted post. --Betsy_


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

EB said:


> Agree it would need to be strict via automation. I wonder if they could come up with a button in the KDP dashboard to "combine" several of your own books into a box set and publish it, with the restriction that each book can only be combined in one box set. That could easily be automated.


I've been wishing for something like this for years. A virtual box set would solve a lot of the problems and be easy to implement. Readers would have the option to buy titles individually or all at once. authors would have the option of whether to discount and how much to discount. It would seem to be easier for everyone.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

If you want to see the most relevant sections from the Court docs, I just put them up on Twitter.

Here:

And here:

As you can see, *Amazon is explicitly stating that (a) stuffing is against the TOS, (b) that all authors were harmed by stuffing, and (c) that these stuffers also used clickfarms and bots.*


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

To say it another way... The language could be a little clearer, but it's also likely condensed for better layman understanding. What is clear is:

1) It says including works previously included in "other" works is manipulation. So, having a book in several collections at once is manipulation. This does not preclude any one title being included in any one box set.

2) Combining books already published in these other works into "purportedly new books" is manipulation. That means that taking, say, 10 books and putting them into one file and maybe shuffling them around a bit ,and then publishing that same content under 10 different book titles is manipulation.

Typical box sets with contents clearly noted on the cover and in the metadata where that content is not replicated multiple times = OK.

Book stuffing as has been defined on this board many times = Manipulation and possible lawsuit.
______________

Of course, there are now a LOT of bonuses and page reads that have been paid out to people who've been stuffing and/or engaging in other manipulative behavior. Will Amazon claw all those payments back if/when the arbitration decision gets certified in federal court? 

The TOS goes both ways. Will the authors who've made less money because of the scamming that Amazon has not been policing get reimbursed? Those of us who've abided by the TOS have expectations as to what results our participation in the programs we've agreed to should be.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

The thing I have been the maddest about is seeing the crappy ghostwritten content appear to “sell” as if it were exactly the same to romance readers. This seems to support the idea that these, call them “chancy”books have NOT in fact actually been selling, that their rank is artificially supported. I hope that ultimately gives romance readers more confidence in looking at reviews and rank and trusting that they are legitimate. To me, that has been the big theft from legitimate indie romance writers—that readers do not want to take a risk anymore because they cannot trust what they see.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

PhoenixS said:


> Of course, there are now a LOT of bonuses and page reads that have been paid out to people who've been stuffing and/or engaging in other manipulative behavior. Will Amazon claw all those payments back if/when the arbitration decision gets certified in federal court?
> 
> The TOS goes both ways. Will the authors who've made less money because of the scamming that Amazon has not been policing get reimbursed? Those of us who've abided by the TOS have expectations as to what results our participation in the programs we've agreed to should be.


i am not holding my breath but it sure would be nice.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Most of the top sellers in New Adult are stuffed books, even blatantly so. If first impressions hold true, and Amazon really is drawing the line, a lot of best selling authors are about to receive notice.

Most of us know the serial abusers so there's no point in naming names. If their books are still sitting on the top lists a week from now we'll know whether or not Amazon is serious.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

Dpock said:


> Most of the top sellers in New Adult are stuffed books, even blatantly so. If first impressions hold true, and Amazon really is drawing the line, a lot of best selling authors are about to receive notice.
> 
> Most of us know the serial abusers so there's no point in naming names. If their books are still sitting on the top lists a week from now we'll know whether or not Amazon is serious.


Amazon typically rolls out changes, so I'm betting it will take more than a week. Perhaps Amazon will want to finish the current legal process before casting a wider net.

That said, I'm optimistic that the situation will get better, though it may take a little while. Since Amazon tends to be more reactive than proactive, I'm guessing either that Amazon was getting a growing number of customer complaints, seeing a customer behavior change (a lot of people have reported doing their browsing on Goodreads and only popping on to Amazon to complete a transaction--not the patter the Zon really wants), or experiencing the loss of some well-performing authors in KU. Any or all of those things might have been a wake-up call.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Bill Hiatt said:


> Amazon typically rolls out changes, so I'm betting it will take more than a week. Perhaps Amazon will want to finish the current legal process before casting a wider net.
> 
> That said, I'm optimistic that the situation will get better, though it may take a little while. Since Amazon tends to be more reactive than proactive, I'm guessing either that Amazon was getting a growing number of customer complaints, seeing a customer behavior change (a lot of people have reported doing their browsing on Goodreads and only popping on to Amazon to complete a transaction--not the patter the Zon really wants), or experiencing the loss of some well-performing authors in KU. Any or all of those things might have been a wake-up call.


The most common complaint I've read in reviews concerns books ending "at 17%" or similar in their Kindles (I've noticed books that come to the end within the "Look Inside" feature).

Anyway, Amazon most likely has a broad list of suspects. Maybe they'll wait to see if they respond to this news of pending litigation on their own before bringing the hammer down. I'm sure they'd preferred to avoid legal action (on both sides) if it can be helped.

Only the customers buying their leisure reading by the pound will really be affected. Their $.99 will no longer buy 1500 pages at a time, and scheming authors will no longer make $7 selling their 100-page novellas.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Anyone trying to upload a new title will be in for a big wait for the foreseeable future as the stuffers upload new content.  Will amazon be banning author accounts, raking back two months money and distributing it to authors? Not likely. Amazon are just tinkering again.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

The future and what this means for it is definitely too vague to foretell, but for now Amazon - for once - clearly stating that book stuffing is a no no is nice to see.  

Agreed that the scammers will find something new to exploit, but maybe this will at least send the “I’m just doing this for the benefit of my readers” apologists scurrying back to the shadows for a while.


----------



## joesmithx (Mar 21, 2018)

I've yet to encounter book/bonus stuffing in genres other than romance. Is this just a romance thing? 

(Note: I'm talking about actual writers stuffing books (people who can ACTUALLY WRITE), not those scammers who cram together a bunch of nonsense "books" to make a quick buck.)


----------



## Stewart Matthews (Nov 21, 2014)

AWritersLife said:


> I've yet to encounter book/bonus stuffing in genres other than romance. Is this just a romance thing?
> 
> (Note: I'm talking about actual writers stuffing books (people who can ACTUALLY WRITE), not those scammers who cram together a bunch of nonsense "books" to make a quick buck.)


It is typically found in romance, but by no means is it restricted to romance.


----------



## Hope (Nov 28, 2014)

I'm excited to hear this. At least Amazon is finally taking this seriously.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

AWritersLife said:


> I've yet to encounter book/bonus stuffing in genres other than romance. Is this just a romance thing?
> 
> (Note: I'm talking about actual writers stuffing books (people who can ACTUALLY WRITE), not those scammers who cram together a bunch of nonsense "books" to make a quick buck.)


Why does it matter if they are real books or garbage? I could argue that a real book has some value to a customer while garbage has no value to anyone except the scammers.

I've found fake books in non romance genres. But people only seem to want to mention Romance.


----------



## Randall Wood (Mar 31, 2014)

Long overdue.

And before we give praise to Amazon lets not forget that we've been telling them about this, flagging the books, sending countless emails, and basically raising hell, for years concerning this, and in all that time they responded with ZERO.

Today they chose to take down ONE guy. They spent the money on lawyers instead of a small staff to stop the problem at the door. 

Is it a positive step? Yes. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for any further action.


----------



## joesmithx (Mar 21, 2018)

dianapersaud said:


> Why does it matter if they are real books or garbage? I could argue that a real book has some value to a customer while garbage has no value to anyone except the scammers.
> 
> I've found fake books in non romance genres. But people only seem to want to mention Romance.


It matters to me for my own reasons, which I'm not interested in explaining to you, a stranger on the net, sorry.

And I only mentioned romance because I can only speak for myself, and *I've* never encountered the kind of in-your-face bonus book stuffing being discussed here in other genres. If you've seen it elsewhere, feel free to mention them.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Romance has by far the highest percentage of voracious readers. Look at how Scribd (was it?) who had to limit the originally unlimited model of their subscription service? So romance is the low-hanging fruit with the highest ROI for stuffers.

Also, it's very competitive, so it stands to reason that in a tough market, there will be a higher percentage of real authors who will nevertheless be tempted to push the boundaries on techniques to make money--and the more they got away with it, the more they convinced themselves that what they were doing wasn't wrong or even against TOS--and some flat-out didn't care.

Any ecosystem will encourage certain behaviors, and when that ecosystem doesn't have sufficient penalties for bad behavior, bad behavior will abound. Look at, say, Italy, where tax evasion is a universal sport even among otherwise law-abiding citizens, or Russia and IP piracy.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2018)

dianapersaud said:


> I've found fake books in non romance genres. But people only seem to want to mention Romance.


I think part of the issue is that while such schemes crop up elsewhere, it hurts Romance authors the most because Romance readers tend to be the most voracious. Romance is genuinely the only genre where it is completely normal for the typical reader to read one or more books a week, and it is not uncommon for them to read a book a day. You just don't see that level of normalized mass consumption in other genres. YA comes in second, but it isn't a real close second. But outside those two genres, you just don't see the extreme reader pop up normally. They exist, but they are rare. In romance and YA, they are the norm.

Because of the voraciousness of those audiences, romance writers compete on price more than most other genres. Which makes page READS in KU that much more valuable.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

Edward M. Grant said:


> For a little while. Then the scammers will find another scam, while legitimate authors will suffer from random enforcement of Amazon's arbitrary rules introduced to stop the previous scam.
> 
> The fundamental problem is that KU literally gives scammers a license to print money. Amazon will just keep playing whack-a-mole until they shut the thing down.


There's no question that KU as currently structured leaves a lot of room for abuse. I guess the question is whether a better system can be designed. I've seen programmers argue on both sides of that issue, so I'm not sure about some key variables, like whether or not Amazon can develop a routine that actually counts pages and is not as easily gameable. I suppose a bot flipping pages at the speed of a normal reader could probably get around any enforcement system, but it would also be less convenient.

Perhaps the key is making cheating difficult enough--and risky enough--to encourage scammers to find something else to scam. I believe Amazon could do that if it had the will to do it. Whether it actually does depends on how valuable KU is to Amazon. Do the KU subscribers end up buying other things, as some have speculated? If so, Amazon has to do something to keep decent content in the system so those subscribers will stick around. Part of that is eliminating scammers, and part is keeping strong authors in the program. Does Amazon value Select? If so, KU is about the only incentive there is to stay in the program. If an author can make more in KU than in going wide, that author may stay. If not, that author will probably go.

I suppose other motivations could be ascribed to Amazon, but the ones I've mentioned seem the most obviously beneficial to Amazon. There can't be that much profit from killing off Scribd, for example.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

dgaughran said:


> Can't wait to see what all the stuffer-defenders have to say about this.
> 
> I'd imagine there's a lot of formatting going on right now
> 
> _Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


Personally, I'd be happy as a clam if Amazon truly banned stuffing. But I'll bet good money that they won't do anything to actually stop it.

I've never defended the practice as a good thing, only as allowed by the rules, which I know, bc a rep told me "bonus content is allowed." It doesn't get more cut and dry than that. Even if I'd never heard from a rep, I've watched stuffed books soar up the chart for two years now. It's clearly been okay with Amazon, as they've done nothing to stop it.

If Amazon is going to continue to be cool with stuffing, and romance readers are going to continue buying/borrowing stuffed books, authors are going to continue doing it. Many legitimate, bestselling romance authors regularly use bonus books. It's not *just* people publishing gw schlock. I hate stuffing, but if Amazon keeps allowing it, I will use the strategy on occasion. In the current ecosystem, not stuffing puts you at a huge disadvantage.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Crystal_ said:


> I hate stuffing, but if Amazon keeps allowing it, I will use the strategy on occasion. In the current ecosystem, not stuffing puts you at a huge disadvantage.


----------



## FelissaEly (Jan 15, 2017)

Crystal_ said:


> I've never defended the practice as a good thing, only as allowed by the rules, which I know, bc a rep told me *"bonus content is allowed."* It doesn't get more cut and dry than that.


Bold is mine, I really don't understand this. If a book is already readily available for sale on Amazon, is it TRULY "bonus" content just because it's stuffed in the back of another totally unrelated book by the same author? To me, bonus content is something that cannot be found or bought elsewhere. So I don't think it's as cut and dry as people may think.


----------



## Randall Wood (Mar 31, 2014)

Monique said:


>


"I assign my own definitions to the rules in order to support my preconceived narrative."


----------



## 98368 (Sep 4, 2017)

I just read a lot of another thread as well as this one and I'm still not sure I know what's meant by "stuffing."

I understand the use that refers to reordering content, maybe even renaming it, and then reselling it as something different. That definition of stuffing is clear to me. Or putting material in the Kindle edition that's incomplete or falsely advertised.

But if there's a book with a bonus novella in the back, and the bonus novella isn't included in any other book that author has published, is that stuffing? Or is it stuffing only if that same bonus novella, whether or not it has the same title, is put in the back of several of the author's books? Trad publishers do this--they put the same preview of Book X in the back of several different books all getting published at the same time. So, if I have several stand-alone books and put the same preview or novella in the back of them, is that stuffing?

Anyway, I'm just confused about this. Especially since, as I understand it, unless someone reads--and not using page flip--the pages in a KU book, the author doesn't get paid for the pages read. Are readers actually reading content that they've already read? Or is something else going on here?

I'm just trying to understand this so I won't accidentally engage in this practice. Right now I have a box set of a series, and I assumed this is okay. It's clearly stated in the listing that it's the box set of these three books, which are also available individually. Or is that "stuffing" as well?


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

FelissaEly said:


> Bold is mine, I really don't understand this. If a book is already readily available for sale on Amazon, is it TRULY "bonus" content just because it's stuffed in the back of another totally unrelated book by the same author? To me, bonus content is something that cannot be found or bought elsewhere. So I don't think it's as cut and dry as people may think.


It was in the context of a conversation. A friend and I were actually professing our dislike of bonus content and wish that KDP would do something about it. That was a year ago, so, clearly they have not done anything about it.

People tend to use "bonus books" and "stuffing" as interchangeable terms. The typical practice is something like this:
New Release
Backlist Book 1
Backlist Book 2

It may be one backlist book or it may be ten.

I'm not interested in arguing with anyone about whether or not bonus content is allowed. IMO, Amazon's continued lack of action proves that it is. Every email I've ever seen from KDP has also shown that it is allowed. I'm not happy about that, but it is what it is. I've tried it a few times, because I'm pragmatic, and why should dozens of other authors who continue to use bonus books again and again with no repercussions make money that could be mine? Sometimes, it's worked well. Other times, it's worked less well. I don't really like the practice and prefer not to do it. But I also prefer to maximize my profits.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I think part of the issue is that while such schemes crop up elsewhere, it hurts Romance authors the most because Romance readers tend to be the most voracious. Romance is genuinely the only genre where it is completely normal for the typical reader to read one or more books a week, and it is not uncommon for them to read a book a day. You just don't see that level of normalized mass consumption in other genres. YA comes in second, but it isn't a real close second. But outside those two genres, you just don't see the extreme reader pop up normally. They exist, but they are rare. In romance and YA, they are the norm.
> 
> Because of the voraciousness of those audiences, romance writers compete on price more than most other genres. Which makes page READS in KU that much more valuable.


I know Romance is extremely popular in KU but whenever these threads pop up, it always turns into a dump on Romance, either the genre as a whole or niches.

The scammers are still stuffing and by doing it in smaller genres, like BIOGRAPHICAL, they are getting away with it. No more botting to the top so that they are easily spotted. Occasional borrows for 100 PD translated books (at 3000 KENP) is easy money.

I've been tracking dozens of "pen names" since last year and a handful of those books are still up. (well over 150 books are no longer in the store. Doubt KDP took them down, or the pen name would have been completely gone.)

As Randall said above, they went after ONE guy. I'm not expecting any changes that makes our life easier or for the scamming to stop.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

Randall Wood said:


> "I assign my own definitions to the rules in order to support my preconceived narrative."


Is that fair? From what I've read, and of course people might be fabricating exchanges with Amazon reps, but authors have received different or vague answers on this issue... add that to stuffed books topping the romance charts and I understand why people make the decisions they do. I have a day job, but some people have to compete in order to pay their bills. Ultimately, if Amazon was clear on their policy, and enforced it consistently, there wouldn't have been years of gray area affecting the decisions of legit authors who survive on royalties.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Bill Hiatt said:


> There's no question that KU as currently structured leaves a lot of room for abuse. I guess the question is whether a better system can be designed.


No. The whole concept is fundamentally broken.

Any subscription model requires that at least one of the writer, the reader and the middleman gets screwed. Amazon won't screw the reader, which means any scammer can pay $9.99 and 'read' as many of their own books as they want, thereby paying themselves far more than the cost of the subscription (if they didn't just get it for free).

Amazon can't stop that without restricting the amount a reader is allowed to read. Which they won't do because KU exists to encourage more people to go to Amazon and buy toilet paper while they're borrowing books.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

RTW said:


> I just read a lot of another thread as well as this one and I'm still not sure I know what's meant by "stuffing."
> 
> I'm just trying to understand this so I won't accidentally engage in this practice. Right now I have a box set of a series, and I assumed this is okay. It's clearly stated in the listing that it's the box set of these three books, which are also available individually. Or is that "stuffing" as well?


This isn't about clearly labeled box sets, or a small story / chapter at the end of a big one.

This is about putting multiple other books (usually also for sale on their own or in multiple stuffed books), at the end of the one being advertised / sold.

These aren't sold as box sets or anthologies, usually just with a vague "includes bonus content" note (if anything) on them. This isn't a case of the main book ending at, say, 80% and the rest being bonus material. This is a case where the "bonus" material itself takes up the vast majority of the file space.


----------



## Randall Wood (Mar 31, 2014)

Just Griff said:


> Is that fair? From what I've read, and of course people might be fabricating exchanges with Amazon reps, but authors have received different or vague answers on this issue... add that to stuffed books topping the romance charts and I understand why people make the decisions they do. I have a day job, but some people have to compete in order to pay their bills. Ultimately, if Amazon was clear on their policy, and enforced it consistently, there wouldn't have been years of gray area affecting the decisions of legit authors who survive on royalties.


There's a difference between going with the common definition of a rule and shopping for the definition you want/need to justify your behavior.

Edited to add: if you're in a competitive genre that's dominated by stuffers and you see no alternative but to stuff your self, then just say that. Don't try to convince us that the rules allow it in some head-in-the-sand circular argument. I'll at least have some respect for the former, but never the latter.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Just Griff said:


> Is that fair? From what I've read, and of course people might be fabricating exchanges with Amazon reps, but authors have received different or vague answers on this issue... add that to stuffed books topping the romance charts and I understand why people make the decisions they do. I have a day job, but some people have to compete in order to pay their bills. Ultimately, if Amazon was clear on their policy, and enforced it consistently, there wouldn't have been years of gray area affecting the decisions of legit authors who survive on royalties.


Knowing what you're doing is wrong and doing it anyway because you feel it's justified to earn money is unethical. There's no confusion in doing it. It's rationalized because they want to make money and will do *whatever* it takes to do that. They "have" to do it to compete. No, no they don't.

Ugh.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Just Griff said:


> Is that fair? From what I've read, and of course people might be fabricating exchanges with Amazon reps, *but authors have received different or vague answers on this issue... add that to stuffed books topping the romance charts and I understand why people make the decisions they do. *I have a day job, but some people have to compete in order to pay their bills. Ultimately, if Amazon was clear on their policy, and enforced it consistently, there wouldn't have been years of gray area affecting the decisions of legit authors who survive on royalties.


(IIRC, Last year) There were some Romance authors who briefly had their ranks stripped and it was assumed that it was because of stuffing. But their ranks were restored, so at that point, KDP didn't have a problem with it.

Does anyone know the facts surrounding this case?
Is it botting? Multiple accounts?

I found an old article dating back to Sept 2017 but it didn't have much info.

ETA:
Found it on DGaughran's second post with the links.

It's not just duplicate content, but using click farms/bots.

I thought I read somewhere that there was an issue of multiple accounts, so I'm wondering if that's where the "duplicate content" comes in.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

It's in black-and-white in *filed court documents* that Amazon says stuffing is against the TOS.

Of course, the usual suspects argue otherwise.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Just Griff said:


> I have a day job, but some people have to compete in order to pay their bills.


Is is really competing or is it cheating? If a business owner finds something morally or ethically repugnant, yet still does it to "compete", I'm not sure what that really says about a business.

I have bills to pay, but choose not to sell drugs or run an illegal lottery to do so. Extreme examples compared to what we're talking about, true, but trying to get my point across.

There comes a point where you're not really competing, so much as lowering yourself to the others who are breaking the rules.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

Randall Wood said:


> There's a difference between going with the common definition of a rule and shopping for the definition you want/need to justify your behavior.


Right. My point was that there wasn't a common definition. I think the only people who don't want a common, enforced definition are scammers.

The way I see it, Amazon reps created confusion with conflicting responses on the matter. Amazon also allowed for this tactic to succeed on their platform for years. So why turn on each other? None of us make the rules.


----------



## joesmithx (Mar 21, 2018)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Is is really competing or is it cheating? If a business owner finds something morally or ethically repugnant, yet still does it to "compete", I'm not sure what that really says about a business.
> 
> I have bills to pay, but choose not to sell drugs or run an illegal lottery to do so. Extreme examples compared to what we're talking about, true, but trying to get my point across.
> 
> There comes a point where you're not really competing, so much as lowering yourself to the others who are breaking the rules.


I think we've all known people in real life who are always coming up with the latest "brilliant idea" to get rich fast. They're usually the ones always trying to rope you in because _this time their idea can't possibly fail! _But it always does and they end up back at square one. You start thinking, "Gee, if they'd just get a regular 9-to-5 job like everyone else, they'd probably make the same amount (if not more!) money, with less effort." But they don't see it that way.

If Amazon plugs this, the people doing it will just look for another way to exploit the new system. I doubt if it's all about the money. As I said before, some of these people are good to decent writers and I believe they could make the same amount, if not more, just by writing and releasing and not messing with this stuff.

But, again, it's just not how they're hardwired.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

Edward M. Grant said:


> No. The whole concept is fundamentally broken.
> 
> Any subscription model requires that at least one of the writer, the reader and the middleman gets screwed. Amazon won't screw the reader, which means any scammer can pay $9.99 and 'read' as many of their own books as they want, thereby paying themselves far more than the cost of the subscription (if they didn't just get it for free).
> 
> Amazon can't stop that without restricting the amount a reader is allowed to read. Which they won't do because KU exists to encourage more people to go to Amazon and buy toilet paper while they're borrowing books.


Is the problem really just a scammer reading his or her own books? Clearly not, but botted reads would be fixable if Amazon wanted to put some personnel behind it. Eliminating the garbage that probably only bots ever actually read would go far toward solving some of those issues. At the very least, that would force scammers to make more effort to get the same result. No more gibberish, no more endless regurgitation of public domain stuff, etc.

As far as stuffing is concerned, a simple rule change to only allow the same content in KU once would solve a large part of the issue. Amazon already has the technology to check for identical content; all they need to do is repurpose it. Box sets would still be allowed, but the box couldn't be in KU if the individual titles were. (As an alternative, box sets could be virtualized as suggested earlier in the thread. As far as stuffing itself is concerned, people could put their whole catalog in each book if they felt like it--but only if they took all those individual works out of KU. That would pretty well kill the practice.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

AWritersLife said:


> If Amazon plugs this, the people doing it will just look for another way to exploit the new system. I doubt if it's all about the money. As I said before, some of these people are good to decent writers and I believe they could make the same amount, if not more, just by writing and releasing and not messing with this stuff.
> 
> But, again, it's just not how they're hardwired.


I don't disagree. There's definitely that subset out there who enjoys the rush of breaking the rules and/or getting one over on THE MAN.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2018)

Edward M. Grant said:


> No. The whole concept is fundamentally broken.


it is fundamentally broken BY DESIGN. KU was never meant to be profitable. It is a loss leader for Amazon designed to get people into the ecosystem and gain control of the larger market. And that is ultimately the problem. The entire payment structures to authors is arbitrary and based on what Amazon thinks our tolerance level is, not actual profit and loss. This has only become an issue for Amazon because of the volume of noise being made by customers. AUTHORS have been complaining from the beginning, but it is only recently that you are starting to see actual customers notice what is going on and start complaining.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

My definition of bonus content is "things I wouldn't be surprised to find at the end of a print edition". My definition of stuffing is "things I would never expect to find at the end of a print edition." In a print edition, I would expect to find multiple stories in an anthology, a teaser chapter for a new book by the author at the end of a single-story volume, a (perhaps lengthy) other-books-by-the-author section. I would never expect, in a print edition, to find a bunch of other full novels by the author.


----------



## Phxsundog (Jul 19, 2017)

Truth is most authors would be ecstatic to see bonus books end. There's no proof in this lawsuit anything is changing there. More authors are stuffing, and stuffing more, as long as the practice is allowed. I can't blame them for one simple reason: it's survival. The same group you see forcing horribly ghostwritten content to the top in romance for the past year is able to support $1000-2000 per day ad spends. They can only do that because they stuff every release to near 3000 pages. Often their formatting is intentionally poor on top of the stuffing to get even more pages. Triple spaced lines, huge fonts, click-to-the-end tricks, 'exclusive' stories shoved behind several other bonus books. You name it. I'm surprised there's never any uproar over this part when books are intentionally being badly formatted for page reads. That's something Amazon should do something about, whatever they decide to do with bonus books. The ugly truth is, every romance author should be stuffing until Amazon ends the practice if they want a prayer at competing with this group. There's no other way to afford the same ad spends they do unless you stuff, meaning better authors will be permanently trapped in a lower tier under this junk unless they stuff to support more ads. Like it or not, stuffing is here to stay until Amazon outright says no more. Not stuffing to compete is just surrendering every high rank and KU bonus to low quality content mills with enormous ad budgets.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

dianapersaud said:


> (IIRC, Last year) There were some Romance authors who briefly had their ranks stripped and it was assumed that it was because of stuffing. But their ranks were restored, so at that point, KDP didn't have a problem with it.
> 
> Does anyone know the facts surrounding this case?
> Is it botting? Multiple accounts?
> ...


No one really knows why those authors were rank stripped, but the commonly accepted reason was botting. I don't think everyone was intentionally botting. I think some people had done so unwittingly by using a shady promo series, but there's no way to really know.

Even this case seems to be more about botting.

I'd be very (pleasantly) surprised if Amazon did anything about bonus books/stuffing.



Phxsundog said:


> Truth is most authors would be ecstatic to see bonus books end. There's no proof in this lawsuit anything is changing there. More authors are stuffing, and stuffing more, as long as the practice is allowed. I can't blame them for one simple reason: it's survival. The same group you see forcing horribly ghostwritten content to the top in romance for the past year is able to support $1000-2000 per day ad spends. They can only do that because they stuff every release to near 3000 pages. Often their formatting is intentionally poor on top of the stuffing to get even more pages. Triple spaced lines, huge fonts, click-to-the-end tricks, 'exclusive' stories shoved behind several other bonus books. You name it. I'm surprised there's never any uproar over this part when books are intentionally being badly formatted for page reads. That's something Amazon should do something about, whatever they decide to do with bonus books. The ugly truth is, every romance author should be stuffing until Amazon ends the practice if they want a prayer at competing with this group. There's no other way to afford the same ad spends they do unless you stuff, meaning better authors will be permanently trapped in a lower tier under this junk unless they stuff to support more ads. Like it or not, stuffing is here to stay until Amazon outright says no more. Not stuffing to compete is just surrendering every high rank and KU bonus to low quality content mills with enormous ad budgets.


This, basically.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Usedtoposthere said:


> I've always wished they'd just say one title, one book, period in KU and be done with it. Like when you file a single-title copyright with the copyright office. Crystal clear, easy to enforce. Sadly, they don't ask me for my fabulous suggestions! But I wouldn't be surprised if that happens. Single title, max 1,000 KENPC or the like.


Right now my only KU exposure is multi-author anthologies (exclusive content only, so it doesn't violate TOS.) I really love short stories, and one of the only ways to make them profitable is through KU anthos. I would hate to see them go away, and by extension, shorts.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

Is it too late to tiptoe out of this thread? 



Monique said:


> Knowing what you're doing is wrong and doing it anyway because you feel it's justified to earn money is unethical. There's no confusion in doing it. It's rationalized because they want to make money and will do *whatever* it takes to do that. They "have" to do it to compete. No, no they don't.
> 
> Ugh.


I don't stuff. I haven't written enough titles to stuff. So forgive me if it's just my own ignorance, but aren't romance writers stuffing so that people keep reading books conveniently at the back? I know scammers are using bots, but aren't the legit authors just doing it so they can capitalize on a new readers attention? Using bots is clearly wrong, but I thought legit authors for doing it for reader convenience. If new stories are there, they can just continue on without needing to browse. Reader convenience = more page reads. No?



dgaughran said:


> It's in black-and-white in *filed court documents* that Amazon says stuffing is against the TOS.
> 
> Of course, the usual suspects argue otherwise.


Clarity is great. I'm not a usual suspect nor someone who profits on any of this. Just someone who's been reading the threads on this issue and empathizing with legit authors who were confused by what they were seeing and hearing.



Rick Gualtieri said:


> Is is really competing or is it cheating? If a business owner finds something morally or ethically repugnant, yet still does it to "compete", I'm not sure what that really says about a business.
> 
> I have bills to pay, but choose not to sell drugs or run an illegal lottery to do so. Extreme examples compared to what we're talking about, true, but trying to get my point across.
> 
> There comes a point where you're not really competing, so much as lowering yourself to the others who are breaking the rules.


Using bots is cheating, clearly. Bonus books by legit authors in an effort to maximize the attention span of new readers... I'm not sure. Bonus books by legit authors seeking to be paid for duplicate reads... cheating, but it really shouldn't be in my opinion. If someone actually rereads a title because they love it that much, I've always wondered why the author shouldn't be paid like a band or singer on a streaming sub service. But that's another matter.

I see your point. From what I've read not everyone sees this as a clear cut right and wrong. For some it's a allowed or not allowed argument. This tactic was used by different people with completely different motives, so I think that's also part of the problem as well.


----------



## Lefevre (Feb 1, 2014)

Thanks David G. you rock!


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> Personally, I'd be happy as a clam if Amazon truly banned stuffing. But I'll bet good money that they won't do anything to actually stop it.
> 
> I've never defended the practice as a good thing, only as allowed by the rules, which I know, bc a rep told me "bonus content is allowed." It doesn't get more cut and dry than that. Even if I'd never heard from a rep, I've watched stuffed books soar up the chart for two years now. It's clearly been okay with Amazon, as they've done nothing to stop it.
> 
> If Amazon is going to continue to be cool with stuffing, and romance readers are going to continue buying/borrowing stuffed books, authors are going to continue doing it. Many legitimate, bestselling romance authors regularly use bonus books. It's not *just* people publishing gw schlock. I hate stuffing, but if Amazon keeps allowing it, I will use the strategy on occasion. In the current ecosystem, not stuffing puts you at a huge disadvantage.


I read the sections that David highlighted from the court papers. It seems pretty darn clear that book stuffing is against the TOS regardless of what anyone told you from the customer service department before this suit was made public. Relying on what some random person said instead of Amazon's lawyers ... that's sort of crazy to me. It seems like you're just hoping that Amazon won't come down on everyone who is stuffing and you're willing to roll that dice. I get that its hard out there with a lot of other people stuffing but you're risking being sued by Amazon or having your account banned, etc. Are you REALLY willing to risk it for more page reads? The quoted material that David has pointed out makes it crystal clear that book stuffing isn't allowed. It's not a matter of opinion anymore, if it ever really was. So you can't say if they come after you: well, random customer service person said it was okay! They'll say you had notice because of this case that it wasn't. I'd be very nervous if I was a stuffer. Seriously nervous.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Sadly, they don't ask me for my fabulous suggestions!


Mine either, dang it!


----------



## AgnesWebb (Jan 13, 2013)

FINALLY!!!


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Just Griff said:


> Is it too late to tiptoe out of this thread?
> 
> This tactic was used by different people with completely different motives, so I think that's also part of the problem as well.


I don't think so. If people wanted to do this for legit reasons then they could have bundled their books once and been done with it. Readers would have found those bundles with a link.

Did they really think readers wouldn't start to complain? Give them something free once and they're happy, keep giving them the same books over and over and not so much happy as cheesed off. Then there are the readers who expect full length books and end up with a hundred pages. It had to come back to bite them eventually.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

dgaughran said:


> It's in black-and-white in *filed court documents* that Amazon says stuffing is against the TOS.
> 
> Of course, the usual suspects argue otherwise.


Yes, THIS. Why is everyone on the pro-stuffing side acting like Amazon wasn't crystal about this in the court documents? It's not just an opinion about book stuffing. It's a FACT. Seriously, book stuffers (and I'm not in KU so I don't have quite the dog in this race) should be freaked out by this ruling. They should be reformating their books NOW to eliminate the stuffed material. Yes, the guy botted and did other stuff, but there's paragraph after paragraph about how STUFFING in and of itself is harmful to KU, Amazon and other authors in KU who don't stuff. This is Amazon saying this, not just other authors. It can't get any clearer than this. Waiting to see if Amazon does anything is a bad move. Because they don't ask you nicely to do something, they simply ban your account, rank strip you, or worse, sue you.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

The person casting doubt on whether stuffing is against the TOS, despite court papers clearly showing that, is someone who has admitted to stuffing.

Prolly something to keep in mind.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

X. Aratare said:


> I read the sections that David highlighted from the court papers. It seems pretty darn clear that book stuffing is against the TOS regardless of what anyone told you from the customer service department before this suit was made public. Relying on what some random person said instead of Amazon's lawyers ... that's sort of crazy to me. It seems like you're just hoping that Amazon won't come down on everyone who is stuffing and you're willing to roll that dice. I get that its hard out there with a lot of other people stuffing but you're risking being sued by Amazon or having your account banned, etc. Are you REALLY willing to risk it for more page reads? The quoted material that David has pointed out makes it crystal clear that book stuffing isn't allowed. It's not a matter of opinion anymore, if it ever really was. So you can't say if they come after you: well, random customer service person said it was okay! They'll say you had notice because of this case that it wasn't. I'd be very nervous if I was a stuffer. Seriously nervous.


Have you ever tried to get clarification on anything with Amazon? It's nearly impossible.

I'm not using any bonus books at the moment. I'm not a regular bonus book user. (But the veiled threat is really not classy). If I was currently using bonus books, I wouldn't be worried by this. Maybe if they start sending take down notices. But only maybe.

I hope that happens. I hope I look at the romance charts next month and see absolutely no bonus books. But, well... I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Atlantisatheart said:


> I don't think so. If people wanted to do this for legit reasons then they could have bundled their books once and been done with it. Readers would have found those bundles with a link.
> 
> Did they really think readers wouldn't start to complain? Give them something free once and they're happy, keep giving them the same books over and over and not so much happy as cheesed off. Then there are the readers who expect full length books and end up with a hundred pages. It had to come back to bite them eventually.


Yepppp.

For the record, you do not have to stuff to do well in contemporary romance, even in KU. I know many authors who do extremely well and do not stuff.

Perhaps it's harder to compete if you don't stuff. It sure has become harder to compete in general in CR given these various practices. I would guess though that stuffing (much less botting, hiring armies of ghostwriters (which isn't against TOS), and review-purchasing) doesn't result in satisfied readers, if time after time they pick up your book and find it's only 10% new stuff--and varying-quality ghostwritten stuff at that. Even in KU. So long-term, I don't think it's a great plan. Short-term--it sure has been profitable. There's a price you have to pay, though, I'd think.

It was real clear to those of us who got the initial response from Executive Customer Relations that stuffing was not OK. I'm aware of the sort of "workaround" people have used to justify it. But if, after reading those documents, you STILL think stuffing is OK by Amazon, I think you're running a risk with them. My own judgment/opinion only.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

Atlantisatheart said:


> I don't think so. If people wanted to do this for legit reasons then they could have bundled their books once and been done with it. Readers would have found those bundles with a link.
> 
> Did they really think readers wouldn't start to complain? Give them something free once and they're happy, keep giving them the same books over and over and not so much happy as cheesed off. Then there are the readers who expect full length books and end up with a hundred pages. It had to come back to bite them eventually.


As a reader, I don't buy bundles very often, but if I really loved a story and the next books or other books by the author were at the back, I wouldn't be p*ssed. I'd only be p*ssed if the motive was to hide the actual page count. I forgot that motive in my response to Rick. That's cheating, and it really cheats readers more than anyone so I can't see how that's going to work out well.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

Crystal_ said:



> Have you ever tried to get clarification on anything with Amazon? It's nearly impossible.
> 
> I'm not using any bonus books at the moment. I'm not a regular bonus book user. (But the veiled threat is really not classy). If I was currently using bonus books, I wouldn't be worried by this. Maybe if they start sending take down notices. But only maybe.
> 
> I hope that happens. I hope I look at the romance charts next month and see absolutely no bonus books. But, well... I'm not holding my breath.


I'm not threatening you, veiled or otherwise. And I have no idea why you are suggesting that as nothing I've said could be construed that way.

I'm just saying that the court documents are crystal clear that this is against the TOS and it seems like you keep saying it doesn't matter because they might not enforce it and my point is: you really want to risk that? Hope that Amazon doesn't enforce it even though they sued this guy? I guess that's your business. Not what I would choose, but okay, you do you.


----------



## Cactus Lady (Jun 4, 2014)

Just Griff said:


> I don't stuff. I haven't written enough titles to stuff. So forgive me if it's just my own ignorance, but aren't romance writers stuffing so that people keep reading books conveniently at the back? I know scammers are using bots, but aren't the legit authors just doing it so they can capitalize on a new readers attention? Using bots is clearly wrong, but I thought legit authors for doing it for reader convenience. If new stories are there, they can just continue on without needing to browse. Reader convenience = more page reads. No?


Here's the easiest, clearest explanation of stuffing that I've seen (don't remember who came up with this):

Title Book A
contains Book A, B, C, D, E

Title Book B
contains Book B, A, C, D, E

Title Book C
contains Book C, A, B, D, E

Title Book D
contains Book D, A, B, C, E

Title Book E
contains Book E, A, B, C, E

The main points here are that the different titles each have the same books, just in different order, and that the book is advertised as just the first book in the lineup.

(the rest of this is my explanation)

The difference with legitimate box sets is that they are advertised up front as a box set containing the different books. for example Title Books A B C box set.

The difference with legitimate bonus content is it isn't just the same titles in different order. for example, Book A plus a short story at the end. Book B has a different short story at the end. Book C has yet a different short story at the end.

ETA: There's also the method of "throwing in random gobs of Google-translate junk and whatever you can scrape off the internet to increase your page count." but that needs no explanation to know that it isn't cool.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

FelissaEly said:


> Bold is mine, I really don't understand this. If a book is already readily available for sale on Amazon, is it TRULY "bonus" content just because it's stuffed in the back of another totally unrelated book by the same author? To me, bonus content is something that cannot be found or bought elsewhere. So I don't think it's as cut and dry as people may think.


Yes, but the people who want to continue to do it (and take money out of your pocket while they do) would prefer that you not think about this.

The fact is that vague questions like "is bonus content okay?" get a yes. Specific questions like "Can I take Published Book A and Published Book B, both of which are in KU, and put them at the back of my next release, Book C?" the answer is no. I've asked it several times, in several ways.

But whatever floats your [general you, not you you, Felissa  ) boat. "Because I'm gonna get mine even if it's not right" has never been my business philosophy and it never will be.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

kw3000 said:


> It's not survival. It's greed.
> 
> And?
> 
> The right thing, the ethical thing, to do would be to "surrender". So, you achieve a lower rank and make fewer dollars than the "low quality content mills with enormous ad budgets". So?


It'll be short-term money at best, seems to me--but the folks who are really doing this aren't writers per se (or per anything), they're more entrepreneurs who switch from one new scheme to the next. Short-term is kinda what they're all about.

A fair number of people survive on mid-six to eight-figure numbers in romance without stuffing any books. It's not survival.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

Kyra Halland said:


> Here's the easiest, clearest explanation of stuffing that I've seen (don't remember who came up with this):
> 
> Title Book A
> contains Book A, B, C, D, E
> ...


But are they doing this for the reasons I thought or some nefarious reason I'm not understanding? I get how other authors would look at this and assume they're getting duplicate reads with this octuple-dipping, but if Amazon killed the jump to the back/skipping reads, would that tactic legitimately work for scamming (outside of bot reads), or would it just be a way for an author to lure a new reader into reading their back-list with every title they release and with the greatest ease for the reader?


----------



## S.R. (May 19, 2016)

[My posts have been deleted in response to the unannounced KBoards TOS change that was made by the new forum owner (VerticalScope) -- I do not agree to the new terms and have requested that my account be deleted as well]


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Just Griff said:


> But are they doing this for the reasons I thought or some nefarious reason I'm not understanding? I get how other authors would look at this and assume they're getting duplicate reads with this octuple-dipping, but if Amazon killed the jump to the back/skipping reads, would that tactic legitimately work for scamming (outside of bot reads), or would it just be a way for an author to lure a new reader into reading their back-list with every title they release and with the greatest ease for the reader?


One way is that they put an epilogue in the back so the reader has to skip to get there. A different epilogue in back of every book, and then, as they see it, they can argue that it isn't "duplicate content" because there is new content in every book, even if it's only 10% of the total content.

It is done for the purpose of inflating page "reads." The authors will probably claim that people really did read all those pages (who knows, if Amazon truly cannot count them?), so they aren't getting anything to which they aren't entitled. From the lawsuit, Amazon clearly does not agree.

Nobody's going to say, "Ha HA! I cheated and lied, mwah-ha-ha, you suckers," like Snidely Whiplash. But I took what I read as Amazon saying it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so they're figuring it's a duck.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Phxsundog said:


> I can't blame them for one simple reason: it's survival.


I can, for one reason: it's cheating.

Seriously, this is not hard. Do the right thing, even when it's hard. Do the right thing, even if there's no enforcer standing over you to make you do it. Do the right thing even -- maybe especially -- when so many around you are not.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Just Griff said:


> But are they doing this for the reasons I thought or some nefarious reason I'm not understanding? I get how other authors would look at this and assume they're getting duplicate reads with this octuple-dipping, but if Amazon killed the jump to the back/skipping reads, would that tactic legitimately work for scamming (outside of bot reads), or would it just be a way for an author to lure a new reader into reading their back-list with every title they release and with the greatest ease for the reader?


The nefarious reason is double dipping or more. Now, I've seen the argument here "I'm just putting the whole series there as a convenience for the reader. I'm not forcing them to read it". Sound logic, except they're counting on those people who will read it again. And since it's under a different ASIN than the original, they get paid again ... and maybe even again. Now, whether we should be paid for multiple reads of the same book is kind of irrelevant since we're not. But this is a way around that.

Fine, box sets are allowed, so one could argue double dipping is okay. I'll give them that, but the fact that those same books exist in more than two KU titles goes beyond that. If even a fraction of their readers continue on to the bonus books, then the scheme is a success and they profit where they shouldn't be profiting.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Just Griff said:


> if Amazon killed the jump to the back/skipping reads


They didn't. Amazon lies. 

It still works in cloud reader, for sure (I've tested it myself). And I hear there are hacks/workarounds for other devices. That part I can't vouch for personally.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

lilywhite said:


> I can, for one reason: it's cheating.
> 
> Seriously, this is not hard. Do the right thing, even when it's hard. Do the right thing, even if there's no enforcer standing over you to make you do it. Do the right thing even -- maybe especially -- when so many around you are not.


(Searches fruitlessly for the LIKE button)


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

lilywhite said:


> I can, for one reason: it's cheating.
> 
> Seriously, this is not hard. Do the right thing, even when it's hard. Do the right thing, even if there's no enforcer standing over you to make you do it. Do the right thing even -- maybe especially -- when so many around you are not.


Yep, it shouldn't be about those authors who do it and get away with it, it should be about the authors not doing it and being cheated by those that are.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

lilywhite said:


> I can, for one reason: it's cheating.
> 
> Seriously, this is not hard. Do the right thing, even when it's hard. Do the right thing, even if there's no enforcer standing over you to make you do it. Do the right thing even -- maybe especially -- when so many around you are not.


THIS! ^^^^^


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Usedtoposthere said:


> It'll be short-term money at best, seems to me--but the folks who are really doing this aren't writers per se (or per anything), they're more entrepreneurs who switch from one new scheme to the next. Short-term is kinda what they're all about.
> 
> A fair number of people survive on mid-six to eight-figure numbers in romance without stuffing any books. It's not survival.


There's a group of marketers doing this to make bank, but most authors are just copying what they see in the charts. A lot of high profile authors could stop stuffing and still make a living, but why would they? Why would say *not going to use actual name* an author currently in the top 20 with two bonus books and a .99 price just say later to those extra pages when her strategy has worked so well for years?

Lots of authors who are just scraping by are stuffing bc Big Fancy KU Author is doing it.

Fair number is actually not really fair. The last author earning report I saw said about 250 romance authors make six figures. That's not a big number. The amount who make mid six is likely much lower. And it's not easy.

It won't end until Amazon makes it clearly against ToS and regularly enforces their policy. It may state this clearly in the court docs, but 99.9% of authors won't see that.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Just FYI there are several other *current* tricks that stuffers now use to get the full 3000 KENPC payout, since Amazon (kind of) closed the skip-to-the-end payout.

Not going to publicize them for obvious reasons but Amazon has been made aware.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

Usedtoposthere said:


> One way is that they put an epilogue in the back so the reader has to skip to get there. A different epilogue in back of every book, and then, as they see it, they can argue that it isn't "duplicate content" because there is new content in every book, even if it's only 10% of the total content.
> 
> It is done for the purpose of inflating page "reads." The authors will probably claim that people really did read all those pages (who knows, if Amazon truly cannot count them?), so they aren't getting anything to which they aren't entitled. From the lawsuit, Amazon clearly does not agree.
> 
> Nobody's going to say, "Ha HA! I cheated and lied, mwah-ha-ha, you suckers," like Snidely Whiplash. But I took what I read as Amazon saying it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so they're figuring it's a duck.


Oh. I thought Amazon had shut down that skip-to-the-epilogue mess. That's disappointing it's still up in the air. I thought if anything, page flip was robbing reads. Thanks for explaining. The lesson kboards seems to be teaching me these days is: I'm naive.



Rick Gualtieri said:


> The nefarious reason is double dipping or more. Now, I've seen the argument here "I'm just putting the whole series there as a convenience for the reader. I'm not forcing them to read it". Sound logic, except they're counting on those people who will read it again. And since it's under a different ASIN than the original, they get paid again ... and maybe even again. Now, whether we should be paid for multiple reads of the same book is kind of irrelevant since we're not. But this is a way around that.
> 
> Fine, box sets are allowed, so one could argue double dipping is okay. I'll give them that, but the fact that those same books exist is more than two KU titles goes beyond that. If even a fraction of their readers continue on to the bonus books, then the scheme is a success and they profit where they shouldn't be profiting.


I only know my reading habits, and I wouldn't reread many books (mostly beloved series), but maybe that's just me. I assumed that this would only appeal to new readers, thus duplicate reads would be negligible except for using bots.



lilywhite said:


> They didn't. Amazon lies.
> 
> It still works in cloud reader, for sure (I've tested it myself). And I hear there are hacks/workarounds for other devices. That part I can't vouch for personally.


Thank you for reiterating this. I was under the impression that case was closed.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> There's a group of marketers doing this to make bank, but most authors are just copying what they see in the charts. A lot of high profile authors could stop stuffing and still make a living, but why would they? Why would say *not going to use actual name* an author currently in the top 20 with two bonus books and a .99 price just say later to those extra pages when her strategy has worked so well for years?
> 
> Lots of authors who are just scraping by are stuffing bc Big Fancy KU Author is doing it.
> 
> ...


I could make the whole ethical argument for why somebody's strategy shouldn't be, "Get everything you can; every man for himself," but others have made it better. If I were doing it, personally, right now? I'd sure as heck change my books. Obviously not for ethical reasons, but because it's clear to me that Amazon is at least going after some of these people.


----------



## Randall Wood (Mar 31, 2014)

It may state this clearly in the court docs, but 99.9% of authors won't see that.
[/quote]

Don't speak for 99% of authors and claim that they believe as you do or do as you do.

_edited_


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Crystal_ said:


> It won't end until Amazon makes it clearly against ToS.


Would you like Jeff to get a tattoo?


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

dgaughran said:


> Would you like Jeff to get a tattoo?


I have a little crush on Jeff, and would love for him to get some tattoos.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Just Griff said:


> The lesson kboards seems to be teaching me these days is: I'm naive.


Think of it less as "I'm naive" and more "I don't think like a criminal."

Seriously, just about every time Dave tells me some new thing he just discovered folks are doing to cheat, I'm like ".... how did they think of that?"


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

dgaughran said:


> Would you like Jeff to get a tattoo?


I snorted while eating lunch. Not pretty.

Also--yeah, he's that sexy bald. On his bicep? Works for me.


----------



## 98368 (Sep 4, 2017)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> This isn't about clearly labeled box sets, or a small story / chapter at the end of a big one.
> 
> This is about putting multiple other books (usually also for sale on their own or in multiple stuffed books), at the end of the one being advertised / sold.
> 
> These aren't sold as box sets or anthologies, usually just with a vague "includes bonus content" note (if anything) on them. This isn't a case of the main book ending at, say, 80% and the rest being bonus material. This is a case where the "bonus" material itself takes up the vast majority of the file space.


Thanks so much for explaining this, Rick.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Usedtoposthere said:


> I snorted while eating lunch. Not pretty.
> 
> Also--yeah, he's that sexy bald. On his bicep? Works for me.


Yeah, I can't explain it exactly, particularly given that he laughs like Wallace Shawn in The Princess Bride, but just .... I dunno, man. I could for-sure write a billionaire romance starring him and me.

*I bet you wish you never said that tattoo thing, Dave!*


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Just Griff said:


> I only know my reading habits, and I wouldn't reread many books (mostly beloved series), but maybe that's just me. I assumed that this would only appeal to new readers, thus duplicate reads would be negligible except for using bots.


Again, you don't need to rely on everyone doing this. Even if just a small percentage are re-readers that's still money in the bank that you're not entitled to.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Randall Wood said:


> It may state this clearly in the court docs, but 99.9% of authors won't see that.
> 
> Bull. Don't speak for 99% of authors and claim that they believe as you do or do as you do. They don't. It YOU who are in the minority.
> 
> To the majority the rules are crystal clear, but to you they are Crystal clear. Its called cognitive dissonance.


I don't think you understand me.

What I'm saying is that 99.9% of authors aren't on Kboards, aren't following this on Twitter, aren't aware anything is happening at all.

Amazon needs to do something like it does with the monthly rate--send out an email announcing a policy change (bc last time I looked, bonus content as it's used was allowed) in actual, clear language. Until then, most people won't be aware.

They also need to enforce the role regularly, or else people will keep doing it.

If that happens, I'll believe that things will change.


----------



## Randall Wood (Mar 31, 2014)

Crystal_ said:


> I don't think you understand me.
> 
> What I'm saying is that 99.9% of authors aren't on Kboards, aren't following this on Twitter, aren't aware anything is happening at all.
> 
> ...


A policy change?

The policy is already right there in black and white, and now backed up by court documents. There's no reason to change the policy as it already says what it needs to say.

And just because there isn't a rep hovering over you and enforcing the rule doesn't make it any less illegal.

"Everyone else is doing it" is a little kid excuse.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Crystal_ said:


> If that happens, I'll believe that things will change.


Maybe channel your inner Ghandi and be the change you wish to see in the world.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Again, you don't need to rely on everyone doing this. Even if just a small percentage are re-readers that's still money in the bank that you're not entitled to.


I get your point. I was just explaining my line of thinking to illustrate why I assumed some authors had better intentions than that. If their goal is duplicate reads from their own readership, that's a lot of effort for very little reward (whether they are entitled to it or not), that is unless they're using bots (or Amazon is still counting the skip/jump to the back reads). But as David stated, there's a lot we aren't even discussing, so clearly I'm in the dark.


----------



## Elizabeth Barone (May 6, 2013)

It's about time!


----------



## boba1823 (Aug 13, 2017)

I'm still confused, lol. Maybe I'm just not reading up on it enough since I decided not to go the KU route. (I didn't see how I could afford to market a full-length book that is going to bring in, what, like $1 each in page reads? Since I'm not exactly anticipating hitting the top 100, let alone the top 20, in Romance, for visibility.) Most of the competition is in KU, though, so I try to keep up.

So for 'bonus' content to count as being _duplicate_ content, does it have to currently be available in another KU work? Or can an author just stuff away, in their most recent KU title, if the bonus content is coming from old backlist stuff that is no longer offered via KU? I get the impression that most of the high-ranking stuffers have dozens of old titles laying around (and making negligible sales). Can they just mix and match from their old stuff, as long as there is no overlap in what they're currently offering through KU?


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

boba1823 said:


> Can they just mix and match from their old stuff, as long as there is no overlap in what they're currently offering through KU?


It's usually the same content stuffed over and over again across their catalog. Amazon actually specifically pointed out that this gives them extra promo days and the like which is another unfair advantage we never discussed (good catch, Amazon).

One notorious author doesn't have enough books to hit the 3000 KENPC limit so she stuffs in her newsletters. Across all her books.

Actually true.


----------



## FelissaEly (Jan 15, 2017)

lilywhite said:


> Yes, but the people who want to continue to do it (and take money out of your pocket while they do) would prefer that you not think about this.
> 
> The fact is that vague questions like "is bonus content okay?" get a yes. Specific questions like "Can I take Published Book A and Published Book B, both of which are in KU, and put them at the back of my next release, Book C?" the answer is no. I've asked it several times, in several ways.
> 
> But whatever floats your [general you, not you you, Felissa  ) boat. "Because I'm gonna get mine even if it's not right" has never been my business philosophy and it never will be.


Right, this is why I'm baffled that someone can think it's "bonus content" and tried to make that a point with my question but I don't think it worked >.>

I do not believe already published books are bonus content just because you add them at the end of a book and go "HEY LOOK BONUS, AIMIRIGHT?"

I'm also not saying that bonus content is not allowed, I'm saying that they really have no idea what "bonus content" means or maybe we all just have different definitions for some reason? But a book I can already buy on Amazon stuffed into another book also on Amazon is not a bonus in my mind. That's like if DVDs suddenly said "Hey, bonus content of these three movies but in random order, yay!" Um.. okay? haha Bonus content to me is the outtakes, the deleted scenes, commentary, etc...

But you're right, whatever floats their boat until it sinks in a fiery wreck


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

boba1823 said:


> I'm still confused, lol. Maybe I'm just not reading up on it enough since I decided not to go the KU route. (I didn't see how I could afford to market a full-length book that is going to bring in, what, like $1 each in page reads? Since I'm not exactly anticipating hitting the top 100, let alone the top 20, in Romance, for visibility.) Most of the competition is in KU, though, so I try to keep up.
> 
> So for 'bonus' content to count as being _duplicate_ content, does it have to currently be available in another KU work? Or can an author just stuff away, in their most recent KU title, if the bonus content is coming from old backlist stuff that is no longer offered via KU? I get the impression that most of the high-ranking stuffers have dozens of old titles laying around (and making negligible sales). Can they just mix and match from their old stuff, as long as there is no overlap in what they're currently offering through KU?


I don't think it matters if the bonus books are in KU or not. If they are, people will shout double-dipping. If they're not, there are still people here who will hate them for cheating according to their definitions. Amazon doesn't do anything about it one way or another, unless like in this case they detect massive clickfarming efforts and/or multiple accounts.

I'm glad they stopped a botter, but I think people are celebrating the downfall of so-called "bad boy stuffers" prematurely.

I suspect this Dryan person, since they were using clickfarms and bots, took a bunch of books, published them as one, then changed the order to publish them again as several different volumes, so that a different book was first in each of the five that are referenced. So every publication had the exact same content as every other one, tip to top, but in a different order. I don't think there's ever been a question of whether or not that's a violation. They created new books by mixing up the same content every time, then botting and clickfarming them to the bestseller list. Pretty clear.

I don't do bonus books, never have, but if I wrote a book and wanted to use a backlist book that wasn't selling much as a bonus to try to get some fresh eyes on it, I'd do it without worry. But I wouldn't be clickfarming to get it to chart, and I wouldn't link to it from the front, and I wouldn't put six books in there, and reorder them and use those same six books to create five new titles, nor would I use the same book(s) as shuffled around bonuses for other books.

Currently, there's a lot of Book 1 series volumes that also contain the next five books in the series, or contain several other books by the same author, that chart regularly and high. I don't care about that. The number of people who will reread a book just because it's there at the end of one they just finished is statistically insignificant. In the case of a book containing the next several in its series as a bonus, well, if the first book's good enough the reader goes on to read the rest . . . *shrug*. Same as if they'd downloaded them separately. My only personal problem is when they cheat with links to jump over content and get it count, clickfarms and bots. People who just add a bonus book or two that readers can choose to read or not are not the ones causing problems.

Even this Dryan guy clickbotted, farmed and linked with the same content over and over, judging from the wording of things. They didn't go after him because he had bonus content tacked onto the end of new books, they went after him because of multiple accounts and the clear cheating of clickfarming all those duplicate titles.

I know what the court document says, but for all practical purposes, it doesn't mean a lot until they take action on more than a handful of people at a time. None of us knows if anything much will actually change in those bestseller charts going forward. I'm in the "believe it when I see it" camp.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Randall Wood said:


> A policy change?
> 
> The policy is already right there in black and white, and now backed up by court documents. Its YOU that refuses to to believe it means what it says. Instead you CHOOSE to believe what YOU want it to say. There's no reason to change the policy as it already says what it needs to say.
> 
> ...


You're 100% wrong. You could not be more wrong. I desperately want bonus content to be against the rules. I hate bonus content. If I had a magic wand and could make it against the rules, I would do so in a heartbeat. If I was reading this to see what I wanted to see, I'd see it as the end of bonus content. That is what I want.

But I live in reality. And, in reality, bonus content has clearly been allowed for the last few years.

The policy is right here, and it says nothing about bonus books not being allowed. There's no mention in the Content Guidelines. There's also no mention of duplicate content or bonus content (other than it should not appear before the main content) under the Guide to Kindle Content Quality.

https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G202018960
Bonus Content
If you choose to include bonus content (e.g. other stories, or previews of other books), it should be relevant to the customer and should not disrupt the reading experience. To meet these guidelines, we require placing additional content at the end of the book, listing the bonus content in your book's table of contents, and including a note in your book description if a significant portion of your book's content is not from the book listed in the title field.

Primary and bonus content must meet all program guidelines (e.g., bonus content in KDP Select titles must be exclusive). Translated content must be high quality and not machine generated. Disruptive links and promises of gifts or rewards are never allowed.

Where does it say it's not allowed anywhere on the KDP site?


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Crystal_ said:


> Lots of authors who are just scraping by are stuffing bc Big Fancy KU Author is doing it.
> 
> ...
> ...The amount who make mid six is likely much lower. And it's not easy.


Write faster, work harder, market better, or make it a part-time career and get another job, but don't steal the food from another person's plate and then come up with a lame rationalisation to excuse what's going on. It's not a victimless crime, people aren't shafting amazon, they are stealing from other authors, plain and simple.

Nobody told me that being an author was going to be easy, and the ones who aren't cheating are working harder to try to regain market share and the money they are losing with lower payouts.


----------



## FelissaEly (Jan 15, 2017)

Crystal_ said:


> You're 100% wrong. You could not be more wrong. I desperately want bonus content to be against the rules. I hate bonus content. If I had a magic wand and could make it against the rules, I would do so in a heartbeat. If I was reading this to see what I wanted to see, I'd see it as the end of bonus content. That is what I want.
> 
> But I live in reality. And, in reality, bonus content has clearly been allowed for the last few years.
> 
> ...


You left out the last line on that link

For more information, see our *content guidelines *and Terms and Conditions.

Which brings you to

https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200952510

Disappointing Content:

We do not allow content that disappoints our customers, including but not limited to:

Content that is either marketed as a subscription or redirects readers to an external source to obtain the full content
Content that is freely available on the web (unless you are the copyright owner of that content or the content is in the public domain). For more information, you can refer to the sections titled "Illegal and Infringing Content" and "Public Domain and Other Non-Exclusive Content" in the Content Guidelines.
Content whose primary purpose is to solicit or advertise
Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
*Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store* *<---does this not mean what I said? Maybe I'm reading it wrong I really don't know*
Content that is too short
Content that is poorly translated
Content that does not provide an enjoyable reading experience
Bonus content that appears before a book's primary content


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

Crystal_ said:


> I don't think you understand me.
> 
> What I'm saying is that 99.9% of authors aren't on Kboards, aren't following this on Twitter, aren't aware anything is happening at all.
> 
> ...


While I think the really blatant abuses are in some cases common sense things to avoid, I agree that Amazon could have more clearly worded rules and enforce them much more consistently.

It's also true that a lot of authors aren't on Kboards and don't hear much about things like this. When Amazon decides something is an abuse and is not allowed, it should make very clear and specific announcements of any changes in policy and enforcement. Had it been doing so all along, it could have avoided a lot of problems.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

FelissaEly said:


> Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
> *Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store* *<---does this not mean what I said? Maybe I'm reading it wrong I really don't know*


That means if I have a volume published that contains Book A, Book B and Book C, I cannot then reorder it and publish a new volume as Book C, Book B and Book A. That would be a non-differentiated version. Not different. Exact same content.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Atlantisatheart said:


> Nobody told me that being an author was going to be easy, and the ones who aren't cheating are working harder to try to regain market share and the money they are losing with lower payouts.


Exactly. No business owner is guaranteed to make a living or have their business survive. This is especially true in such a competitive marketplace. Using an excuse to break the rules is just that, an excuse ... and it doesn't change the fact that you're (general "you", not you Atlantisheart) still breaking the rules.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2018)

It's simply not true that you need to stuff/scam/cheat (whatever you want to call it) to get ahead in romance. You can do incredibly well in romance without doing any of those things. 

Elizabeth Hunter just released INK, her first contemporary romance in 6 years and it hit the NYT bestseller list. She doesn't stuff.

Pepper Winters just release A BOY AND HIS RIBBON and it's the #1 title in coming of age and it's top 20 for NA romance. She doesn't stuff.

What you *DO* need to do is write a fantastic book that readers can't wait to get their hands on. Or is that asking too much for some romance authors?


----------



## Michele_Mills (Apr 8, 2015)

I just want to point out that there many, many books for sale right this second with bonus content. I read so many books with bonus content at the end it's nothing to me now. I finish book one, and then there's another book offered (or two!) this is COMMON. Legit authors. Big time authors. Constantly.

I appreciate DG and others fighting the good fight to stop click bait farms and botting weirdness. That time DG called out that guy who bought reviews from god knows where and shot up to #1- I appreciate all of that. 

But, I strongly believe this part, where authors are adding 1-3 books of bonus content to the back of their new releases to see if readers want to continue reading, this is firmly gray area and not EEEEVIL. It's not something to be conflated with the clickbait farms and scamming your way to number one. I refuse to believe that this very large group of authors, professional people, my peers, are unethical you-know-whats just because they've added an extra book, when they've been told "Yeah, Amazon sent me an email saying bonus content is fine." We've already gone over in previous threads how the TOS about bonus content can be read as - yes bonus content is okay. And then they saw all the other authors who are doing this and nothing is happening to them. 

Jeff needs a tattoo that says "Amazon- Clear as Mud"

Yes, we just got a stone tablet from Mt. Sinai saying no bonus content, but because Amazon is clear as mud, I even suspect this. Sad but true. I've seen no evidence of Amazon policing this bonus content, couple of books at the end of a new release, going on so I'm at the level of I'd have to see it to believe it.

I think the baseline difference here is that a lot of us view this as Amazon's fault, and then the other half view this purely as other authors' fault. Like other authors need to be ethical and police themselves. I get that. I personally don't include bonus content in my books because I decided it's not my thing. But, I don't hate my peers for choosing this, or put them down. I see why they do it. I'm just not (to be truthful because I'm prob being snooty and want my books to look more "trad"). But yeah, I'm leaving money on the table for extra page reads, so it's hard...

I think this is Amazon's fault. If they would just have perfectly clear rules and then do something shocking- police those rules- this thread wouldn't even be happening. They wouldn't need to do some weak lawsuit that will only stop one person. 

It's Amazon's fault for having a rule this whole time that can be interpreted different ways - sending out a variety of different responses via email about it to authors and in person to authors at cons, and then, worst of all, not even policing the rules. What the heck? How does that make any sense? Maybe it's because I'm a teacher IRL, it irritates so much, the thought of Amazon starting with vague rules and then not enforcing those rules. I'd never run a classroom that way- that's inviting chaos! And then what- at the end I'd bust one student and say "See, I mean business." Meanwhile, all the other students are still out of their chairs.

Also, I guess this boils down to another fundamental difference. When some of you say Amazon has clear rules - all forms of bonus content is wrong beyond excerpts at the back of a book, I'm like, no it isn't clear. NO IT ISN"T. This is exactly why there are hundreds of books on the kindle store, in the top 100 of categories with one, two or three extra books put into the back after the new release RIGHT THIS SECOND. Because to those authors, it isn't clear. Again, this isn't happening because these authors are unethical and evil, its because they are interpreting the TOS to say this is okay and in addition to the fact that Amazon is letting them do it and in fact rewarding them with all star bonuses. If Amazon sent all authors, tomorrow, a super clear email that said something like you can only have brand new content in each new release (or however they want to word it) and gave a seven day or thirty day deadline to take extra content out of your books. And then after that deadline came down hard on books. Well, that would change everything.

And I'm sorry, but Jeff Bezos is the richest man on the planet right now. I think he can spend some money to hire a department of people whose only job is policing our books to make it all legit. How about he does that instead of pitching us against each other, making us police ourselves, or feel we have to?


----------



## ubu roi (Mar 25, 2018)

In KU, authors get paid according to pages read, a device for Amazon to squeeze money out of authors. Instead of being paid per download, as they were at the beginning of KU, authors now receive a pittance. The joke is that no one is ever certain how many pages are read by a KU subscriber. Imagine a manufacture that makes lamps getting paid not a flat fee for each lamp, but getting paid according to how many times the lamp is turned on. KU is merely a way to cheat authors. The affirmation of the arbitration should be denied. KU is a stupid subscription system and should be abandoned.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Michele_Mills said:


> I just want to point out that there many, many books for sale right this second with bonus content. I read so many books with bonus content at the end it's nothing to me now. I finish book one, and then there's another book offered (or two!) this is COMMON.* Legit authors*. Big time authors. Constantly.


I think we've established it's not a legit practice unless it's a boxed set and advertised as such.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Oct 8, 2014)

Michele_Mills said:


> I think the baseline difference here is that a lot of us view this as Amazon's fault, and then the other half view this purely as other authors' fault. Like other authors need to be ethical and police themselves. I get that. I personally don't include bonus content in my books because I decided it's not my thing. But, I don't hate my peers for choosing this, or put them down. I see why they do it. I'm just not (to be truthful because I'm prob being snooty and want my books to look more "trad"). But yeah, I'm leaving money on the table for extra page reads, so it's hard...
> 
> I think this is Amazon's fault. If they would just have perfectly clear rules and then do something shocking- police those rules- this thread wouldn't even be happening. They wouldn't need to do some weak lawsuit that will only stop one person.
> 
> ...





Shelley K said:


> I'm glad they stopped a botter, but I think people are celebrating the downfall of so-called "bad boy stuffers" prematurely.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...


What Michelle and Shelley said.

I do not stuff my books. I neither have an opinion on whether it is ethical NOR know whether it is against Amazon's KDP TOS. "Non-differentiated" is a wide gate through which a lawyer could drive an Airbus.

Also, to play devil's advocate, a company's TOS is not the law; it's the rules of that sandbox. Against Amazon TOS /= unethical /= illegal. Insert Venn diagram here with one section with all three overlapping, some parts with only two circles overlapping, yada yada yada.

I don't do it because it annoys me as a reader, and IMHO, it provides a bad customer experience.

Basically, this is Amazon's fault. They leave their language vague until they decide whether a certain tactic is annoying enough to customers before they do anything. Also, subscription models guarantee one party will always lose, as someone else said.

Meanwhile, it would be great if people would not conflate ghost writing with "scamming." Ghost writing has been a legitimate profession as long as writing has been. It's definitely a more reliable way to make money than by being the author or publisher. Most ad content, glossaries, dictionaries, many news stories, and many blog posts are de facto "ghost written." Any writing can be good or bad irrespective of whose name is on the cover.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

ubu roi said:


> In KU, authors get paid according to pages read, a device for Amazon to squeeze money out of authors. Instead of being paid per download, as they were at the beginning of KU, authors now receive a pittance. The joke is that no one is ever certain how many pages are read by a KU subscriber. Imagine a manufacture that makes lamps getting paid not a flat fee for each lamp, but getting paid according to how many times the lamp is turned on. KU is merely a way to cheat authors. The affirmation of the arbitration should be denied. KU is a stupid subscription system and should be abandoned.


KU works as intended for most on both sides of the equation.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Oct 8, 2014)

Dpock said:


> I think we've established it's not a legit practice unless it's a boxed set and advertised as such.


I don't think we have.

Who is "we?" There is no standard set of ethics for thousands of self-publishers, and establishing one will require more than simply proclaiming it so. I've seen that lesson learned the hard way before.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Michele_Mills said:


> . Legit authors. Big time authors.


It would be interesting to see just how well those authors would be doing without stuffed books. They'd certainly be a lot poorer with their .99c books and unable to afford all that marketing so visibility would be way down, as would their sales and author ranks.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Oct 8, 2014)

Would have included this in the last post if I'd seen it in time.



Dpock said:


> KU works as intended for most on both sides of the equation.


The way it's currently formulated, it doesn't work for me. It hasn't ever worked well, but it worked a heck of a lot better in 2015 before my novellas started making half of what they used to.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Mr. Sparkle said:


> Who is "we?"


Those of us who have read and understand Amazon's TOS?


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

Usedtoposthere said:


> It was real clear to those of us who got the initial response from Executive Customer Relations that stuffing was not OK. I'm aware of the sort of "workaround" people have used to justify it. But if, after reading those documents, you STILL think stuffing is OK by Amazon, I think you're running a risk with them. My own judgment/opinion only.


&#128175;


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> And IMO, there are a few people that owe David an apology.


I agree, but I doubt he'll get it, especially reading the usual responses in this thread. There are people who will defend to the death -- of their accounts -- their shady business practices for whatever reason, and most of them will deliberately "misunderstand" what the difference is between bonus content (which is allowed under certain conditions) and stuffed books, most of which are bot read and have nothing to do with pleasing actual readers.

Maybe Amazon is getting serious about fixing some of the issues with KU, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Oct 8, 2014)

Dpock said:


> Those of us who have read and understand Amazon's TOS?


Classy.

I've read it, I've got no stake in this, and I disagree.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

The usual gang won't admit they're wrong. I'm sure they'll come up with something else to do to "compete" with the other authors. But this case may slow them down some, make them regroup until they find another loophole. (Why, yes, I am cynical. Why do you ask? ;P )


----------



## boba1823 (Aug 13, 2017)

Atlantisatheart said:


> It would be interesting to see just how well those authors would be doing without stuffed books. They'd certainly be a lot poorer with their .99c books and unable to afford all that marketing so visibility would be way down, as would their sales and author ranks.


I think this is a good question. There was another thread a while back, where one of our resident stuffers (I forget who) said that in his experience, stuffing content generally only adds about 10 percent to overall page reads.

I don't know if that was true, or if his experience differed from that of others. Something in that range sounds plausible to me, assuming we're talking about actual genuine page reads - how many readers, really, are going to just keep on reading a bunch of 'bonus' books after they finish the one they borrowed? Some, sure, but I would guess that many/most would have another borrowed book they are eager to move on to. Especially if the author is recycling old books that the reader has perhaps already read (or passed over). The rationale put forth in the old discussion, as I recall, was that backlist books of this type basically sold nothing anyway, so might as well stick some in and get that extra 10 percent.

Of course, now we hear about some _big_ shenanigans going on, ranging from tricks that yield full reads from getting actual readers to click on to the back of the book, all the way to full-on robo-reading. People doing this are surely going to benefit much more from the stuffing. (Old newsletters and translated cookbooks, oh my. ) But I don't know how many of the big-name stuffers fall into this camp.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

boba1823 said:


> I think this is a good question. There was another thread a while back, where one of our resident stuffers (I forget who) said that in his experience, stuffing content generally only adds about 10 percent to overall page reads


That's still 10% ill gotten gains.

I think a better question would be: if KU went away tomorrow, would you (general you) leave that bonus content or would it disappear so fast our heads would spin?


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Crystal_ said:


> You're 100% wrong. You could not be more wrong. I desperately want bonus content to be against the rules. I hate bonus content. If I had a magic wand and could make it against the rules, I would do so in a heartbeat. If I was reading this to see what I wanted to see, I'd see it as the end of bonus content. That is what I want.
> 
> But I live in reality. And, in reality, bonus content has clearly been allowed for the last few years.
> 
> ...


1. bonus content is different from stuffed or duplicate content. The rep is right that bonus content is allowed, but it can't be duplicate content that is already available in KU -- with the exception of legitimate boxed sets that are labeled as such.

Again, bonus content -- as in unique content not already available in KU *is* allowed. Stuffed content -- as in duplicated content -- is prohibited. You have to distinguish between "bonus" and "stuffed" definitions. Having this show up in legal documents might finally settle this debate but for most of us who don't stuff, it was already clear.

2. Based on the TOS, duplicate content is not permitted. That's why I never stuffed books. I tend to want to follow the rules because they are there to protect the system from fraud and deception. In other words, the rules are a public good -- in this case, for the good of readers and authors -- and Amazon.

Just because Amazon has not cracked down on stuffing doesn't mean it's okay to stuff. It means that Amazon is not expending the resources needed to police its own TOS. Well, shame on Amazon in that case, but we authors are still held to the TOS regardless of whether Amazon polices them effectively. Think of it this way: just because the police lack the human resources and budget to patrol every street doesn't mean that it's okay to break and enter on streets that they rarely patrol.

I still see stuffers in the top 100 romance novels in the usual subcategories. The stuffing by some of them appears to have been dialled back a bit, but I haven't checked my entire list of obvious stuffers.

I gave up caring about this months ago out of disgust that nothing was being done, but maybe things are looking up.

One can hope...


----------



## Pandorra (Aug 22, 2017)

Like the page-count on this puppy? lol .. Awesome books, but I was excited when I first saw it and it wasn't even close to that! 

I wonder if that effects his KEMP! I still don't know if that's stuffing or just an accident...


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

FelissaEly said:


> You left out the last line on that link


Shocking.



Michele_Mills said:


> I refuse to believe that this very large group of authors, professional people, my peers, are unethical you-know-whats just because they've added an extra book, when they've been told "Yeah, Amazon sent me an email saying bonus content is fine." We've already gone over in previous threads how the TOS about bonus content can be read as - yes bonus content is okay. And then they saw all the other authors who are doing this and nothing is happening to them.


Someone once told me that "character is what you do when no one is looking." I believe that to be true, with all my heart and soul.

The fact that Amazon doesn't police the rules properly is utterly irrelevant. You know how to do math. You know that if people are finding ways to double-dip and get paid from the same content twice out of a fixed pool of money, *they are stealing from other authors[/a]. This is basic math.

If you want to have a discussion about whether Amazon should police the store, I'm happy to have that conversation. If you want to have a discussion about how the pool is an artificial construct and a stupid way t pay people, I'm down for that as well. But this is the situation we find ourselves in, so while we are in it, people shouldn't steal. It's really that simple.*


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Puddleduck said:


> As someone who doesn't do KU and doesn't have the back catalog to stuff even if I wanted to, this seems to me like a weird semantics game used to justify what most people would understand to be well beyond the intention of "bonus content is okay", done only because in certain corners of one marketplace, it's become common practice despite being against the TOS (thanks to Amazon's lack of enforcement).


Very well and succinctly put, IMO.



> I think the "is this something I would not be surprised to see in a paper book?" standard someone else put forth is very reasonable and easy to understand.


I really liked that too. But I assure you someone would show up to tell us how trad pubs are always putting full novels in the back of other novels, and they might well even be able to find an example or two. Amazon needs better, clearer rules, to be sure. (Though I still believe that honest, rational adults should be able to figure out what the moral thing to do is, even in the absence of a rule.)
_
Edited to fix wonky formatting._


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2018)

I'm kinda rolling my eyes.

We've had Amazon say bonus content (books! stuffed books!) are allowed, and then we've also had them say it's not allowed.

The people who scream "scammy scammy cheating scammers!!!!!!!" and encourage doxxing of authors etc will always insist that they are right and happily ignore all the times Amazon has said bonus content is fine.

The people who say "ugh bonus books are annoying but they're allowed" will never agree that Amazon is banning them because Amazon blatantly and regularly allows bonus content to stay along with having stated that bonus content is just fine and dandy with them.

Nobody here is saying "YAY BONUS BOOOOKS!!!! LETS PUT THEM IN EVERY TITLE I LOVE THEM!" in fact even the people who think that bonus books are allowed all are annoyed by them, and nobody posting here uses them as a regular tool.

Personally, I don't use them either since I'm 99.9% wide with m titles and it doesn't benefit me - but I see no problem with them. If me, as a reader, reads your book, and there's another book tucked in the end and I keep reading because *gasp* it's a good book and I'm enjoying it, then the author deserves to be paid.

If the bonus book sucks, I'm going to click out. I know, because I have done so in the past. And in the past I have kept reading cause it was super convenient to have another book lined up right away, and I liked the author and the second book was interesting to me.

It's not like readers are being physically forced to read onward. They're doing so willingly. This isn't like, non-consensual reading going on here. Readers are continuing to read because they WANT to.

And honestly, maybe it comes down to that: people are pissed because an author is getting more page reads because *shock!* the readers actually like them enough to keep reading their work.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Pandorra said:


> Like the page-count on this puppy? lol .. Awesome books, but I was excited when I first saw it and it wasn't even close to that!
> 
> I wonder if that effects his KEMP! I still don't know if that's stuffing or just an accident...


That's not a stuffed book. It has something like 8729 Kindle locations, and Chapter 20 and a brief list of characters are at the end of the book at 8701, nothing else. And no, if the page count is inaccurate it shouldn't affect KENPC.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

mawnster said:


> And honestly, maybe it comes down to that: people are p*ssed because an author is getting more page reads because *shock!* the readers actually like them enough to keep reading their work.


LOL. Yeah, that's what this is, jealousy. Funny how it's always some Dr Seuss with no books in their sig turning up to tell us stuffing is great and we all should calm down about it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2018)

lilywhite said:


> LOL. Yeah, that's what this is, jealousy. Funny how it's always some Dr Seuss with no books in their sig turning up to tell us stuffing is great and we all should calm down about it.


  It's pretty obvious from several comments i've read over the last year like "wahhhhh if only these cheaty scammers would stop stuffing, my super obscure totally not written to market book with a bad cover would get so many reads!!!!" are not grounded in anything but plain old green-eyed monsterism. I'm not saying that's all of it, but a lot of it is. The rest is just selectively-cherry-picking of what Amazon's said and done in regards to bonus content.

I don't think it's against the TOS - they've said clearly that bonus content is allowed, as has been outlined mulllltiple times in this thread.

One side says it aint, the other says it is. Amazon is vague and doesn't care to clarify. They don't ban the many authors who book-stuff, so clearly it's not a big deal to them.


----------



## L_Loryn (Mar 1, 2018)

kw3000 said:


> Anyone wondering why laws become hopelessly complex need only read this thread. People are just the worst. They will push and push forcing you to come up with ever more rigid and detailed wording to nail things down to the level of a quark.
> 
> I could start a club for table enthusiasts and institute a rule stating: When attending meetings, you may only bring a blue painted table.
> 
> ...


Second. Beautifully said.


----------



## Pandorra (Aug 22, 2017)

That's as close as I have ever seen but I don't buy bundled books often (which is I guess where stuffing is the worst) unless its something like _Sword of Shannara_ or _The Cleric Quintet_ etc. (which, by the way, is a monster in print..) which is odd since I go through a LOT of books in a year.. thanks for clearing that one up, it has bothered me since I first saw it and got to the end so quickly..I thought for awhile he had finished the series in the third book.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

mawnster said:


> It's pretty obvious from several comments i've read over the last year like "wahhhhh if only these cheaty scammers would stop stuffing, my super obscure totally not written to market book with a bad cover would get so many reads!!!!" are not grounded in anything but plain old green-eyed monsterism. I'm not saying that's all of it, but a lot of it is. The rest is just selectively-cherry-picking of what Amazon's said and done in regards to bonus content.
> 
> I don't think it's against the TOS - they've said clearly that bonus content is allowed, as has been outlined mulllltiple times in this thread.
> 
> One side says it aint, the other says it is. Amazon is vague and doesn't care to clarify. They don't ban the many authors who book-stuff, so clearly it's not a big deal to them.


I expect many people who've been stuffing books will gamble and keep doing it. If it's no big deal to Amazon, Amazon will let it go on, and anybody with a problem can choose to stay in KU, doing what they believe is more pleasing to readers and more ethically palatable to themselves--or go wide and forget about it. And then Amazon will bring the ban hammer down, or they won't, and it'll be pretty obvious that either (a) it wasn't allowed, or (b) it either was allowed, or Amazon doesn't care to enforce it, take your pick.

I suspect that a certain percentage of stuffing authors is rushing to un-stuff right now, but I could be wrong. It's very hard to predict the future in publishing.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2018)

Usedtoposthere said:


> I think everybody who's been stuffing books should keep doing it. If it's no big deal to Amazon, they'll let it go on, and anybody with a problem can choose to stay in KU, do what they believe is more pleasing to readers and more ethically palatable to themselves--or go wide and forget about it. And then Amazon will bring the ban hammer down, or they won't, and it'll be pretty obvious that either (a) it wasn't allowed, or (b) it either was allowed, or they don't care to enforce it, take your pick.
> 
> I suspect that a certain percentage of authors are rushing to un-stuff right now, but I could be wrong. It's very hard to predict the future in publishing.


See that's sensible. Give people enough rope and let them hang themselves. Eyes on your paper. Anyone bookstuffing who's worried is probably too busy unstuffing to come hang out here on these boards and cross swords, and anyone bookstuffing who's not worried is probably too busy running their mini publishing empires.

Speaking of which, I do have a book to finish...


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

mawnster said:


> It's pretty obvious from several comments i've read over the last year like "wahhhhh if only these cheaty scammers would stop stuffing, my super obscure totally not written to market book with a bad cover would get so many reads!!!!" are not grounded in anything but plain old green-eyed monsterism. I'm not saying that's all of it, but a lot of it is. The rest is just selectively-cherry-picking of what Amazon's said and done in regards to bonus content.


Wow. Spoken like a true 10-year-old on the playground. And NO, everytime someone has a differing viewpoint, the answer is not always jealousy. Not even half the time, or one-third.



mawnster said:


> I don't think it's against the TOS - they've said clearly that bonus content is allowed, as has been outlined mulllltiple times in this thread.
> 
> One side says it aint, the other says it is. Amazon is vague and doesn't care to clarify. They don't ban the many authors who book-stuff, so clearly it's not a big deal to them.


For the zillionth time, there is a difference between "bonus content" and "stuffing." One is an allowed, reasonable marketing tool (first chapter of the next book, for example). The other... just a tired retread halfheartedly passed off as something new.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

mawnster said:


> See that's sensible. Give people enough rope and let them hang themselves. Eyes on your paper. Anyone bookstuffing who's worried is probably too busy unstuffing to come hang out here on these boards and cross swords, and anyone bookstuffing who's not worried is probably too busy running their mini publishing empires.
> 
> Speaking of which, I do have a book to finish...


I'm not saying "eyes on your paper." This is to some extent a zero-sum game. Stuffing hurts authors in multiple ways--authors who don't/won't do it don't get as many page reads, readers are turned off by KU books, etc. I just don't think that my opinion is going to change the behavior of people who want to justify what they want to do. (Although I have expressed my opinion to Amazon on more than one occasion.) So I guess I'll wait and see.

I've been surprised that these court documents aren't clear and convincing to everyone, but I suppose I shouldn't be.

When authors like Jan Scott leave KU and tell Amazon and their many tens of thousands of readers that it's because of this behavior (as happened recently) ... I do suspect that has some effect. We'll see.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Usedtoposthere said:


> And then Amazon will bring the ban hammer down, or they won't,


Did they even ban the guy this thread is about? I see no evidence that he's not allowed to have a KDP account. In fact, the wording makes it seem he is as long as doesn't further violate their terms of service by publishing duplicate content or manipulating ranks and reads.

I can't see behind the paywall, so I can only go by what's public. I'd be interested if anybody has actual evidence that he has been banned. They should ban him, but I'm not confident they did.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2018)

Jena H said:


> Wow. Spoken like a true 10-year-old on the playground. And NO, everytime someone has a differing viewpoint, the answer is not always jealousy. Not even half the time, or one-third.
> 
> For the zillionth time, there is a difference between "bonus content" and "stuffing." One is an allowed, reasonable marketing tool (first chapter of the next book, for example). The other... just a tired retread halfheartedly passed off as something new.


I made it pretty clear what I was talking about when it came to jealousy: most of the comments come from authors who aren't writing to market, don't have marketable covers or blurbs, and are desperately hoping that getting rid of the scammers will suddenly catapult them into making a full-time income. That aint gonna happen. The paltry number of page reads "stolen" by book-stuffers out there isn't keeping anyone down. Bad books and bad marketing is what is hurting more people than book-stuffers. I know because I've written off-market stuff, and I've written on-market stuff. The difference in earnings is astronomical. One gets you a cup of coffee. The other you can buy a car with.

And Amazon is actually totally okay with a book, or more, being bonus content.

"If you choose to include bonus content (e.g. other stories, or previews of other books), it should be relevant to the customer and should not disrupt the reading experience. To meet these guidelines, we require placing additional content at the end of the book, listing the bonus content in your book's table of contents, and *including a note in your book description if a significant portion of your book's content is not from the book listed in the title field.* "

They are clearly expecting bonus content to be an extra book or books, since they're giving guidelines for how they want authors to make note of said additional content in their blurbs.

Seems pretty clear to me. Bonus content can be a book, or multiple books. I don't stuff, I don't use ghosts, I don't price at .99 for anything, I don't do newsletter swaps, and I don't even run ads. I don't even bother with Bookbub or the big newsletter promo sites. I still make a full-time living, and am on track to clear 6 figures this year. Almost all of my catalogue is wide, and wide is where I make my bread and butter. Book stuffing might be taking a little bit of money out of my pocket, maybe, but it's clearly within the TOS since Amazon goes out of their way to highlight how to do it within their guidelines.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2018)

Shelley K said:


> Did they even ban the guy this thread is about? I see no evidence that he's not allowed to have a KDP account. In fact, the wording makes it seem he is as long as doesn't further violate their terms of service by publishing duplicate content or manipulating ranks and reads.
> 
> I can't see behind the paywall, so I can only go by what's public. I'd be interested if anybody has actual evidence that he has been banned. They should ban him, but I'm not confident they did.


From what I read in the filed papers, Amazon is asking the judge to order him and all of his employees/directors/company people to never include bonus content, to never use click farms, and something else too that I forgot.

So no, he's not banned. Maybe his companies are banned, and he himself is banned, but he could easily just form a new company (get a friend to form a new company, relative, whatever), and kick back up to his shenanigans.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

mawnster said:


> I made it pretty clear what I was talking about when it came to jealousy: *most of the comments come from authors who aren't writing to market, don't have marketable covers or blurbs,* and are desperately hoping that getting rid of the scammers will suddenly catapult them into making a full-time income. That aint gonna happen. The paltry number of page reads "stolen" by book-stuffers out there isn't keeping anyone down. Bad books and bad marketing is what is hurting more people than book-stuffers. I know because I've written off-market stuff, and I've written on-market stuff. The difference in earnings is astronomical. One gets you a cup of coffee. The other you can buy a car with.


Re the bolded part: you can't possibly know how/why people are writing their specific books. And "marketable covers or blurbs" is a subjective thing. I've seen books with covers that I think are awful, yet they apparently sell. Ditto for (imo) awful blurbs that wouldn't induce ME to buy.

And the A/B/C/D stuffed books (paired with B/C/D/A, C/D/A/B, D/A/B/C books, etc.), are NOT what Amazon is referring to in the snippet you quote. You (general 'you') can contort yourself any way you want to make it seem that way, but if Bezos was standing here in front of me or you, I'd bet my bottom dollar he'd say the same.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2018)

Jena H said:


> And the A/B/C/D stuffed books (paired with B/C/D/A, C/D/A/B, D/A/B/C books, etc.), are NOT what Amazon is referring to in the snippet you quote. You (general 'you') can contort yourself any way you want to make it seem that way, but if Bezos was standing here in front of me or you, I'd bet my bottom dollar he'd say the same.


I've literally never seen this argued as being acceptable by anyone who's in the "yeah book stuffing is fine" camp.

What I have seen argued as being acceptable (that I agree with is probably just fine):

A/B/C/D

B/C/D/E

C/A/B/E

D/A/B/E

No one book is an EXACT re-ordering of one of the others, thus they are techncially (by the skin of their teeth) differentiated.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

mawnster said:


> From what I read in the filed papers, Amazon is asking the judge to order him and all of his employees/directors/company people to never include bonus content, to never use click farms, and something else too that I forgot.


Right? For all the back and forth about what is stuffing, what's legitimate bonus content, what's ethical, there's no question that this particular guy is an outright thief. Yet he's ordered to never use click farms again. I find that part the most infuriating. They should have the judge order him to never attempt to make another KDP account.

If they aren't going to go absolute hardline on this guy, a bad boy author with four bonus novels behind her newest one has [expletive]ing zip to worry about no matter how hard some people here hope for their ruination.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

Jena H said:


> Wow. Spoken like a true 10-year-old on the playground. And NO, everytime someone has a differing viewpoint, the answer is not always jealousy. Not even half the time, or one-third.


So people who don't stuff and don't like stuffing are all jealous and people who do stuff or don't see this tactic as evil are greedy and (or) immoral... all the while, Amazon is the only opinion that matters. They set the rules, and yet we're here arguing and assuming the worst of each other over something that's out of our hands.

Amazon wins.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Just Griff said:


> So people who don't stuff and don't like stuffing are all jealous and people who do stuff or don't see this tactic as evil are greedy and (or) immoral... all the while, Amazon is the only opinion that matters. They set the rules, and yet we're here arguing and assuming the worst of each other over something that's out of our hands.
> 
> Amazon wins.


Not jealous, annoyed. Their activities drain the KU pot.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

FelissaEly said:


> Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
> *Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store* *<---does this not mean what I said? Maybe I'm reading it wrong I really don't know*


What's striking to me is that Amazon has stuck with this "not significantly differentiated" language, when it could instead say something unquestionably clear, like what sela wrote above. Something like, "Unique bonus content that is not available in any other KU book is permitted." In comparison to sela's "unique" vs. "duplicated" language, which is concrete and inflexible, Amazon's "not significantly differentiated" can be pulled around like taffy to justify all sort of inclusions. What counts as "significant"? What counts as "differentiated"? It's way woo weasely. Amazon should drop the "not significantly differentiated" language and adopt something concrete, like sela's definitions. If they want to allow a small amount of duplication, such as the first chapter of the next in series, they should spell that out -- "a maximum of 20 pp. of duplicate content is permitted," or whatever.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> What's striking to me is that Amazon has stuck with this "not significantly differentiated" language, when it could instead say something unquestionably clear, like what sela wrote above. Something like, "Unique bonus content that is not available in any other KU book is permitted." In comparison to sela's "unique" vs. "duplicated" language, which is concrete and inflexible, Amazon's "not significantly differentiated" can be pulled around like taffy to justify all sort of inclusions. What counts as "significant"? What counts as "differentiated"? It's way woo weasely. Amazon should drop the "not significantly differentiated" language and adopt something concrete, like sela's definitions. If they want to allow a small amount of duplication, such as the first chapter of the next in series, they should spell that out -- "a maximum of 20 pp. of duplicate content is permitted," or whatever.


They don't make a rule that's 100% unquestionably clear because if they did that they'd be expected to uphold it.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Just Griff said:


> The way I see it, Amazon reps created confusion with conflicting responses on the matter. Amazon also allowed for this tactic to succeed on their platform for years. So why turn on each other? None of us make the rules.


There is no "each other" when it comes to those who cheat (knowingly violate Amazon TOS and take money from other authors). Those who do so, and those who defend the practice, have forfeited their right to be part of our community, no matter how they try to spin it.

Yes, that's you. You know who you are. It's crystal clear that we know too. Stop doing it, stop defending it. Tea is tea.

If it's unethical, it's unethical. Those who do it knowingly and deliberately put themselves on the other side of the line--doubly so because their practices take money directly out of other authors' pockets, not Amazon's. That's an important distinction: this isn't about ripping off some big corporation with lax enforcement. This is robbing other authors' houses and taking food off their tables because Amazon is a lazy cop.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

Dpock said:


> Not jealous, annoyed. Their activities drain the KU pot.


Not sure you understood what I was trying to say. People are making negative assumptions all the way around. That's all.



David VanDyke said:


> There is no "each other" when it comes to those who cheat (knowingly violate Amazon TOS and take money from other authors). Those who do so, and those who defend the practice, have forfeited their right to be part of our community, no matter how they try to spin it.
> 
> Yes, that's you. You know who you are. Stop doing it, stop defending it. Tea is tea.
> 
> If it's unethical, it's unethical. Those who do it knowingly and deliberately put themselves on the other side of the line--doubly so because their practices take money directly out of other authors' pockets, not Amazon's. That's an important distinction: this isn't about ripping off some big corporation with lax enforcement. This is robbing other authors' houses and taking food off their tables because Amazon is a lazy cop.


As someone who's completely on the outside of this issue, doesn't use the tactics, and isn't in KU with any titles, it objectively looks more complicated than that. It seems like a lot of different tactics and motives are being conflated into one big bad thing that no one wants to discuss the gray areas of because they want to kill the big bad as fast as possible. Yes, how some are using it (to deceive readers about page count, to bot their way to the top, to bot gobbledygook pages and whatever other secret shenanigans David knows that I don't) is definitely unethical, but it doesn't seem to me that all the authors are doing those things or bonus stuffing for those reasons. Discouraging discussion by drawing a with-us-or-against us line doesn't make us strong, it divides us, and I think that's a bigger problem. No one has to agree with me.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

Shelley K said:


> They don't make a rule that's 100% unquestionably clear because if they did that they'd be expected to uphold it.


Which is strange because when it comes down to the percent of a KU title that can be available elsewhere while enrolled, they seem ready, willing, and able to enforce it. Why wouldn't they address an issue that's essentially only happening under their own roof. Shouldn't that make it easier to enforce, not harder?

I'm assuming no one bonus stuffs in order to give away a huge chunk of their back-list for a percentage of $.99 wide on all platforms.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> If it's unethical, it's unethical. Those who do it knowingly and deliberately put themselves on the other side of the line--doubly so because their practices take money directly out of other authors' pockets, not Amazon's. That's an important distinction: this isn't about ripping off some big corporation with lax enforcement. This is robbing other authors' houses and taking food off their tables because Amazon is a lazy cop.


Amazon has now asserted in federal court that manipulative practices, which include what we colloquially refer to as stuffing, are harming other authors -- and that assertion seems to me to tilt the whole gameboard. Let's not lose sight of this.

I pointed out in another thread that part of what Facebook is now under the gun for revolves around its TOS and how FB's not borne adequate responsibility in policing that TOS and in protecting its users. Questions it's having to defend and that Zuckerberg is apologizing for on behalf of the company have to do with why there were not adequate policies and policing of those policies in place to defend against harm to its users. EU, UK and US law are all in play here. And with Facebook already admitting they should have done more to protect one set of users abiding by TOS terms from being harmed by another set of users who are violating TOS terms, it seems pretty clear which way FB anticipates public, political and legal opinion to go.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Just Griff said:


> Why wouldn't they address an issue that's essentially only happening under their own roof.


Because as long as it's happening under their own roof, it's not costing them money.

Though now that it's gotten bad enough that big-name authors are leaving -- and getting their readers to cancel KU accounts -- they seem to have started to take it a bit more seriously. We'll see.


----------



## ubu roi (Mar 25, 2018)

mawnster said:


> I've literally never seen this argued as being acceptable by anyone who's in the "yeah book stuffing is fine" camp.
> 
> What I have seen argued as being acceptable (that I agree with is probably just fine):
> 
> ...


It's interesting that there exists something called "compilation copyright", a copyright for the ordering of texts that may be in the public domain. So, a collection of PD short stories, has a copyright for the way the stories are ordered (compiled) in the book.


----------



## joesmithx (Mar 21, 2018)

I've read seven pages of this thread now and I still can't decide if some of the people commenting here and arguing with everyone over and over again is just looking to take the p-ss, as the Brits would say, for a good laugh.


----------



## Vidya (Feb 14, 2012)

I've now read all the posts and so far I haven't seen anyone mention what immediately occurred to me. People have said Zon finally did this because big-name authors are leaving KU. 

Isn't it more likely Zon did this because of the threat of the upcoming  Walbo? I assume once Walmart and Kobo offer authors a genuine competitor to Zon, a place we can sell books and get more visibility than Zon's current competitors offer, KU will have to vanish. Or at any rate it will be mainly scammers who will still stay in KU. 

Sounds to me like Zon is finally cleaning the store only because they know authors will leave in droves once they have a viable alternative. I mean, no one will leave Zon since the bulk of books are sold there, but people can very well leave KU if Walbo does a good job.

I'm dismayed by the number of people, some of them anti-scammers, who have said they don't expect Zon's latest move to make any real difference. Is that really possible?

On the other hand, if Zon is finally doing this because they fear the competition, I have more faith they'll get serious about stopping scammers.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

A number of reminders seem necessary as the usual obfuscation is going on:

1. Amazon has explicitly stated that *stuffing is against the TOS* in court papers. That is a matter of public record in black and white.

2. Amazon has stated that not only is this behavior against the TOS, it also *harms all authors by taking money from their payment pool*.

3. The notorious circle of stuffing authors referred to here and elsewhere engage in much more than that - I have personally seen evidence showing *review manipulation and mass gifting*, and nobody would be shocked if they were also using clickfarms and bots, given the above, and that *Amazon has also previously accused them of rank manipulation*.

4. Amazon has further stated in this court papers that such behavior isn't just harmful to authors and against their rules,* it's also illegal*.

Regarding the stuffer that Amazon is currently taking to court, yes, all his books are down from Amazon. His two publishing companies have been shut down - one in October just after arbitration was first filed, another in March just before this suit was filed.

I won't post his name and details, but that's all a matter of public record now, and you can verify that if you wish yourselves. There are four more arbitration cases in the works also.

Stuffers and review purchasers and clickfarm users and every other brand of cheat and weasel should be very very worried right now. This is only starting.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

And, just so everyone is clear what we are talking about here, this isn't "cheating" in the sense of getting the answer for the test in advance. We are talking about *millions of dollars* which has been purloined from the author fund.

I'm sure this will be queried by the FUD Brigade so let me explain:

One of the Stuffing Circle I've been tracking pulls in 10m-15m page reads every month. Together with All Star bonuses, that's a Kindle Unlimited payout of around $100,000. Per month. One author.

This isn't jaywalking we're talking about.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

mawnster said:


> It's pretty obvious from several comments i've read over the last year like "wahhhhh if only these cheaty scammers would stop stuffing, my super obscure totally not written to market book with a bad cover would get so many reads!!!!" are not grounded in anything but plain old green-eyed monsterism. I'm not saying that's all of it, but a lot of it is. The rest is just selectively-cherry-picking of what Amazon's said and done in regards to bonus content.


This is pretty infantile stuff. All of the authors who have been loud voices on this issue are huge contributors to the community, constantly lifting others up and celebrating their successes. Speaking personally, one of them in particular has been an incredible help to me throughout my career and has been equally helpful to dozens of others. This isn't just dumb, it's besmirching the name of a lot of good people.

It's dumb for another reason: many of the authors who have objecting to stuffing and other forms of cheating are huge bestsellers, NYT bestsellers, USA Today bestsellers, massive authors who couldn't possibly be jealous of anyone. Perhaps you are motivated by such petty concerns, but please don't project them onto the adults in the room.


----------



## DonovanJeremiah (Oct 14, 2017)

A question I've always thought about:

Would the authors who are putting previously published content in the backs of their books continue to do so if they weren't in KU/exclusive?

Would it really be in their best financial interest to sell books _across all platforms_ at $0.99 for 10 books?


----------



## T E Scott Writer (Jul 27, 2016)

Can I take a second to say a big thanks to david, pheonix and others who make an effort to stand up for authors in these situations. It doesn't make them popular, but it's so important that we have people fighting our corner.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

mawnster said:


> I've literally never seen this argued as being acceptable by anyone who's in the "yeah book stuffing is fine" camp.
> 
> What I have seen argued as being acceptable (that I agree with is probably just fine):
> 
> ...


Why is this any more "acceptable" than the example I gave (A/B/C/D, B/C/D/A, C/D/A/B, D/A/B/C)? The point is, there is no "new, exclusive" content provided that's not already available. It's simply re-arranging books that are already available. Same concept.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

T E Scott Writer said:


> Can I take a second to say a big thanks to david, pheonix and others who make an effort to stand up for authors in these situations. It doesn't make them popular, but it's so important that we have people fighting our corner.


Oh I don't know. I'd say popular in the right circles. Albeit maybe infamous in the rest.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2018)

DonovanJeremiah said:


> Would it really be in their best financial interest to sell books _across all platforms_ at $0.99 for 10 books?


You know, tying the KU payout to the list price of the book may actually be a way to "fix" part of the problem. If the payout per read was capped at what the author would actually make for a sale, that would eliminate some of the motivation to do this sort of thing. If the payout was capped at the maximum profit the book could make on a regular sale, then there would be no motivation to stuff.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You know, tying the KU payout to the list price of the book may actually be a way to "fix" part of the problem. If the payout per read was capped at what the author would actually make for a sale, that would eliminate some of the motivation to do this sort of thing. If the payout was capped at the maximum profit the book could make on a regular sale, then there would be no motivation to stuff.


It might also encourage writers to price their books a bit higher. Not sure how this would impact on sales.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You know, tying the KU payout to the list price of the book may actually be a way to "fix" part of the problem. If the payout per read was capped at what the author would actually make for a sale, that would eliminate some of the motivation to do this sort of thing. If the payout was capped at the maximum profit the book could make on a regular sale, then there would be no motivation to stuff.


What's to stop all the stuffers, who don't care about actual sales, from charging $9.99 for all their books under that scenario?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> What's to stop all the stuffers, who don't care about actual sales, from charging $9.99 for all their books under that scenario?


That would still be less than the max a 3000 KENP book earns now. Of course, if they don't care about sales, then moving past $9.99 and getting the lower KDP % probably wouldn't faze them either.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

Vidya said:


> I've now read all the posts and so far I haven't seen anyone mention what immediately occurred to me. People have said Zon finally did this because big-name authors are leaving KU.
> 
> Isn't it more likely Zon did this because of the threat of the upcoming Walbo? I assume once Walmart and Kobo offer authors a genuine competitor to Zon, a place we can sell books and get more visibility than Zon's current competitors offer, KU will have to vanish. Or at any rate it will be mainly scammers who will still stay in KU.
> 
> ...


The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive. Amazon could be trying to clean up its act both because big authors are leaving KU and because of the looming threat of Walbo.

In the final analysis, I don't care why Amazon is acting, as long as it gets the job done.

Will Amazon succeed? I'm going to be guardedly optimistic. There have always been good reasons for Amazon to act--but now some of them are becoming more immediately damaging to Amazon.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

RBN said:


> The key word was "capped." The max 3000 KENPC at recent page rates brings in about $13.50. If that was capped at the sale royalty for $9.99, it would be cut to $6.99, minus what I imagine is a substantial download fee. To get the same $13.50, they'd have to price at $38.57 (35% royalty), and then it becomes even more blatantly obvious their business model is scamming KU rather than selling books, and they'd be right out in the open for all to see.


Some authors (usually the ones at the top of the sub cats) generally use $0.99 as a loss leader. They are looking at the big picture: keeping visibility, making more via pages read AND collecting a large bonus. There are limited spots for the bonus money. If everyone decided to do this same strategy, not everyone will be successful because there are limited spots and not everyone has a large back catalog to compete with those authors.

And I'm not referring to bundles of books for $0.99. I mean standalone single novels. I've seen authors who have their entire catalog (individual books) priced at $0.99 and their books are holding at excellent ranks.

My point is that it's not scamming to focus on getting pages read by legitimate people. That's using KU the way it was intended to be used.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

dianapersaud said:


> Some authors (usually the ones at the top of the sub cats) generally use $0.99 as a loss leader. They are looking at the big picture: keeping visibility, making more via pages read AND collecting a large bonus. There are limited spots for the bonus money. If everyone decided to do this same strategy, not everyone will be successful because there are limited spots and not everyone has a large back catalog to compete with those authors.
> 
> And I'm not referring to bundles of books for $0.99. I mean standalone single novels. I've seen authors who have their entire catalog (individual books) priced at $0.99 and their books are holding at excellent ranks.
> 
> My point is that it's not scamming to focus on getting pages read by legitimate people. That's using KU the way it was intended to be used.


I don't thing anyone here is equating the practice of using a loss leader to increase sales with scamming. Also, outside of maybe War & Peace sized tomes, most single books aren't going to come near the 3000 KENP threshold.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> What's to stop all the stuffers, who don't care about actual sales, from charging $9.99 for all their books under that scenario?


I've come across some that were priced between $6 and $9.
They are getting sneakier.

The other day I found one that was translated into Spanish that looked suspiciously like a fake book, but I failed to bookmark it. After the wave of fake Russian books, I now expect a wave of carefully hidden translated to Spanish (probably public domain) books.


----------



## MmmmmPie (Jun 23, 2015)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You know, tying the KU payout to the list price of the book may actually be a way to "fix" part of the problem. If the payout per read was capped at what the author would actually make for a sale, that would eliminate some of the motivation to do this sort of thing. If the payout was capped at the maximum profit the book could make on a regular sale, then there would be no motivation to stuff.


*A million times this. *Right now, the scammers can make nearly 10 bucks a borrow on a 99-cent book. This dynamic is unnatural and unsustainable. Nowhere in the real world does anyone receive more if someone rents a product than if they buy it outright.

Plus, that 10-buck borrow can purchase a ton of advertising (not to mention botting, click-farming, false-reading, etc.) which makes it nearly impossible for genuine authors to compete.

If Amazon wants many of these particular problems to "magically" go away, they should cap the amount an author can earn on a borrow to correspond with the amount an author can earn on an actual purchase.

But, some will say, that will only encourage the scammers to price their bucks at ten bucks. GREAT! With a ten-dollar cover price, it would be a lot harder for them to "gift card" their way to the rankings. Plus, they'd see more returns, complaints, etc., if the product doesn't justify the 10-dollar price point. Oh, and let's not forget that finally, authors who price their books at a regular market rates would finally be able to compete.


----------



## MmmmmPie (Jun 23, 2015)

T E Scott Writer said:


> Can I take a second to say a big thanks to david, pheonix and others who make an effort to stand up for authors in these situations. It doesn't make them popular, but it's so important that we have people fighting our corner.


Yes! Thanks, David, Phoenix and others! We're lucky to have authors like you willing to tackle the tough (and often dangerous) issues like these.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

MmmmmPie said:


> *A million times this. *Right now, the scammers can make nearly 10 bucks a borrow on a 99-cent book. This dynamic is unnatural and unsustainable. Nowhere in the real world does anyone receive more if someone rents a product than if they buy it outright.


But not quite. It's more like if someone acquires your blender (assuming there were no marginal cost for building the blender) and keeps it on hand, just in case, and the producer doesn't get paid until it's plugged it. Even then, they have to work through all the different features before getting fully paid. Some unknown number of people will only use 10 or 50% of the blender's features.

In this model, a sale is far better than a borrow.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You know, tying the KU payout to the list price of the book may actually be a way to "fix" part of the problem. If the payout per read was capped at what the author would actually make for a sale, that would eliminate some of the motivation to do this sort of thing. If the payout was capped at the maximum profit the book could make on a regular sale, then there would be no motivation to stuff.


I actually like this idea. If the page reads reached, say $7.99 and stopped, the author would still make a profit because he or she would get the full price and not just 70%.


----------



## fishsticks (May 6, 2017)

I think the gross thing about this KU scammer is how he took advantage of real people with his non-fiction titles. I don't know what else he published, but his name has weight loss books behind it. All these books about how to lose weight, etc. -- they take advantage of desperate people who want nothing more than a quick solution to their problems. How much do you want to bet this "non-fiction writer" has never actually lost weight himself? 

Hopefully Amazon will do something to get of more of these scammers who use bots and click farms to get ahead.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

mhsilver said:


> I think the gross thing about this KU scammer is how he took advantage of real people with his non-fiction titles. I don't know what else he published, but his name has weight loss books behind it. All these books about how to lose weight, etc. -- they take advantage of desperate people who want nothing more than a quick solution to their problems. How much do you want to bet this "non-fiction writer" has never actually lost weight himself?


Fun fact: many of the Infamous Circle of Stuffers writing under female names are actually dudes who started off writing this kind of crap - scammy weight loss and health books. Those 12 page BS books that flooded the Kindle Store under KU1 - creeps from the murkiest corners of Warrior Forum.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

dgaughran said:


> And, just so everyone is clear what we are talking about here, this isn't "cheating" in the sense of getting the answer for the test in advance. We are talking about *millions of dollars* which has been purloined from the author fund.
> 
> I'm sure this will be queried by the FUD Brigade so let me explain:
> 
> ...


Wow. That's nuts. Is that all fraudulent? And I get why to many the circumstances don't matter. The fact that new readers may just continue reading at their convenience is irrelevant because many think the TOS was crystal clear and if reads are achieved by breaking the rule, it comes down to an unfair advantage and it's all tainted. I'm just curious if bots and click-farms are that huge of a problem, or if all the reads are a big indiscernible mess.

At this point I've got two likely scenarios in my head of why people chose to do this:

a) with the understanding they were breaking the rules and with the intent to steal from the author fund by uploading large files in order to generate fake reads/huge payouts.

b) with the misunderstanding that they were not breaking the rules and with the intent to maximize their hold on the attention span of new KU readers at the expense of their back-list (or huge portions of it) going for free essentially when they got regular sales.

Not that there might not be other reasons, those are just the two I can plausibly work out with what people on all sides have shared.

A rules a rule. So obviously the discussion over the language of the TOS from that thread awhile back has been settled for good by Amazon. But I still see two camps, and if I were in KU, I would be extremely angry about one camp's thieving, and I'd have mixed feelings about the other's judgment. But again, that's because when this came up before and everyone was going back and forth about the language in the TOS, and what all the different reps told them, I found it confusing and inconclusive, and not just for my own benefit or a manufactured narrative I could profit on. Granted, I wasn't in a position to even consider this tactic myself, so I wasn't reading every post like I am now, but to me it wasn't farfetched that others might have seen leaders in their genre (leaders on the charts, at the very least) doing well with this tactic and ignorantly followed suit without understanding the ripples in the pond.

The last point I'll make is a general one, and not a response to any one person or post specifically.

The fact that people with less information, less inside knowledge in general, are hesitant to join what looks like a mob that seems to be indiscriminately labeling authors as greedy and evil for using a relatively new tactic we don't fully understand is not a bad thing. Even if the majority in the thread agree and are 100% right and justified. I know it tries the patience of people to explain what (to them) is plain as day, but from the POV of someone who's essentially just starting out (I've read kboards for years, but I'm a slow writer), the various issues raised in threads don't always have clear outcomes. People have argued about whether or not KU is destroying the market, argued whether or not free books are harming all indie authors... argued about multi-author box sets and the tactics of former letter-chasers... pretty much all the innovative tactics indies have come up with to compete with trad have been openly challenged and accepted in whole or in part. The fact that people need time to examine, consider and digest a relatively new tactic and all the possible repercussions before damning it and everyone who uses it isn't unreasonable. Putting us down, talking to us like we're stupid because we don't blindly agree at the onset, telling us we must also be doing something wrong, or must all be unethical at our core if we don't see what they see right away... well, I don't know what to say about that except I don't see how that helps anyone. If anything, it seems to me it would discourage people from asking questions and participating in the community.

Thanks to those who had patience. This thread has been illuminating and I'm sure extremely helpful for people considering KU at the moment.


----------



## Alice Ashes (Apr 2, 2018)

Hello!

First post here, but I've been reading kboards for every day for the past 30 or so days. This is the most heated post I've seen here .

First off, I'd like to say that Crystal_ makes very valid points, and it doesn't seem appropriate (actually, it seems rude) to label her as a "pro stuffer," when all she has done is raise the fact that current practices may continue despite this lawsuit that has been posted.

Secondly, I've now thoroughly looked through the top 20 paid romance books as well as my particular niche, gay romance, yet I haven't come across any of these thousand plus page books that are being discussed. All I've seen are "previews" of other books, and I haven't come across anything more than a 600 page total book, with maybe the average clocking in at around 300 pages. Can someone please point me in the right direction to find these examples of stuffing like BOOK A -> BOOK B ->, etc. all in one book? Thanks in advance.

*Moderator's note: if you wish to answer aliceashes request for an example, please PM as we ask that links not be posted here, thanks. --Betsy*


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

aliceashes said:


> Hello!
> 
> First post here, but I've been reading kboards for every day for the past 30 or so days. This is the most heated post I've seen here .
> 
> ...


I only read M/M romance and I've never seen this practice as a reader. From what I've read, this is mostly a problem in erotic and new adult romance, but a problem that affects the whole KU ecosystem.


----------



## FelissaEly (Jan 15, 2017)

P.J. Post said:


> tl;dr
> 
> In one of these previous threads I suggested a possible pseudo-solution*: limiting the KENPC cap to under 1k, maybe 750 or so. And then publishers are free to stuff their books as full of whatever as they'd like, but the pay-out isn't going to be affected. The down side is that authors who naturally write longer, like some of the epic fantasy folks, are going to get penalized. But they also have the option to publish slightly shorter books, slightly more frequently. Then again, 750 is over 150k, right? (Feel free to check my math).
> 
> *I think the only real solution is a review process managed by humans.


What about boxed sets? My husband's completed series is over 3k KENPC so we already lose out on some pages there, less than 1k would be detrimental.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Alice Ashes said:


> Secondly, I've now thoroughly looked through the top 20 paid romance books as well as my particular niche, gay romance, yet I haven't come across any of these thousand plus page books that are being discussed. All I've seen are "previews" of other books, and I haven't come across anything more than a 600 page total book, with maybe the average clocking in at around 300 pages. Can someone please point me in the right direction to find these examples of stuffing like BOOK A -> BOOK B ->, etc. all in one book? Thanks in advance.


I don't read romance. Yet it took me about 2 minutes scanning through the top 100 kindle romance to find a bunch.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

FelissaEly said:


> What about boxed sets? My husband's completed series is over 3k KENPC so we already lose out on some pages there, less than 1k would be detrimental.


The general idea in this case is that Boxed Sets would need to be excluded from KU as a whole, leaving only singular titles for borrowing.


----------



## Alice Ashes (Apr 2, 2018)

Just Griff said:


> I only read M/M romance and I've never seen this practice as a reader. From what I've read, this is mostly a problem in erotic and new adult romance, but a problem that affects the whole KU ecosystem.


I see. Thanks for letting me know. I mainly read M/M romance as well.


----------



## Alice Ashes (Apr 2, 2018)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I don't read romance. Yet it took me about 2 minutes scanning through the top 100 kindle romance to find a bunch.


So you are mentioning the top 100, while I mentioned the top 20. Are you saying that there are none in the top 20? If there are, would you mind PMing me the link, as I did not come across any?


----------



## FelissaEly (Jan 15, 2017)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> The general idea in this case is that Boxed Sets would need to be excluded from KU as a whole, leaving only singular titles for borrowing.


I actually would love this, I was so sad when I found out that because the singles are enrolled in Select the boxed set also had to be enrolled and unfortunately because of the niche genre of the book it does so much better in Select so we're stuck ;<


----------



## MmmmmPie (Jun 23, 2015)

Alice Ashes said:


> Can someone please point me in the right direction to find these examples of stuffing like BOOK A -> BOOK B ->, etc. all in one book? Thanks in advance.


We try not to link to examples, so as to avoid the lynch-mob mentality, but there are a few tricks they use to disguise their book stuffing. For example, they will sometimes create a paperback and then link it to the Kindle Version. The paperback might be 300 pages long, but the kindle version is several times that. Unfortunately, readers will usually see just the paperback page count. I'm also seeing a lot of books with no page count listed. I don't know how this is accomplished, but I'm seeing it more and more on these stuffed books.

Other ways to spot a book stuffer.
- Look at the table of contents. Those "previews" touted in the TOC are usually full stories. If you're uncertain, scroll down to see where the "look inside" ends. Sometimes, the 10% preview ends halfway through the so-called novel. In some cases, the preview even includes the full "novel," which means that the remaining 90% is stuffed content.
- Read the one-star reviews. More and more, readers are complaining that the "novel" was really a short story that ended at the 20% mark.

I'm sure there are more signs, but hopefully this will help at least a little.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

FelissaEly said:


> I actually would love this, I was so sad when I found out that because the singles are enrolled in Select the boxed set also had to be enrolled and unfortunately because of the niche genre of the book it does so much better in Select so we're stuck ;<


You don't have to enroll the box set into KU, you just can't have a box set "wide" if the individual titles are in KU.

ETA: you can also split up your box set. For example, my 6 book series has a box set for books 1-3 and another box set for 4-6. Alternatively, you could do two books per "set", so you aren't losing out any KENP because of the 3000K cap.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

FelissaEly said:


> I actually would love this, I was so sad when I found out that because the singles are enrolled in Select the boxed set also had to be enrolled and unfortunately because of the niche genre of the book it does so much better in Select so we're stuck ;<


Well, technically a boxed set doesn't have to be enrolled in Select if the singular is (so far as I'm aware), but it still has to be exclusive. In this case, that wouldn't change. The boxed set couldn't be in KU, but it also couldn't be wide.


----------



## FelissaEly (Jan 15, 2017)

dianapersaud said:


> You don't have to enroll the box set into KU, you just can't have a box set "wide" if the individual titles are in KU.


Argh well nevermind then -_- right /doh


----------



## FelissaEly (Jan 15, 2017)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Well, technically a boxed set doesn't have to be enrolled in Select if the singular is (so far as I'm aware), but it still has to be exclusive. In this case, that wouldn't change. The boxed set couldn't be in KU, but it also couldn't be wide.


Yep, diana just said the same thing-it was a d'oh moment for me. *goes into hiding*


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

MmmmmPie said:


> We try not to link to examples, so as to avoid the lynch-mob mentality, but there are a few tricks they use to disguise their book stuffing. For example, they will sometimes create a paperback and then link it to the Kindle Version. The paperback might be 300 pages long, but the kindle version is several times that.


That's clever. I guess those people know that they're doing something they shouldn't if they're covering it up.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Alice Ashes said:


> I haven't come across any of these thousand plus page books that are being discussed. All I've seen are "previews" of other books, and I haven't come across anything more than a 600 page total book, with maybe the average clocking in at around 300 pages.


A 300-page book could be stuffed (a novella matching the title, then two more as a bonus). The Top 20 romance have several like that at the top.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Alice Ashes said:



> So you are mentioning the top 100, while I mentioned the top 20. Are you saying that there are none in the top 20? If there are, would you mind PMing me the link, as I did not come across any?


Not saying that at all. PM sent.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Oct 8, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> What's striking to me is that Amazon has stuck with this "not significantly differentiated" language, when it could instead say something unquestionably clear, like what sela wrote above. Something like, "Unique bonus content that is not available in any other KU book is permitted." In comparison to sela's "unique" vs. "duplicated" language, which is concrete and inflexible, Amazon's "not significantly differentiated" can be pulled around like taffy to justify all sort of inclusions. What counts as "significant"? What counts as "differentiated"? It's way woo weasely. Amazon should drop the "not significantly differentiated" language and adopt something concrete, like sela's definitions. If they want to allow a small amount of duplication, such as the first chapter of the next in series, they should spell that out -- "a maximum of 20 pp. of duplicate content is permitted," or whatever.


All of what Becca said.

In the end, I can feel justified in not engaging in stuffing, in any iteration described here -- and I do feel justified in not doing it because I think it does a disservice to my readers. It STILL won't make one bit of difference if Amazon refuses to punish the kind of stuffing that bestselling authors (the ones not publishing gibberish, botting, or using other blatantly fraudulent measures) are doing.



Just Griff said:


> The fact that people with less information, less inside knowledge in general, are hesitant to join what looks like a mob that seems to be indiscriminately labeling authors as greedy and evil for using a relatively new tactic we don't fully understand is not a bad thing. Even if the majority in the thread agree and are 100% right and justified. [...]
> 
> The fact that people need time to examine, consider and digest a relatively new tactic and all the possible repercussions before damning it and everyone who uses it isn't unreasonable. *Putting us down, talking to us like we're stupid because we don't blindly agree at the onset, telling us we must also be doing something wrong, or must all be unethical at our core if we don't see what they see right away... well, I don't know what to say about that except I don't see how that helps anyone.* If anything, it seems to me it would discourage people from asking questions and participating in the community.


Emphasis mine.

If Amazon says no more stuffing, no more box sets, no mas, and puts it in their TOS without weasel words -- I will be overjoyed.

There are several things I'd like them to clear up about what is "obscene," but I'm not holding my breath, because I've seen indie thriller stories with abduction in them rank-stripped while trad authors get concierge service and kid gloves. _Which isn't their fault_, btw. Amazon has enough money and enough staff to fix their marketplace.

*This is Amazon's fault.* The more they continue with vague and unbalanced forms of punishment for breaking rules that either aren't there or aren't clear while simultaneously doing everything they can to make it so that their store is vital to making a living as an author, the more competitive KU will become. Someone will think up the next tactic to rise to the top.

I _don't_ make a habit of deciding what is ethical or not based on corporate terms for playing in a sandbox, and I'm not going to start now. Hell will freeze over first. I _do_, however, make business decisions based on some of their _actions_. I find that saves me from a lot of strife, emotional turmoil, hand-wringing, and time.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2018)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> What's to stop all the stuffers, who don't care about actual sales, from charging $9.99 for all their books under that scenario?


Nothing, but this would have an actual benefit in the ecosystem by stopping the devaluation of digital books. Assuming Amazon does little to nothing about this nonsense and these books continue to dominate the bestseller lists, that means consumers would start seeing a bestseller list dominated by $10 titles. That means authors could raise their prices and not have to deal with the "but why would I buy your novella for $2.99 when I can get 10 books for 99 cents?" drivel. I think we need a mechanism that actually forces a price increase so that those of us who actually worry about sales over borrows can maintain proper profit margins. The current Amazon ecosystem pushes prices artificially low.


----------



## L_Loryn (Mar 1, 2018)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Not saying that at all. PM sent.


Hey Rick,

I'm actually interested in that, too. Do you mind PMing me some links as well?


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

I'm a little late to the party, but when I saw David's Twitter feed earlier today, the first thing that struck me from Amazon's pronouncements about the stuffers harming legitimate authors is a potential class-action lawsuit against the stuffers, and potentially against Amazon for paying the stuffers when Amazon knew about their black/gray hat tricks. If someone was harmed, and Amazon says we were, then there should be a lawyer that would take such a case.


----------



## Alice Ashes (Apr 2, 2018)

brkingsolver said:


> I'm a little late to the party, but when I saw David's Twitter feed earlier today, the first thing that struck me from Amazon's pronouncements about the stuffers harming legitimate authors is a potential class-action lawsuit against the stuffers, and potentially against Amazon for paying the stuffers when Amazon knew about their black/gray hat tricks. If someone was harmed, and Amazon says we were, then there should be a lawyer that would take such a case.


Aren't the only true winners in a class-action lawsuit the law firm that prosecutes, while the party they represent gets cents on the dollar?


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Alice Ashes said:


> Aren't the only true winners in a class-action lawsuit the law firm that prosecutes, while the party they represent gets cents on the dollar?


As long as the lawyers take the case on contingency, the aggrieved party pays nothing. Just causing the stuffers pain and driving them away from Zon and KU would be enough for me. It would also push Zon into actually policing and enforcing its ToS on a consistent basis instead of this blatant PR stuff that they don't follow up on.


----------



## Mercedes Vox (Jul 22, 2014)

brkingsolver said:


> I'm a little late to the party, but when I saw David's Twitter feed earlier today, the first thing that struck me from Amazon's pronouncements about the stuffers harming legitimate authors is a potential class-action lawsuit against the stuffers, and potentially against Amazon for paying the stuffers when Amazon knew about their black/gray hat tricks. If someone was harmed, and Amazon says we were, then there should be a lawyer that would take such a case.


If it happens, every penny Amazon claws back from the scammers should be divided equally among all other participants in the Select program during the period those stuffed books were listed.

ETA: And yes, I concede that's an "in a perfect world" scenario. Please don't harsh my dreams. They're all I have left.


----------



## C. Rysalis (Feb 26, 2015)

P.J. Post said:


> All of the individual titles would still be allowed - so there's no loss of possible page reads or income: same content, just spread over three or more files instead of one.


Except some books really need to be long to tell the story the way the author intended. My first novel should have been over 1300 KENP, I split it into two books and it didn't work out. Readers didn't get hooked from reading only the first half, and many didn't continue on to the second. So now I'll have to re-release the two books as one novel as originally intended.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

brkingsolver said:


> As long as the lawyers take the case on contingency, the aggrieved party pays nothing. Just causing the stuffers pain and driving them away from Zon and KU would be enough for me. It would also push Zon into actually policing and enforcing its ToS on a consistent basis instead of this blatant PR stuff that they don't follow up on.


I suspect one of the reasons a law firm doesn't want to get involved is because some of these botters are overseas. I know how difficult it is to take down a pirate site in China (they are still up despite over a thousand DMCA notices from Google). Can't imagine the paperwork and time involved in an international case (or cases).


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

brkingsolver said:


> I'm a little late to the party, but when I saw David's Twitter feed earlier today, the first thing that struck me from Amazon's pronouncements about the stuffers harming legitimate authors is a potential class-action lawsuit against the stuffers, and potentially against Amazon for paying the stuffers when Amazon knew about their black/gray hat tricks. If someone was harmed, and Amazon says we were, then there should be a lawyer that would take such a case.


Class action lawsuits are usually against giant corporations with deep pockets and lawyers count on a big payday. In this scenario you are talking about a few scammers, individuals not corporations, that are mostly overseas. I doubt there'd be enough real money at stake to for this to make sense or interest a lawyer on contingency.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Boyd said:


> Or maybe because the contract we all agree to as publishers on amazon, is the fact we go to arbitration in the case of any disputes.


That too!


----------



## Desmond X. Torres (Mar 16, 2013)

Mercedes Vox said:


> If it happens, every penny Amazon claws back from the scammers should be divided equally among all other participants in the Select program during the period those stuffed books were listed.
> 
> ETA: And yes, I concede that's an "in a perfect world" scenario. Please don't harsh my dreams. They're all I have left.


No harsh here at all Mercedes- Amazon did just that about 2 (3?) years ago. A LOT of KU authors had a monthly payment topped up. My own payout went up by $100.00 or so for that month. And it was really appreciated at the time b/c our own sales etc was pretty poor. I don't know if it was b/c of scammers getting nailed or a book-keeping error. My point is they made good with some $ that I wasn't even aware of having to come to me.


----------



## 39416 (Mar 18, 2011)

Just a note on the class action idea --we all waived our right to a class action when we signed up with KDP. It's not totally impossible because some courts will strike this as against public policy, but the bottom line is if you put a book up in KDP you almost certainly gave away your rights to go to court. 

10.1 Disputes. Any dispute or claim relating in any way to this Agreement or KDP will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court....  You and we each agree that any dispute resolution proceedings will be conducted only on an individual basis and not in a class, consolidated or representative action. You or we may bring suit in court on an individual basis only, and not in a class, consolidated or representative action...


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

I'm new here -- obviously. But I've been a lurker here for a couple months, and a participant on the Zon's community forum for over a year, and have published eBooks for over two years. I don't make much money at it -- but that's not the point. Most of what I write so far is erotica or similar fiction, for whatever that's worth.

It's been interesting to read this thread especially. I always had this weird feeling when I'd peruse some of the erotica sections at the Zon, especially the erotica eBooks that are disguised as "romance" or "women's fiction", when they often had explicit sex in the LookInside; and the top sellers were consistently megabyte-sized files for 99 cents, and loaded with mile-long TOC's and lists of other books -- things that apparently are the product of 'page stuffing'.

A mild perusal of such books and authors shows that this practice has been going on for well over two years. I easily found one book with the 2000 page, megabyte file, etc. etc. characteristics and it was dated 2016. And it was a top seller. Perhaps some of these writers were gaming the system, in a way. But it looks like it was accepted practice for at least two years.

The authors in question appear to be top sellers. It's not like they were hidden in the mass internet static somewhere. 

There obviously is something here that -- even after reading this entire thread -- I'm just not understanding. Oh well.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

jb1111 said:


> There obviously is something here that -- even after reading this entire thread -- I'm just not understanding. Oh well.


I'm sure you'll get different opinions, but my own view is that Amazon doesn't want to spend real resources (i.e. humans, who don't scale) to police the Kindle Store. It doesn't mean that it likes certain behaviors, or approves them, or endorses them, or permits them - it just doesn't want to spend the money/manpower having cops walking the beat. It would much rather have some kind of scaleable/automated solution to deal with this problem.

So we have seen them switch from borrows to page reads, then bring in the KENPC ceiling, then bring in the auto-rank-stripping - all actions which have caught a few scammers, but harmed many innocent authors because the systems aren't good enough.

The fact that several high profile people keep getting away with it doesn't mean that Amazon endorses this activity. Amazon is just being cheap (IMO, YMMV, etc. etc.)


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

And, just because it has come up a few times, I wouldn't necessarily assume that a class action suit v Amazon is necessarily an impossibility. 

I'm not a lawyer, obviously, but it seems like the question whether no-class-action-waiver clauses and mandatory arbitration clauses are enforceable is an open one. Like anything I suppose, it could be argued in court. And there are always plenty of lawyers willing to front their time when there is a juicy corporate target.

Not saying this is likely, or even desirable - just saying it's not necessarily an impossibility here. Perhaps actual lawyers can speak to this more intelligently.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

RPatton said:


> I think people are missing one big thing and only a few are focusing on a second key aspect.
> 
> The first is that this filing is only a confirmation of the arbiter's decision. Basically Amazon is crossing a T and making sure that the other party involved is abiding by the arbitration. This is not a filing for a court decision on the claims made by Amazon. The judge isn't making any decision about the claims made, only confirming the results of the arbitration. This is NOT a court filing where a judge is making a ruling. This is a court filing where Amazon is saying, we took soandso to arbitration, this was the arbiter's decision, and we want confirmation of the awards. If Amazon didn't confirm the award, the arbitration is worthless, but no actual case law is being considered regarding the details of the arbitration only the arbitration itself. The judge is looking at the arbiter and deciding whether they are truly neutral. The judge can either vacate or confirm the award, but they are not making any ruling about the details of the arbitration.
> 
> ...


Thank you.

Finally, sanity.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

I think everyone has been speculating regarding Amazon's intentions, broadly wondering if this is just a warning shot, or setting some kind of precedent and intends a bigger clampdown. There is another possibility, not one hugely palatable to me personally, but also plausible: this is all Amazon intends to do - hammer one guy, and then say "look, we did something," and move on.

Time will tell.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

RPatton said:


> I think people are missing one big thing and only a few are focusing on a second key aspect.
> 
> The first is that this filing is only a confirmation of the arbiter's decision. Basically Amazon is crossing a T and making sure that the other party involved is abiding by the arbitration. This is not a filing for a court decision on the claims made by Amazon. The judge isn't making any decision about the claims made, only confirming the results of the arbitration. This is NOT a court filing where a judge is making a ruling. This is a court filing where Amazon is saying, we took soandso to arbitration, this was the arbiter's decision, and we want confirmation of the awards. If Amazon didn't confirm the award, the arbitration is worthless, but no actual case law is being considered regarding the details of the arbitration only the arbitration itself. The judge is looking at the arbiter and deciding whether they are truly neutral. The judge can either vacate or confirm the award, but they are not making any ruling about the details of the arbitration.
> 
> ...


Violating a TOS in and of itself is a breach of contract, which is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. That's true. Hence the arbitration.

Some specific TOS violations, however, are criminal in nature and have, in other circumstances, been prosecuted effectively.

What some of us are pointing out is not that a federal criminal court is deciding anything about this case. We're pointing out that Amazon itself publicly stated the committed violations were manipulative and harming other users. This is the belief Amazon is/was operating under when it brought its case to arbitration. Amazon did not deal with it as a criminal matter (such as fraud), but that doesn't mean a case could not be made that it was also criminal in nature, imo.

Amazon itself also defined the use cases of what the community refers to as "stuffing" -- that was not a term used in the court docs. While "only" an arbiter and not a court sided with Amazon's determination of what violated its TOS, Amazon still had to clearly spell out the violating tactics this guy employed. Which it did.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Just to add to what Phoenix has said:

If you read the Law360 report it states that Amazon's demand "brought claims for breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act."


----------



## Ann Howes (Apr 7, 2018)

Hello everyone.  New here  and first time posting. Let's hope Amazon gets this right.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

dgaughran said:


> I think everyone has been speculating regarding Amazon's intentions, broadly wondering if this is just a warning shot, or setting some kind of precedent and intends a bigger clampdown. There is another possibility, not one hugely palatable to me personally, but also plausible: this is all Amazon intends to do - hammer one guy, and then say "look, we did something," and move on.


I second that premonition. This feels like the time Amazon took action against a bought review company and there was a thread on kboards hoping for more action. At the time Amazon asked authors to help in the process and report social media marketing of Amazon reviwers. At the time I was getting the same such ad in my Twitter feed all the time, so I reported it. Amazon's response was for the CS junior to summon her supervisor so that they could tell me off for wasting their time. I replied that Amazon asked authors for their help, you clearly don't want it so I won't help again no matter how much you ask. I suspect that this is another case of massaging the message rather than changing the policy.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2018)

dgaughran said:


> And, just because it has come up a few times, I wouldn't necessarily assume that a class action suit v Amazon is necessarily an impossibility.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, obviously, but it seems like the question whether no-class-action-waiver clauses and mandatory arbitration clauses are enforceable is an open one. Like anything I suppose, it could be argued in court. And there are always plenty of lawyers willing to front their time when there is a juicy corporate target.
> 
> Not saying this is likely, or even desirable - just saying it's not necessarily an impossibility here. Perhaps actual lawyers can speak to this more intelligently.


Not a lawyer either, but there has been a lot of legal speculation in many circles regarding the enforceability of arbitration clauses. The courts have been very active in striking down mandatory arbitration clauses.

Arbitration has an important place in business but was originally meant as a business to business agreement between peers, which was negotiated between equals to save the risk and expense of lawsuits for both parties. It was never intended to be use as a unilateral weapon from one entity against another with no power. State courts have been striking down mandatory arbitration clauses in many work contracts, and though the Supreme Court in the last few years has sides with business in most arbitration cases, Gorsuch has been known on the appellate level to strike down arbitration clauses and some believe he may side with the more liberal judges in future cases on this point.

Of course, all of this depends on having the funds and the right lawyer to pick the fight. But if Amazon continues to violate its own TOS, it might be easy to find a west coast judge willing to open that door with the right case.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

KateDanley said:


> I apologize to anyone who has heard me beat this particular drum before, but it was hugely eye-opening for me to realize the scope of these scams. Here's a great article from ZDnet that talks about how one guy made over $2.4M from botting his way through KU.
> 
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/exclusive-inside-a-million-dollar-amazon-kindle-catfishing-scam/
> 
> That's $2.4M taken from the pockets of every single author in Select. And it was just one dude.


Thanks for beating the drum again. I never saw that. I just finished reading and... Wow. That's unreal.



Mr. Sparkle said:


> *This is Amazon's fault.* The more they continue with vague and unbalanced forms of punishment for breaking rules that either aren't there or aren't clear while simultaneously doing everything they can to make it so that their store is vital to making a living as an author, the more competitive KU will become. Someone will think up the next tactic to rise to the top.
> 
> *I don't make a habit of deciding what is ethical or not based on corporate terms for playing in a sandbox, and I'm not going to start now.* Hell will freeze over first. I _do_, however, make business decisions based on some of their _actions_. I find that saves me from a lot of strife, emotional turmoil, hand-wringing, and time.


I'm with you. That's not to say I don't make up my mind, I'm just willing to budge on my positions if a thoughtful, logical argument comes my way. I don't like to rush to judgment, and if PMs are any indication, you and me are not as alone as we look in this thread. People are just scared to ask questions, stick their necks out with a differing opinion, or even engage, and that's... sad.

On the other hand, I probably shouldn't have taken any of it (how we were referred and spoken to) personal anyway. Lots of the people in this thread are out for blood and for good reason. They've known about it for a long time, they've watched it happen time and time again, and those of us that wanted to examine the gray area or consider if Amazon is the root of the problem just became an obstacle to their social justice. The more I see posted, read past accounts, and consider that many have watched their bank accounts take a hit (however large or small) without recourse, the more I understand why the off-with-their-heads-all-of-their-heads vibe is happening. Even if I do agree with you that ultimately Amazon is to blame. It's like a digital version of corporate pollution. They could clean up the sludge, but it's cheaper to dump it in the river and let others suffer the consequences as long as they can get away with it.

I just hope that Amazon, regardless of whether people think they were clear from the get go or are making their stance clear now, enforce it consistently so the authors that have contributed to and helped make KU valuable don't suffer any more losses.


----------



## caitlynlynch (Oct 21, 2016)

Honestly... there's a fairly simple answer in terms of algorithm to sort this nonsense out. How many books per week are we talking about that get published with over 1,000 pages? Not all that many, I'm thinking. So have the algo pick all those up and refer them for checking to a small team of humans who should be able to tell within 10 minutes if a book is 'stuffed'. Boot any stuffed book straight back to the author with a 'decline to publish' form letter.

THEN take a look at all that author's other books. If they're a regular offender, boot them and close down their account... AND refuse to pay them any monies 'already owed' for page reads.

You'd get rid of the worst culprits in a week.

Once stuffed books being submitted slows to a trickle, send that team to examine every already-published book in KU with over a thousand pages. Word would be spreading fast, so the number to check would be rapidly diminishing.

Make it easier to report stuffed books or inappropriate content - and books in incorrect categories - and ACT on those reports by suspending books which do breach TOS and sending warnings to the offending authors that repeated violations will result in their accounts being shut down. However, have one person detailed to look for malicious reporting - and have reports only able to be made by legit accounts, similar to the rules regarding posting of reviews.

A team of 5 could clean up the Kindle Store in 6 months.

Hell, Amazon could probably find pissed-off authors who'd VOLUNTEER their time to do a lot of the grunt work!


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

PhoenixS said:


> Violating a TOS in and of itself is a breach of contract, which is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. That's true. Hence the arbitration.
> 
> Some specific TOS violations, however, are criminal in nature and have, in other circumstances, been prosecuted effectively.
> 
> ...


This &#128175;


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

One thing I have either missed, or perhaps it is something that hasn't yet been covered in this thread, is what seems to be the million dollar question: did the company gain from these 'book stuffers' at all? Perhaps that is why such a practice has gone on for at least two years without much action?

I mean, best selling authors on various national newspapers' lists (I've seen USA Today mentioned a lot on some of these) gives the company, and its products, visibility.

Just a thought.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Heh. Amazon's finally stuffed their numbers for books in KU enough that they think they can now try to reign in the behavior they encouraged. Cute.

But the real fun in this is how they're going to have a judge look at the TOS -- you know, the contract that says one party gets to change LITERALLY EVERYTHING about the contract retroactively?  It's going to be so much fun when anyone with a basic understanding of rights and law gets a look at this thing.


----------



## caitlynlynch (Oct 21, 2016)

KateDanley said:


> I like the cut of your jib.


Thanks Kate! To me it seems like just a common-sense application of resources, and fairly minimal ones at that, to clean up a problem which is getting bigger by the day, and causing honest authors to opt out of KU.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Something I think many people are overlooking is this: how many people using bots and clickfarms that Amazon eliminates will it take to change how much you get paid? One scammer who maybe took a few million out of the pot in a month? Five? Most people, who have relatively low page reads, will never notice a difference. Just a data point.

Also, please let's not forget Amazon decides the size of the pot _after_ they know how many page reads there were in total. I don't feel like this can be stressed enough.


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2018)

Shelley K said:


> Something I think many people are overlooking is this: how many people using bots and clickfarms that Amazon eliminates will it take to change how much you get paid? One scammer who maybe took a few million out of the pot in a month? Five? Most people, who have relatively low page reads, will never notice a difference. Just a data point.


That's sorta the rub. The book stuffers and the scammers (two different sets of people cause they're not one and the same) are basically mostly hurting other book stuffers and scammers. Average Joe Writer who sells a copy of his book once a month and gets a few page reads and here isn't being "cheated" out of anything that's even measurable.

Like, I'm in the top 1500 authors on Zon and book stuffers probably aren't taking all that much money out of my pocket, certainly not enough to warrant asking Zon to come down and have a good look at EVERYBODY. Cause whenever Zon gets involved, they always overreact, innocent people get swept under, and I don't want to be one of the innocents that loses my income.


----------



## ubu roi (Mar 25, 2018)

Another point that I think needs to be stressed is this: Every book in KDP that gets "published" needs to first go through Amazon's "review" process. Along comes a novice book-stuffer, uploads their book, finds the stuffed book  passes the "review" process and says, "Well, whatever I'm doing, it's 'reviewed' and
'approved'"

Who is to blame for Amazon's machine algorithm "review" being imperfect? Are authors to blame? I don't see any court deciding authors are to blame. It seems Amazon wants to have their cake and eat it. They want to run a machine-based platform without taking any responsibility for their machines(s) being imperfect.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

ubu roi said:


> Every book in KDP that gets "published" needs to first go through Amazon's "review" process. Along comes a novice book-stuffer, uploads their book, finds the stuffed book passes the "review" process and says, "Well, whatever I'm doing, it's 'reviewed' and
> 'approved'"


Amazon doesn't have a review process, but let's tackle the handwavium anyway: if you are smuggling a key of coke in your jocks and walk by a cop who just assumes you are well endowed, that doesn't legalize your package.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

C. Rysalis said:


> Except some books really need to be long to tell the story the way the author intended. My first novel should have been over 1300 KENP, I split it into two books and it didn't work out. Readers didn't get hooked from reading only the first half, and many didn't continue on to the second. So now I'll have to re-release the two books as one novel as originally intended.


Then you'd go into it knowing that you'd be capped at 1K KENPC. So long as it's clear and you sign up anyway, it may be a bummer for you, but think of how much better the program will be.

And yes, this is all Amazon's fault. People have tried and tried to tell them how screwed up KU was, from the very beginning. It's nothing new. We tried to tell them KUv2 wasn't going to be any better, and in fact be worse, and it was, as we can see. But they won't listen, because until it costs them big money, they aren't going to change anything. And when they do, it will likely be even more effed up than what's going on now.

Frankly, it gets kind of tiring to see the same crap going on, and then have people pop into these threads and defend it. Or tell us we're all crazy, jealous nobodies who should be grateful we can sell a couple of books. I do get a laugh out of them insulting the "big" name authors who are saying the same things the little guys are, so there's that.

Anyway, like David, I doubt seriously there will be much fallout from this. A few people will get their accounts terminated, a whole bunch of innocent authors will be caught up in the new bots, and the rest of us will watch any hope of doing something with our books waltz away with a scammer.


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2018)

she-la-ti-da said:


> Anyway, like David, I doubt seriously there will be much fallout from this. A few people will get their accounts terminated, a whole bunch of innocent authors will be caught up in the new bots, and the rest of us will watch any hope of doing something with our books waltz away with a scammer.


So. Nothing will change. Innocent people are getting hurt. Yeahhh, sounds like this was really worth the fuss to begin with. Maybe next time lets not cut off our noses to spite our faces.

(And for the record, I said that SOME people who are complaining are clearly jealous, will probably never sell more than a few copies of their books because they don't write to market and don't listen to good advice when they're given it. But feel free to only look at half of what I said and pretend it means I was talking about everyone who's complaining.)


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

mawnster said:


> So. Nothing will change. Innocent people are getting hurt. Yeahhh, sounds like this was really worth the fuss to begin with. Maybe next time lets not cut off our noses to spite our faces.


Leaving aside your ability to see the future, innocent people are getting hurt, yes. Dozens of innocent authors have been rank-stripped. Others have had page reads retroactively reduced. Many more have missed out on bonuses and chart positions. And everyone has had their KU payouts reduced.

But let's be clear: that's on the scammers and cheaters, and on Amazon for cutting corners and not acting comprehensively.

Probably not on the people campaigning against the scammers - who also happen to be the people helping those who have been rank-stripped btw. Must have missed the time when you chipped in to help...


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

she-la-ti-da said:


> Anyway, like David, I doubt seriously there will be much fallout from this. A few people will get their accounts terminated, a whole bunch of innocent authors will be caught up in the new bots, and the rest of us will watch any hope of doing something with our books waltz away with a scammer.


That's not my view, actually. I was merely outlining three possibilities:

1. This is a warning shot. 
2. This is a precedent - heralding a wider crackdown to come.
3. This is Amazon hammering one guy to pretend they did something.

I think 1 or 2 are more likely myself. In fact, I think this might be in play. I get the sense there is some disagreement internally at Amazon about which path to take. I also think that press attention could nudge them towards option 2.

And look at that, here's Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamrowe1/2018/04/07/amazon-has-filed-suit-to-stop-the-six-figure-book-stuffing-kindle-scam/#5c9abf287344

Not the last article, I suspect. I think the walls are going to start closing in on all these chancey characters.


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2018)

dgaughran said:


> Leaving aside your ability to see the future, innocent people are getting hurt, yes. Dozens of innocent authors have been rank-stripped. Others have had page reads retroactively reduced. Many more have missed out on bonuses and chart positions. And everyone has had their KU payouts reduced.
> 
> But let's be clear: that's on the scammers and cheaters, and on Amazon for cutting corners and not acting comprehensively.
> 
> Probably not on the people campaigning against the scammers - who also happen to be the people helping those who have been rank-stripped btw. Must have missed the time when you chipped in to help...


Nah. I think this is also on the people who were told, time and time again "the TOS is not clear on this. Amazon is not clear on this. Amazon has been giving out conflicting information, let's not upset the apple cart," and yet decided anyway to push forward on their witch hunt. You were told, time and time again, by so many people: Amazon will hurt innocent authors in their effort to clamp down on bad behavior. We saw this with the rank stripping, lots of innocent authors who had NO extra bonus content in their books at ALL got their rank stripped, and the rank stripping was applauded by the witch-hunters, determined that the "nasty bad boy romance authors" should get their due above all else, no matter what. "The gang of masterminds, they're putting us all out of business, oooooo, those guys are terrible!!! Taking our page reads and writing books people want to read and enjoy so much that they *continue reading all the bonus content because it's relevant to them as customers and is giving them what they want*. How dare they trick customers into *consuming more product they actually want to consume.*"

There will always be people who cheat the system. Always. Any system, anywhere, there will be someone cheating it. This wasn't worth it. My friends who've lost half their income? Even if they agreed with you before, now realize, that this fight wasn't worth picking. That's their light bill. Their groceries for their kids. The punishment is going to rain heavily on the people who can afford this the least. I hope for your reputation's sake that you're right, that only the scammers will end up paying the price, and every innocent authors page reads will be restored.

_Edited to remove personal comments. PM me any questions. Evenstar, Moderator_


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

mawnster said:


> That's sorta the rub. The* book stuffers and the scammers (two different sets of people cause they're not one and the same)* are basically mostly hurting other book stuffers and scammers. Average Joe Writer who sells a copy of his book once a month and gets a few page reads and here isn't being "cheated" out of anything that's even measurable.
> 
> Like, I'm in the top 1500 authors on Zon and book stuffers probably aren't taking all that much money out of my pocket, certainly not enough to warrant asking Zon to come down and have a good look at EVERYBODY. Cause whenever Zon gets involved, they always overreact, innocent people get swept under, and I don't want to be one of the innocents that loses my income.


Bolded part: your assumption. In some cases (or even many?) the two definitely _are_ the same. For every supposedly innocent book stuffer who believes that what s/he is doing is perfectly in accord with the TOS, there are two or three-- or 100?-- stuffers who _know_ that what they're doing crosses the line, but they do it anyway on the basis of "who's going to know, and what are the odds of getting caught, and who cares as long as I make money."

Again, maybe not all, but definitely many, or it wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2018)

Jena H said:


> Bolded part: your assumption. In some cases (or even many?) the two definitely _are_ the same. For every supposedly innocent book stuffer who believes that what s/he is doing is perfectly in accord with the TOS, there are two or three-- or 100?-- stuffers who _know_ that what they're doing crosses the line, but they do it anyway on the basis of "who's going to know, and what are the odds of getting caught, and who cares as long as I make money."
> 
> Again, maybe not all, but definitely many, or it wouldn't be a problem.


If it's my assumption that these are two different cases, then it's your assumption that they're one and the same in many cases. Since neither of us has hard evidence to prove ourselves 100% correct, all we can go off is our assumptions.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

The first case out of arbitration is someone who is accused of being stuffer and a clickfarm user, btw.

For the record, I've repeatedly said that these cheaters all have a different approach. Some manipulate reviews, some don't. Some incentivize purchases or engage in mass gifting, some don't. Some used Click Here inducements, some didn't. Some stuff ten books in, some stuff two. Some use clickfarms and bots, some don't.

Some people have gone pretty deep into scamworld, others have just taken a few steps. Maybe they are still figuring out all the scams, maybe they are scared of getting caught and are trying to stay under the radar.

Either way, if Amazon comes down like a ton of bricks on all the stuffers, I won't be shedding many tears, and I doubt anyone else will.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

mawnster said:


> If it's my assumption that these are two different cases, then it's your assumption that they're one and the same in many cases. Since neither of us has hard evidence to prove ourselves 100% correct, all we can go off is our assumptions.


Wrong. We do have hard evidence. Amazon's arbitration demand states clearly that this author was engaged in using clickfarms and bots, and also stuffing.

Maybe you should do some reading.


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2018)

dgaughran said:


> Wrong. We do have hard evidence. Amazon's arbitration demand states clearly that this author was engaged in using clickfarms and bots, and also stuffing.
> 
> Maybe you should do some reading.


One author. One. That's really not hard evidence for what you're claiming at all, that there's huge circles of authors doing the same thing.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

mawnster said:


> One author. One. That's really not hard evidence for what you're claiming at all, that there's huge circles of authors doing the same thing.


This reading thing is really tripping you up.



dgaughran said:


> For the record, I've repeatedly said that these cheaters all have a different approach. Some manipulate reviews, some don't. Some incentivize purchases or engage in mass gifting, some don't. Some used Click Here inducements, some didn't. Some stuff ten books in, some stuff two. Some use clickfarms and bots, some don't.


And if you want hard evidence on any of that, I'd say it would be a good idea to keep an eye on the newspapers over the next little while


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

mawnster said:


> If it's my assumption that these are two different cases, then it's your assumption that they're one and the same in many cases. Since neither of us has hard evidence to prove ourselves 100% correct, all we can go off is our assumptions.


What about the stuffers who pack their backmatter with "bonus content" that's gibberish? Like bad copy/paste or translation jobs. It's been done--any gobbledygook to fill pages. No point in trying to pretend that those "writers" are doing anything other than scamming.


----------



## MKK (Jun 9, 2015)

dgaughran said:


> Amazon doesn't have a review process, but let's tackle the handwavium anyway: if you are smuggling a key of coke in your jocks and walk by a cop who just assumes you are well endowed, that doesn't legalize your package.


Two things...first, I am going to borrow 'handwavium' and put it in a story at some point and second, thanks for the laugh. Had me smiling through my morning coffee. Nicely played.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

mawnster said:


> There will always be people who cheat the system. Always. Any system, anywhere, there will be someone cheating it. This wasn't worth it. My friends who've lost half their income? Even if they agreed with you before, now realize, that this fight wasn't worth picking. That's their light bill. Their groceries for their kids. The punishment is going to rain heavily on the people who can afford this the least. I hope for your reputation's sake that you're right, that only the scammers will end up paying the price, and every innocent authors page reads will be restored.


I find it ridiculous that you apparently prefer a system where scammers are collecting an increasing amount of the payments over legit, hardworking writers of every level of success. I can't believe you really think that is preferable to a well-moderated system that tries to root out fraud.

Oh, and David Gaughran's reputation will be just fine. The guy has been doing yeoman's work on our behalf for years. If Amazon was smart at all, they'd pay him a retainer and let him personally handpick the scammers whose accounts they should nuke.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

MonkeyScribe said:


> I find it ridiculous that you apparently prefer a system where scammers are collecting an increasing amount of the payments over legit, hardworking writers of every level of success. I can't believe you really think that is preferable to a well-moderated system that tries to root out fraud.


Let's see... anon poster defending stuffing who joined KBoards last July around the time of the first stuffer thread here, and has only posted on stuffing threads since... I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest they might like the status quo just fine.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

dgaughran said:


> Let's see... anon poster defending stuffing who joined KBoards last July around the time of the first stuffer thread here, and has only posted on stuffing threads since... I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest they might like the status quo just fine.


Or it could be that they're just so, so worried about the innocents who might be harmed. Oh, and stuffing isn't necessarily wrong anyway, and if it were it would be Amazon's fault for letting it happen, so whatever. I forgot to mention that if there _were_ such a thing as book stuffing, that it wouldn't be taking money or visibility from other writers, who are either so rich already that it doesn't matter, or sell so few books that who cares?

Did I cover all the bullet points of the scammer defenders, or did I miss any?


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

MonkeyScribe said:


> Or it could be that they're just so, so worried about the innocents who might be harmed. Oh, and stuffing isn't necessarily wrong anyway, and if it were it would be Amazon's fault for letting it happen, so whatever. I forgot to mention that if there _were_ such a thing as book stuffing, that it wouldn't be taking money or visibility from other writers, who are either so rich already that it doesn't matter, or sell so few books that who cares?
> 
> Did I cover all the bullet points of the scammer defenders, or did I miss any?


Yeah, you missed this one: you can only succeed today by stuffing - even though it doesn't do much, or happen much, or affect anyone.

Or my favorite: that stuffing is terrible and it would be oh-so-great if Amazon was clearer but we should all do it until Jeff takes out a front page ad in the NYT.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

dgaughran said:


> Or my favorite: that stuffing is terrible and it would be oh-so-great if Amazon was clearer but we should all do it until Jeff takes out a front page ad in the NYT.


Not enough, I'm afraid. The NYT means they're just winking in the direction of the literary establishment, but clearly, if they wanted to change their business model, they'd have included the Wall Street Journal, as well. So until they take out front page ads denouncing stuffing in both the NYT and the WSJ (and also the Springdale Squealer so that we'd know they were concerned about reaching the heartland), then they're not seriously against the practice.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Shelley K said:


> Something I think many people are overlooking is this: how many people using bots and clickfarms that Amazon eliminates will it take to change how much you get paid? One scammer who maybe took a few million out of the pot in a month? Five? Most people, who have relatively low page reads, will never notice a difference. Just a data point.


Not overlooking that at all. For me personally this isn't about getting a bonus check from Amazon. It's about not liking cheaters, scammers, and other assorted unsavory types dirtying this industry and giving all indie authors a black eye in the process. It's like seeing someone breaking into your neighbor's house and calling the cops. It's not about getting a reward (or hopefully isn't) so much as it is about doing the right thing.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Speaking as one of the dolphins who did get caught up in the rank-stripping net and who lost promo and tail money, I can say that I'm still an outspoken advocate for Amazon getting rid of the scammers (which, you know, includes the book stuffers who are scamming page reads, and also includes the scammers [who in many cases also stuff] who are incentivizing sales, borrows, page reads and reviews).

I'm also a big advocate of Amazon doing it without catching up the dolphins. Which it can do. There seems to be a mindset here that dolphins HAVE to get caught up. Just like the tuna industry adamantly declared...until companies found ways to not catch up dolphins, to find a market niche and to stroke the publicity machine to better profits.

As the saying goes, this isn't rocket science. And since Bezos seems to have mastered rocket science, finding ways to keep dolphins and other by-catch out of the tuna nets can't be too daunting a task.

But no change will occur until injured parties and/or others who care speak out. Amazon is driven by public opinion. And Amazon has now kindly pointed out that, in its estimation, non-scamming authors ARE being injured.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

mawnster said:


> That's sorta the rub. The book stuffers and the scammers (two different sets of people cause they're not one and the same) are basically mostly hurting other book stuffers and scammers. Average Joe Writer who sells a copy of his book once a month and gets a few page reads and here isn't being "cheated" out of anything that's even measurable.
> 
> Like, I'm in the top 1500 authors on Zon and book stuffers probably aren't taking all that much money out of my pocket, certainly not enough to warrant asking Zon to come down and have a good look at EVERYBODY. Cause whenever Zon gets involved, they always overreact, innocent people get swept under, and I don't want to be one of the innocents that loses my income.


That's a lot of protesting for somebody whose visibility is presumably being hurt by the scammers. Visibility is money on Amazon. For me, that amounts to thousands or tens of thousands a month (how would you know for sure), and, yes, I care.

This garbage also damages the reputation of KU books. Readers can no longer trust reviews (purchased/incentivized) or chart position (purchased/botted). That's a bad blow, and I suspect that has something to do with Amazon's actions.

I'm truly sorry about innocent folk who get caught up as Amazon takes its usual sledgehammer to the issue. (Including me, if I get caught up!) But that's not a reason to let cheaters win.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

MonkeyScribe said:


> I find it ridiculous that you apparently prefer a system where scammers are collecting an increasing amount of the payments over legit, hardworking writers of every level of success. I can't believe you really think that is preferable to a well-moderated system that tries to root out fraud.
> 
> Oh, and David Gaughran's reputation will be just fine. The guy has been doing yeoman's work on our behalf for years. If Amazon was smart at all, they'd pay him a retainer and let him personally handpick the scammers whose accounts they should nuke.


This.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

fwiw I'm TOTALLY OKAY with being viewed dimly by scammers, cheats, and weasels of any kind.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Where's the darn Like button?


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

she-la-ti-da said:


> Then you'd go into it knowing that you'd be capped at 1K KENPC. So long as it's clear and you sign up anyway, it may be a bummer for you, but think of how much better the program will be.
> 
> And yes, this is all Amazon's fault. People have tried and tried to tell them how screwed up KU was, from the very beginning. It's nothing new. We tried to tell them KUv2 wasn't going to be any better, and in fact be worse, and it was, as we can see. But they won't listen, because *until it costs them big money*, they aren't going to change anything. And when they do, it will likely be even more effed up than what's going on now.
> 
> ...


And the bolded part is another part of this where the court case is going to be amazing.

How do you prove something is costing you money when you yourself decide every month exactly how much money the entire program will cost you?


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

As Usedtoposthere stated -- visibility appears to be important to success on Amazon. 

The ones who are gaming the KU system are presumably gaining visibility at others' expense, and not just the visibility of those who have books on KU and don't stuff their ebooks to War And Peace file sizes.

I would guess that they are also reducing some of the visibility of those who aren't in KU, although I don't understand the nuances of the system to say that for sure.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I also want to add, since this behavior is similar/engaged in by many of the same people as the stuffing and so forth (the gift cards for the cost of the book, gifting of books, etc.--practices that the Usual Suspects have come on here and defended as "fine with Amazon)--here's an article from Business Insider about how Amazon is shutting down CUSTOMERS' accounts for participating in these types of activities. Customers have said that they didn't know such things weren't allowed--perhaps because the seller (author?) was telling them that it was fine. (I've seen that "gifting" thing defended here soooo many times.)

Of course, this is not only about books, probably only partially about books, but it's mighty interesting. This seems to be a sweep on multiple fronts. (And yes, I know there's a thread about this here somewhere, but I think it's all part of the same deal.) I'll add--be careful if you're in a boxed set or any other multi-author deal! Even if you didn't think up whatever idea it is, you could be caught up and your account jeopardized. Some folks are saying this is short-term, smoke and mirrors by Amazon, won't change anything. I am not so sure. It looks like a concerted effort to me.

http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-sent-customers-email-after-accounts-closed-2018-4


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

If a store decided not to do business with me, I would go to another store. The reactions on social media from those whose accounts were closed seem odd to me. I've seen people talking about filing class-action suits. To me, this sounds more like people whose businesses are being harmed rather than people who have to find a new source for shoe laces and dog food.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

brkingsolver said:


> If a store decided not to do business with me, I would go to another store. The reactions on social media from those whose accounts were closed seem odd to me. I've seen people talking about filing class-action suits. To me, this sounds more like people whose businesses are being harmed rather than people who have to find a new source for shoe laces and dog food.


I hadn't thought of it that way. Probably a good point.

I mean, a few months back I got an email from Amazon Fresh telling me they were no longer serving my area. It was annoying for about a half hour and then I opened a Peapod account instead. Seemed a lot easier than talking to my lawyer.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

jb1111 said:


> As Usedtoposthere stated -- visibility appears to be important to success on Amazon.
> 
> The ones who are gaming the KU system are presumably gaining visibility at others' expense, and not just the visibility of those who have books on KU and don't stuff their ebooks to War And Peace file sizes.
> 
> I would guess that they are also reducing some of the visibility of those who aren't in KU, although I don't understand the nuances of the system to say that for sure.


Except Amazon also makes up the dumbass computer voodoo that controls visibility. It stands to reason they woulnd't be the ones with standing in this case, other KU authors would.

In fact, it's Amazon wrongly reducing the visibility of those not in KU.

That's not saying the scamming isn't wrong, but honestly, this is the mad scientist being eaten by their creation and complaining about it.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

TwistedTales said:


> Most of the fussing is about losing access to data, like cloud and kindle books, plus the prepaid subscriptions and orders. I can understand why they're angry about that, otherwise most should just give Amazon the finger and find a new supplier. It's one thing to feel forced to put up with Amazon's shenanigans as a supplier, but as a buyer why would anyone bother? Many companies, including big names like Walmart, are lifting their online buying and delivery game this year, so buyers have more options than they ever did now.


Very good point. If I was to lose all the books I have paid for but haven't read yet, I would be angry. As to data in the cloud, I work in IT and don't trust Amazon or Micro$oft to value my data, so I don't store things there. But I know many people do. If Dropbox went belly up, a huge number of authors would be damaged. Unfortunately, the ToS we agree to with companies such as Amazon and M$ are very one sided. Either agree to hold them blameless when they nuke us, or do business elsewhere.

One of the sad things about ebooks is that the buyer only licenses the book. If Amazon decides to take our money and then claw back the book, we have no recourse.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Except Amazon also makes up the dumbass computer voodoo that controls visibility. It stands to reason they woulnd't be the ones with standing in this case, other KU authors would.
> 
> In fact, it's Amazon wrongly reducing the visibility of those not in KU.
> 
> That's not saying the scamming isn't wrong, but honestly, this is the mad scientist being eaten by their creation and complaining about it.


Again--just because you didn't lock your door, it doesn't make it OK that people came in and looted your house. They don't get to say, "Hey, all these other guys were carrying out TVs. If it's there for the taking and the cops don't care, why should I?"

Nobody is saying Amazon has done enough about the bad actors. We're sure hoping they'll do more. It makes us angry that our house is being looted, and the cops are off playing poker instead of running some fingerprints. It's possible to be upset with more than one person or company at once.


----------



## SaraBourgeois (Aug 17, 2016)

The timing of this tempest in a teacup action being blown up into a social media storm is auspicious for one of the main pot stirrers who happens to have an author-targeted non-fiction book dropping this month. Seems like a good way to drum up publicity and manufactured clout to help one sell books. But, I'm sure that's totes ethical...


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

SaraBourgeois said:


> The timing of this tempest in a teacup action being blown up into a social media storm is auspicious for one of the main pot stirrers who happens to have an author-targeted non-fiction book dropping this month. Seems like a good way to drum up publicity and manufactured clout to help one sell books. But, I'm sure that's totes ethical...


Here. I think you dropped a few of the straws you were trying to grasp.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

SaraBourgeois said:


> The timing of this tempest in a teacup action being blown up into a social media storm is auspicious for one of the main pot stirrers who happens to have an author-targeted non-fiction book dropping this month. Seems like a good way to drum up publicity and manufactured clout to help one sell books. But, I'm sure that's totes ethical...


Pfft, David Gaughran is an industry whistleblower who talks about things of importance regardless of whether or not he has a book to publish. He's been talking about this particular issue since long before I'd even heard about his new release.

ETA: I just looked at your history. It seems like you were on David's side a few months ago when he was raising awareness about men pretending to be women on social media for the sake maintaining an erotica persona, and then engaging in erotic talk with unaware women. Was that also "pot stirring?"


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

SaraBourgeois said:


> The timing of this tempest in a teacup action being blown up into a social media storm is auspicious for one of the main pot stirrers who happens to have an author-targeted non-fiction book dropping this month. Seems like a good way to drum up publicity and manufactured clout to help one sell books. But, I'm sure that's totes ethical...


Wow. That is lovely. Nope.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

SaraBourgeois said:


> The timing of this tempest in a teacup action being blown up into a social media storm is auspicious for one of the main pot stirrers who happens to have an author-targeted non-fiction book dropping this month. Seems like a good way to drum up publicity and manufactured clout to help one sell books. But, I'm sure that's totes ethical...


I've been campaigning against all forms of scamming for six or seven years, but nice try.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Again--just because you didn't lock your door, it doesn't make it OK that people came in and looted your house. They don't get to say, "Hey, all these other guys were carrying out TVs. If it's there for the taking and the cops don't care, why should I?"
> 
> Nobody is saying Amazon has done enough about the bad actors. We're sure hoping they'll do more. It makes us angry that our house is being looted, and the cops are off playing poker instead of running some fingerprints. It's possible to be upset with more than one person or company at once.


You keep equating scamming to crime perpetrated against a hapless victim.

Amazon allowed this bad, non-criminal behavior until they no longer needed it and are now crying foul without anything that appears to be legal standing. IANAL, but in order to win a suit like this, you need to prove standing: IE, that you were done legally defined harm by the actions of another.

That's where they're going to have a problem because they have all the legally dubious control in their relationship with authors, especially the KU authors. They can change the terms at will, and define (retroactively) how much money will be paid to KU authors. So they have to prove that the TOS is actually properly legally binding (the easy part because Amazon can afford enough congressmen to get away with this BS), and then that they lost money on a program where they decide how much money they're going to spend after the fact.

It's less leaving your house unlocked and someone stealing from you and more giving away all your furniture, then getting mad at the type of moving truck they used. Oh yeah, and you were letting people take that furniture to avoid paying them fairly for their furniture disposal services.

The only victims in this whole things are also the only ones not involved in the lawsuit.

If Amazon released information to other KU authors so they could sue, then we'd have something, but Amazon's not being hurt at all by the cottage industry of scams _they fostered and encouraged_.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

dgaughran said:


> I've been campaigning against all forms of scamming for six or seven years, but nice try.


Aw, c'mon David, don't you think a little "shoot the messenger" is a good distraction?  Works for the politicians.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

All I see is one male with an axe to grind against bad boy romance authors - an area heavily read by women - to advance his own agenda. I think it's against Zon TOS to attack fellow authors for your own gain. I also think it's sexist. Not everyone agrees with ya'all that what this Jake guy did is anything like using bonus books from a back catalog. That is just one man's interpretation of things & many believe it's incorrect & obviously an attempt to smear authors of romance for his own gain.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

writerlygal said:


> All I see is one male with an axe to grind against bad boy romance authors - an area heavily read by women - to advance his own agenda. I think it's against Zon TOS to attack fellow authors for your own gain. I also think it's sexist. Not everyone agrees with ya'all that what this Jake guy did is anything like using bonus books from a back catalog. That is just one man's interpretation of things & many believe it's incorrect & obviously an attempt to smear authors of romance for his own gain.


*checks personal anatomy*
*checks the nearly 200 romance titles that have under my management*
*checks that I am, indeed, not David*

*checks the same for usedtoposthere, Rick, and the many others weighing in*

Um, what?


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Most hilarious handwavium yet!


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

People who think it's okay to include bonus books are free to lay out and defend their reasoning, but personal attacks on David need to stop immediately.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

SaraBourgeois said:


> The timing of this tempest in a teacup action being blown up into a social media storm is auspicious for one of the main pot stirrers who happens to have an author-targeted non-fiction book dropping this month. Seems like a good way to drum up publicity and manufactured clout to help one sell books. But, I'm sure that's totes ethical...


Well, that settles that, then... Guess it's time to close the thread.

Meanwhile, nothing's changed. At the moment, the top three books in New Adult remained stuffed with bonus books. Maybe they didn't get the word.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

It's funny how whenever anyone has a differing opinion we are called scammers or made fun of & attacked personally. Why is that okay?


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> People who think it's okay to include bonus books are free to lay out and defend their reasoning, but personal attacks on David need to stop immediately.


I'm a defender of David, and fully on his side in this, but I will say that the personal attacks are revealing, if nothing else.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

writerlygal said:


> That's fine, laugh at me all you want. I'm quite prepared to be made fun of & called a scammer just because I disagree with David & his own business 'ethics.' Doesn't change my own opinion, which everyone is entitled to.


Everyone is entitled to hold whatever opinions appeal to them, but not all opinions may be shared here. If you want to lay out exactly why you think bonus books are okay, you may do so. (Though personally, I think the reasoning there has been pretty thoroughly covered.)


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

For the record I am questioning the business 'ethics' of attacking other comepetitors in order to make a name for oneself & sell books. I am also questioning the attacking of a subset of writers ('bad boy romance authors 's as they've been called) who produce content for & about women. I don't need to talk about any specific person to say that I think both things are wrong & one of those things is sexist. If you would like me to adjust anything I've said to remove names I'm happy to do so.  But I think I'm entitled to share my opinion on this matter just as everyone else is. Thanks for your time & moderation.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

writerlygal said:


> It's funny how whenever anyone has a differing opinion we are called scammers or made fun of & attacked personally. Why is that okay?


Amazon has filed a lawsuit against those with a so-called "differing opinion," so Amazon believes they are scamming the system. We happen to agree with that position. I'm not sure what you mean by "attacked personally." How do you personally attack someone named "writerlygal?"


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

Becca Mills said:


> Everyone is entitled to hold whatever opinions appeal to them, but not all opinions may be shared here. If you want to lay out exactly why you think bonus books are okay, you may do so. (Though personally, I think the reasoning there has been pretty thoroughly covered.)


Yes, I agree, which is why I don't think any of this is much about bonus books anymore & has turned into something much bigger. But if this is not the time & place to do that I respect that since it's your forum, your rules, & will continue the discussions about this elsewhere [which some commenters here have alluded to & which is why many authors have changed their opinions on the bonus book issue due to the larger context & tactics of those purportedly against bonus books]. I just think that if personal attacks aren't allowed then those who have expressed differing opinions only to be called scammers & be laughed at [by many people here, including David] should also be afforded the same protection.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

writerlygal said:


> Yes, I agree, which is why I don't think any of this is much about bonus books anymore & has turned into something much bigger. But if this is not the time & place to do that I respect that & will continue the discussions elsewhere.Thanks. I just think that if personal attacks aren't allowed then those who have expressed differing opinions only to be called scammers & be laughed at by many people here including David should also be afforded the same protection.


You're arguing to protect people who are trying to game the system, as evidenced by someone being sued by Amazon for exactly that thing. What's next, protecting the opinions of Nigerian princes who need your bank account information so they can transfer $25,000,000 into the United States?


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Dpock said:


> Well, that settles that, then... Guess it's time to close the thread.
> 
> Meanwhile, nothing's changed. At the moment, the top three books in New Adult remained stuffed with bonus books. Maybe they didn't get the word.


They are getting better at disguising it, i.e. it's not so blatant until you check the ToC and file size.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

writerlygal said:


> I don't need to talk about any specific person to say that I think both things are wrong & one of those things is sexist.


Leaving aside my own purported sexism for a moment to speak more generally, is it possible to be sexist when talking about a group of dudes pretending to be women? I mean, some of them are women, and one is openly a dude... it's super confusing! Also, is it sexist when a woman details the same problematic behavior?

Some clarification pls.


----------



## Flee (Dec 3, 2017)

Alarming.  This thread has been an eye opener for me.  At the same time, it is making me more than a little nervous.  I'm very close to pulling the trigger on a largish commitment for ARC reviews for my debut novel.

I'm all-in with KU for this first launch and will need all of the credentials that the ARC can provide before I begin promotions.  The paperback is live, the ebook version waits until there is some interest by reviewers.  Now...I suppose the best thing to do is finish the second book and see what happens next.

There has been the usual amount of kicking, gouging, hair pulling, and name calling in this thread.  There also has been the smallish amount of humor that relieve my stress levels.

Keep on keeping on Kboarders.  I love it here.

Flee


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

writerlygal said:


> It's funny how whenever anyone has a differing opinion we are called scammers or made fun of & attacked personally. Why is that okay?


I have not see anyone directly call you a "scammer," writerlygal. If they have, report the post and it will be edited or deleted.

More broadly, it is clear that many members of our community see bonus-book inclusion as a form of scamming, and we do permit them to say so. One downside of using the bonus-book strategy is that some of one's peers will think ill of one. There's not much way around that. We can prevent the "scammer" slur from being directly lobbed at another member in a post, but as you said above, people's internal opinions are their own business, and opinions on this matter seem deeply held.



writerlygal said:


> Yes, I agree, which is why I don't think any of this is much about bonus books anymore & has turned into something much bigger. But if this is not the time & place to do that I respect that since it's your forum, your rules, & will continue the discussions about this elsewhere [which some commenters here have alluded to & which is why many authors have changed their oopinions on the bonus book issue due to the larger context & tactics of those purportedly against bonus books]. I just think that if personal attacks aren't allowed then those who have expressed differing opinions only to be called scammers & be laughed at [by many people here, including David] should also be afforded the same protection.


We will afford you that protection as best we're able -- tone is harder to moderate than outright slurs. Please use the "report" feature on any posts you think cross the line.

I strongly believe that the more everyone is able to focus on the substance of the matter -- rather than on one another's anonymity, thread-participation patterns, recent publications, gender, etc. -- the more productive and sustainable these conversations will be.


----------



## OhMo (Apr 1, 2018)

Hot topic! The letters are melting off the keys on my keyboard! 

As a reader, I dislike anything but _The _book stuffed into a book without a compelling reason. Page after page after page after page of front and back matter detract from the story supposedly being told within the Book. As an author competing for those page reads/$$, I like the non-story stuff even less.

Example: I joined up with KU the other day and have a 30 day trial period. First book borrowed was a best seller with about 20 pages of useless front matter and about the same amount on the back end. What hooked me to read it turned out to be a 10 page prologue that had nothing discernible to do with the story, which fell apart 3 pages into the first chapter. An appropriate review was left that included the term "stuffing".


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

dgaughran said:


> And, just because it has come up a few times, I wouldn't necessarily assume that a class action suit v Amazon is necessarily an impossibility.


Including the words "class action lawsuit" in a recent email to Amazon netted me a reply from a department I have never seen answer CS emails before. And it wasn't the department of "Go ahead and try, we're not worried."


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

writerlygal said:


> For the record I am questioning the business 'ethics' of attacking other comepetitors in order to make a name for oneself & sell books.


Talk about assuming facts not in evidence...

First of all, David does not write romance novels and therefore these books stuffers are in no way his competition. Secondly, you may have an opinion about his motivations-one that myself and others vehemently disagree with-but you lose all credibility when you state it as fact, as if you can possibly know what's in his mind and heart.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

SaraBourgeois said:


> The timing of this tempest in a teacup action being blown up into a social media storm is auspicious for one of the main pot stirrers who happens to have an author-targeted non-fiction book dropping this month. Seems like a good way to drum up publicity and manufactured clout to help one sell books. But, I'm sure that's totes ethical...


Yes, he's definitely been banging this drum for more than a year now, and generally playing watchdog over scammers of all ilk, in print and e-book, trad and non, for the last four or five years, so he could bolster the success of the book he has coming out this month. Good catch.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

PhoenixS said:


> *checks personal anatomy*
> *checks the nearly 200 romance titles that have under my management*
> *checks that I am, indeed, not David*
> 
> ...


I'm a gurl, too. I'd take a picture to prove it, but ain't nobody needs to see that. You all probably just ate lunch.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

writerlygal said:


> All I see is one male with an axe to grind against bad boy romance authors - an area heavily read by women - to advance his own agenda. I think it's against Zon TOS to attack fellow authors for your own gain. I also think it's sexist. Not everyone agrees with ya'all that what this Jake guy did is anything like using bonus books from a back catalog. That is just one man's interpretation of things & many believe it's incorrect & obviously an attempt to smear authors of romance for his own gain.


Plenty of romance authors absolutely adore David, myself included. Our category is a dumpster-fire, and he's been a voice for those of us who don't have much platform. Those who don't like what he has to say are generally the exact people he's talking about, so those of us who aren't cheaters and scammers don't concern ourselves overmuch with what those folks think -- of us, or of him.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

I'm glad to see Amazon taking a stand. One of the reasons I no longer browse for mail-order bride books is because of bonus content. As a reader, it's not my thing. I select a book for one story, see it's long, like the blurb etc, and take a chance. I've gotten burned like this: ended up being that the book was actually a short story with many other stories (not so good ones a lot of the time) added in that are not on the blurb. I have felt ripped off by what I thought would be one long story ended up being an experience I did not pay for. Bonus content within reason looks like a sample chapter or whatever, not extra stories. It'll be interesting to see the outcome here.


----------



## SaraBourgeois (Aug 17, 2016)

If Amazon really cared, they would take the books down. They don't care. Ya'll can keep reporting them until you are blue in the face if that's what floats your boat, but Amazon has proven time and time again that they don't care. Sure, they went to arbitration with a guy using skip links and bots, but as far as bonus book "stuffing" their actions have proven they don't care. I would think after you'd reported a book 11 times and Amazon did nothing in response, the light bulb would eventually go on.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

SaraBourgeois said:


> If Amazon really cared, they would take the books down. They don't care. Ya'll can keep reporting them until you are blue in the face if that's what floats your boat, but Amazon has proven time and time again that they don't care. Sure, they went to arbitration with a guy using skip links and bots, but as far as bonus book "stuffing" their actions have proven they don't care. I would think after you'd reported a book 11 times and Amazon did nothing in response, the light bulb would eventually go on.


It took 2 years before Amazon decided to enforce its policy that KU books in multi-author boxes need to be exclusive to the publisher too.

Same with allowing authors to change the pub date on the dash -- a function they removed from author control a year or more after rampant scamming to serially land books on the New Release List.

It took well over a year to get the Top 100 Free list fairly cleaned up from the botters.

Amazon doesn't care. Until it cares.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

SaraBourgeois said:


> If Amazon really cared, they would take the books down. They don't care. Ya'll can keep reporting them until you are blue in the face if that's what floats your boat, but Amazon has proven time and time again that they don't care. Sure, they went to arbitration with a guy using skip links and bots, but as far as bonus book "stuffing" their actions have proven they don't care. I would think after you'd reported a book 11 times and Amazon did nothing in response, the light bulb would eventually go on.


Do you really think Amazon is doing this because of author complaints? Because of Indies?

Amazon is doing what's best for its bottom line. That's it. No conspiracy theories here, although those are fun, especially when aliens are involved


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

PhoenixS said:


> It took 2 years before Amazon decided to enforce its policy that KU books in multi-author boxes need to be exclusive to the publisher too.
> 
> Same with allowing authors to change the pub date on the dash -- a function they removed from author control a year or more after rampant scamming to serially land books on the New Release List.
> 
> ...


^^^ All of this.

Also, fighting the good fight isn't always about results. Sometimes it's just what's in one's nature to do.


----------



## MmmmmPie (Jun 23, 2015)

writerlygal said:


> All I see is one male with an axe to grind against bad boy romance authors - an area heavily read by women - to advance his own agenda. I think it's against Zon TOS to attack fellow authors for your own gain. I also think it's sexist. Not everyone agrees with ya'all that what this Jake guy did is anything like using bonus books from a back catalog. That is just one man's interpretation of things & many believe it's incorrect & obviously an attempt to smear authors of romance for his own gain.


Oh, please. Romance authors (the majority of whom ARE female) have suffered more than anyone due to these scammers. David is our knight in shining armor, not the villain in this story. Speaking as a female romance author AND reader, I'm beyond thankful that David, Phoenix and others have championed the rights of authors who play by the rules.

You're making yourself look foolish with these personal attacks. Please, just stop already.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I wasn't going to post in the WC anymore, but I guess this issue is close to my heart. I am a huge romance reader. I am not an author, nor will I ever be. I have turned away from indie published romance books, because in part of these scammers. Especially when it comes to contempo romance. I am a female romance reader that subscribes to KU. So its a triple slap in the face to me. 

I have learned a while back that many of them are men pretending to be women. I have gotten flack in the past for saying I don't trust male "romance" authors much. This is why. They laugh behind our backs, they sneer at us female romance readers and yet they want our money. Some of them are male, some of them are female. They are all ruining it for all of us. The real authors of contempo romance are losing here, male and female. I can't trust anything anymore. So I either stick with known trade publisher authors, or those I have read in the past. I don't even attempt any new authors in the genre anymore. If I want bad boy, I go to previously published with harlequin like presents. Maybe outdated, but at least I don't have to deal with stuffed garbage. Or I stick with Montlake which is all in KU. And formerly out of print stuff which lots is in KU also. All known entities. 

I for one appreciate those that have been putting this stuff out there for all of us to see. That includes dgaughran, phoenix, usedtoposthere and everyone else that is fighting the good fight. 

Many of us readers are watching this and have for some time. We have also complained to Amazon and continue to do so. I am tired of the scammers ruining my favorite genre. Sick of it. 

Ok, backing out of WC again.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

Just out of curiosity, I put together some numbers for the damage I think I could do if I decided to stuff. I would never do it, but I don't think people see the grand scope.
* I have 129 books (a few not published yet), but you get what I'm saying. And, for the record, not one is ghost written. That's also under two names.
* I have 18 30K shorts (will be 20 by the end of the year)
* That's 14 different series (fifteen if you consider the shorts their own series).
* My KENPC is roughy 340 pages for a pen name book, 150 for a short, and about 470 for a main name book.

So, what does that mean? It means I could essentially stuff each book with a hodgepodge of 14 different books and 20 different shorts without hurting actual sales (which are a big part of my income). I could just use first-in-series books and come up with a myriad of different combinations until I hit the max.
Now, from polls we've run, most readers hate bonus content and don't read it, but let's be generous. Say only 25% of people go through my inflated 3000-KENPC "books" and what do you come up with? I think I would make a good 100-150K EXTRA a month (that number includes bonuses) but that's still a chunk of 100K (at a minimum) I myself could potentially take away from other authors. If the proposed "20 or 30" people that others are bandying about as being the only ones doing this have similar numbers, that is $3 million dollars skimmed off the top each and every month out of the pool. Add that up to a year, it's probably going to end up being more than $40 million as it grows a little each month.
Personally, I don't think that's an insignificant amount.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> If the proposed "20 or 30" people that others are bandying about as being the only ones doing this have similar numbers, that is $3 million dollars skimmed off the top each and every month out of the pool. Add that up to a year, it's probably going to end up being more than $40 million as it grows a little each month.
> Personally, I don't think that's an insignificant amount.


It's only about 15% of the pot. For a month where the payout is $0.0045, that would increase the payout to $0.005175. Of course, no one minds donating that amount in the interests of creative entrepreneurship, do they?


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

brkingsolver said:


> It's only about 15% of the pot. For a month where the payout is $0.0045, that would increase the payout to $0.005175. Of course, no one minds donating that amount in the interests of creative entrepreneurship, do they?


I'm not one of the huge sellers here, but in my good months I hit about 1.4M page reads or so. Sure, I'd be happy to donate 945 dollars to the scammers in those months. Why not?


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> Personally, I don't think that's an insignificant amount.


Sweet Jesus.


----------



## Pizzazz (Dec 14, 2016)

dgaughran said:


> Can't wait to see what all the stuffer-defenders have to say about this.
> 
> I'd imagine there's a lot of formatting going on right now


David, I'm never at KBoards anymore, but I saw the Forbes article and I figured you'd be here at KBoards talking about it. I want to thank you for speaking out. Amazon will update KU to end this, eventually, and then a new scam will come up. So that's just the way it is in Kindle Unlimited. (I'm looking forward to going wide.) But I wanted to thank you for speaking out about this.

As far as I'm concerned, you're a hero.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Atunah said:


> I have learned a while back that many of them are men pretending to be women. I have gotten flack in the past for saying I don't trust male "romance" authors much. This is why. They laugh behind our backs, they sneer at us female romance readers and yet they want our money.


Seems to me it's not about being male or female. It's about scamming and treating the reader with contempt. Of the stuffers in Romance, I'd put down cash money on a wager that fewer than 50% are male. So, aiming at males is bad targeting, the same as aiming at POCs for, say, the drug trade, without taking myriad other factors into it.

What if I people started highlighting the (irrelevant but true) fact that most of the abusers of the sci-fi categories, the ones who deliberately try to get their chesty "sci fi" books into legit sci-fi categories, almost always identify as women? Is that a reason to smear women? No, it's a reason to call out the individual abusers. Generalizing that it has anything to do with gender is misleading and wrong.

Let's call out bad actors for what they do, not what gender they happen to be, eh?


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

dgaughran said:


> Let's see... anon poster defending stuffing who joined KBoards last July around the time of the first stuffer thread here, and has only posted on stuffing threads since... I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest they might like the status quo just fine.


Good points. They seem to come out of the woodwork any time there's a thread that gets down on those who are abusing fellow writers and/or self publishing. Methinks they doth protest too much.



MonkeyScribe said:


> Or it could be that they're just so, so worried about the innocents who might be harmed. Oh, and stuffing isn't necessarily wrong anyway, and if it were it would be Amazon's fault for letting it happen, so whatever. I forgot to mention that if there _were_ such a thing as book stuffing, that it wouldn't be taking money or visibility from other writers, who are either so rich already that it doesn't matter, or sell so few books that who cares?
> 
> Did I cover all the bullet points of the scammer defenders, or did I miss any?


I think you got them all.



dgaughran said:


> Yeah, you missed this one: you can only succeed today by stuffing - even though it doesn't do much, or happen much, or affect anyone.
> 
> Or my favorite: that stuffing is terrible and it would be oh-so-great if Amazon was clearer but we should all do it until Jeff takes out a front page ad in the NYT.


Oops, missed those talking points. I swear, there should just be a post shooting down all the talking points, and after the first one shows up, only that should be posted thereafter. Probably save us all a lot of time and frustration.

I'm a nobody speaking my opinion about this issue, I've never gotten any recompense when Amazon "adjusted" things and don't expect anything in my career to change over this in any big way, and for the record I have lady bits and have been a staunch feminist since about 1972. To impugn David's character because he's a man is sexist. To say he's going to benefit in some way from this issue? Oh, please.

At this point, the usual folks have shown up in force, with the usual arguments. Nothing ever changes in that regard.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Content deleted. I do not consent to the new TOS.


----------



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

David VanDyke said:


> Let's call out bad actors for what they do, not what gender they happen to be, eh?


You know, I don't believe one single opinion has ever been changed by telling someone how they should feel about stuff like this. You can intimidate people into keeping quiet, but you don't change their opinion. And Atunah has already said she no longer participates in WC. At a guess that's because she's been, if not intimidated into shutting up, at least made to feel it's not worth the bother.

I've seen posts right here in the WC that are evidence of the belief by some male writers who move into Romance in spite of feeling nothing but disdain for the genre. They've posted about their contempt, then about deciding to try it for the money. Sadly, at least IMO, the one who sticks in my mind then posted about his financial success with it. Yes, there are women who try it only for the money, but they don't seem to be as negative about the genre beforehand.

Instead of jumping on the thing in Atunah's post you feel isn't open-minded enough, maybe what you should take from it is the fact that someone who has been supportive of indies, who represents the mindset of a lot of readers in the Romance genre, is now avoiding indies and going back to traditionally published books. She isn't the only one. For the last couple of months I've been rereading old favorites rather than make the effort to find something new to read. And the last new-to-me books I did read were by traditionally published favorite authors. Paying the high price for those books was almost a relief instead of searching and searching and ending up dissatisfied.

So you turn away some of us who are basically on your side about scammers because we aren't pure enough in some attitudes? Maybe you ought to be rethinking that, eh?

As to the basic arguments of this thread, I doubt if this long thread is changing anyone mind here either. Minds won't even change once Amazon does whatever it decides to - recall the short story writers who kept yelling "unfair" when KU2 went into effect. Amazon will change reality, not minds.


----------



## lyndabelle (Feb 26, 2015)

Atunah said:


> I wasn't going to post in the WC anymore, but I guess this issue is close to my heart. I am a huge romance reader. I am not an author, nor will I ever be. I have turned away from indie published romance books, because in part of these scammers. Especially when it comes to contempo romance. I am a female romance reader that subscribes to KU. So its a triple slap in the face to me.
> 
> I have learned a while back that many of them are men pretending to be women. I have gotten flack in the past for saying I don't trust male "romance" authors much. This is why. They laugh behind our backs, they sneer at us female romance readers and yet they want our money. Some of them are male, some of them are female. They are all ruining it for all of us. The real authors of contempo romance are losing here, male and female. I can't trust anything anymore. So I either stick with known trade publisher authors, or those I have read in the past. I don't even attempt any new authors in the genre anymore. If I want bad boy, I go to previously published with harlequin like presents. Maybe outdated, but at least I don't have to deal with stuffed garbage. Or I stick with Montlake which is all in KU. And formerly out of print stuff which lots is in KU also. All known entities.
> 
> ...


For one thing, I'm sad to hear that you were turned away from Indie romances because of book stuffing. It hurts all romance writers out there just trying to write good books for romance readers. I know what you mean about the romance genre being sneered at, etc. and how romance readers are treated. But I won't get into the argument, because it happens in careers where it's perceived to be a women's career like teaching and nursing. I think romance is considered more of a "women's genre" which is why it's been treated in the past so rudely.

However, there are avid and capable male romance writers, some of whom I know in my RWA chapter. They are affective writers of romance too. So, I have also been upset about dissing the guys. Some men are great writers of romance, especially the guys I've met through RWA that write romantic comedy and one writes romantic suspense. So, the whole argument against the guys just seems a bit hurtful. But I digress.

I just hope that maybe some of the weird changes sorts out more of the romance categories for you to come back and read Indies. Many romance writers are self-published and making good money, because they write good books, of course. Maybe when the smoke clears, there will be more of the legitimate romance writers left(i.e. erotic romance hopefully will still be left intact), and more readers will return to reading Indie. It's just rough to see all the legitimate writers having all these problems happen to them, when all they are trying to do is write good books and make money to write more books.

And please don't go. Come back to KBoards and voice your reader opinion. Authors need to know what the customer wants. I want to know so I can write better books. I'm sure any author would mention that.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Atunah said:


> I wasn't going to post in the WC anymore, but I guess this issue is close to my heart. I am a huge romance reader. I am not an author, nor will I ever be. I have turned away from indie published romance books, because in part of these scammers. Especially when it comes to contempo romance. I am a female romance reader that subscribes to KU. So its a triple slap in the face to me.
> 
> I have learned a while back that many of them are men pretending to be women. I have gotten flack in the past for saying I don't trust male "romance" authors much. This is why. They laugh behind our backs, they sneer at us female romance readers and yet they want our money. Some of them are male, some of them are female. They are all ruining it for all of us. The real authors of contempo romance are losing here, male and female. I can't trust anything anymore. So I either stick with known trade publisher authors, or those I have read in the past. I don't even attempt any new authors in the genre anymore. If I want bad boy, I go to previously published with harlequin like presents. Maybe outdated, but at least I don't have to deal with stuffed garbage. Or I stick with Montlake which is all in KU. And formerly out of print stuff which lots is in KU also. All known entities.
> 
> ...


For what it's worth, Atunah, I've always found your opinion valuable, including this particular opinion.


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

lyndabelle said:


> For one thing, I'm sad to hear that you were turned away from Indie romances because of book stuffing. It hurts all romance writers out there just trying to write good books for romance readers. I know what you mean about the romance genre being sneered at, etc. and how romance readers are treated. But I won't get into the argument, because it happens in careers where it's perceived to be a women's career like teaching and nursing. I think romance is considered more of a "women's genre" which is why it's been treated in the past so rudely.
> 
> However, there are avid and capable male romance writers, some of whom I know in my RWA chapter. They are affective writers of romance too. So, I have also been upset about dissing the guys. Some men are great writers of romance, especially the guys I've met through RWA that write romantic comedy and one writes romantic suspense. So, the whole argument against the guys just seems a bit hurtful. But I digress.
> 
> ...


To be fair, Atunah said she was no longer posting in the Writers' Cafe, not KB. When some of us received PMs asking us to no longer voice any negative opinions in WC threads because we discouraged writers, we decided it wasn't worth the grief.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> Just out of curiosity, I put together some numbers for the damage I think I could do if I decided to stuff. I would never do it, but I don't think people see the grand scope.
> * I have 129 books (a few not published yet), but you get what I'm saying. And, for the record, not one is ghost written. That's also under two names.
> * I have 18 30K shorts (will be 20 by the end of the year)
> * That's 14 different series (fifteen if you consider the shorts their own series).
> ...


It's not an insignificant amount. That's nuts. The reason I underestimated the damage was because I assumed writers like you were an anomaly. Other than Bella Forrest and yourself, I don't know of any indies that write so prolifically, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there, split up among pen names and able to do just that. That guy Kate posted the link about was able to do it with cooking and other non-fic books written by people on Fiverr... if he can do it, genre fiction isn't a stretch.

This thread has been a depressing read.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

crebel said:


> To be fair, Atunah said she was no longer posting in the Writers' Cafe, not KB. When some of us received PMs asking us to no longer voice any negative opinions in WC threads because we discouraged writers, we decided it wasn't worth the grief.


That's odd. I would think writers would value the opinions of avid readers even more than those of their fellow writers.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

mawnster said:


> Nah. I think this is also on the people who were told, time and time again "the TOS is not clear on this. Amazon is not clear on this. Amazon has been giving out conflicting information, let's not upset the apple cart," and yet decided anyway to push forward on their witch hunt. You were told, time and time again, by so many people: Amazon will hurt innocent authors in their effort to clamp down on bad behavior. We saw this with the rank stripping, lots of innocent authors who had NO extra bonus content in their books at ALL got their rank stripped, and the rank stripping was applauded by the witch-hunters, determined that the "nasty bad boy romance authors" should get their due above all else, no matter what. "The gang of masterminds, they're putting us all out of business, oooooo, those guys are terrible!!! Taking our page reads and writing books people want to read and enjoy so much that they *continue reading all the bonus content because it's relevant to them as customers and is giving them what they want*. How dare they trick customers into *consuming more product they actually want to consume.*"
> 
> There will always be people who cheat the system. Always. Any system, anywhere, there will be someone cheating it. This wasn't worth it. My friends who've lost half their income? Even if they agreed with you before, now realize, that this fight wasn't worth picking. That's their light bill. Their groceries for their kids. The punishment is going to rain heavily on the people who can afford this the least. I hope for your reputation's sake that you're right, that only the scammers will end up paying the price, and every innocent authors page reads will be restored.
> 
> _Edited to remove personal comments. PM me any questions. Evenstar, Moderator_


It almost seems like the stuffers and scammers are like bank robbers and are holding the innocent people (authors) as hostages. If the police (Amazon) were to fire into the bank (KU) and hit innocent hostages, well maybe it's the hostages fault because they shouldn't have wanted the police to save them.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I'm sure David wishes he had this much power at Amazon, LOL. They're not responding to him, for heaven's sake. They're responding to something they deem more important--probably customer opinion, since that's their Job One.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

Usedtoposthere said:


> I'm sure David wishes he had this much power at Amazon, LOL. They're not responding to him, for heaven's sake. They're responding to something they deem more important--probably customer opinion, since that's their Job One.


You'd think Amazon would want to get ahead of stories like this. I'm embarrassed for them that individuals have been stealing so much for so long under their nose. If authors with followings are already leaving KU because of it (like someone mentioned earlier in this thread), and it's true readers for the most part don't appreciate the extra books stuffed in the back, it seems like a lose lose not to respond swiftly and clearly.

I just have a hard time buying that they couldn't figure this out if they really wanted to when community members are figuring it out from the outside.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

ellenoc said:


> So you turn away some of us who are basically on your side about scammers because we aren't pure enough in some attitudes? Maybe you ought to be rethinking that, eh?


Turn away? No, just pointing out the bigotry. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter how "justified." The arguments of bigotry's defenders are the same every time: the evidence is there, it's just the facts, (group x) is mostly made up of (type Y) so stereotyping by shortcut is justified, blah blah.

Again, the fact that a certain group of misbehavers happens to be made up of X is irrelevant.

Most click farms are apparently in Asia, and are run by Asians. Should we highlight the fact and imply being ethnically Asian has anything to do with it?

Nope. Because it doesn't have anything to do with it.

In the same way, being male has nothing to do with the misbehavior she was citing.

What is true is that scammers, who may or may not skew male, saw romance as a rich market and began their usual bad behavior there. The property of being male is no more indicative of being a scammer than being Italian is indicative of being in the Cosa Nostra, the original Mafia. Most Cosa Nostra are Italian, but most Italians are not in Cosa Nostra. Most modern terrorists are Islamist extremists, but most Muslims are not terrorists or extremists.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

The truth is most readers enjoy bonus books. When I've polled my readers (long before I ever considered stuffing), they've been overwhelming positive about it. Something like 90% of my readers were positive or neutral to bonus books. 
They like getting extra books for free.

Personally, bonus books annoy me. But I'm in the minority.

This ain't changing until Amazon decides it's changing.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

lyndabelle said:


> However, there are avid and capable male romance writers, some of whom I know in my RWA chapter. They are affective writers of romance too. So, I have also been upset about dissing the guys. Some men are great writers of romance, especially the guys I've met through RWA that write romantic comedy and one writes romantic suspense. So, the whole argument against the guys just seems a bit hurtful.


Thank you.


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

Note to Atunah and Crebel: Many writers value your input. I, for one, have missed seeing your posts. Please reconsider. There are haters everywhere. Ignore them and join the rest of us here in WC. At the core, we are a friendly and welcoming group who work to improve our own writing and market skills for the purpose of better results. Who could possibly be more helpful than the readers we are trying to reach?


Edit to correct a punctuation mark. Yes, I know, overkill.


----------



## Pizzazz (Dec 14, 2016)

Usedtoposthere said:


> I'm sure David wishes he had this much power at Amazon, LOL. They're not responding to him, for heaven's sake. They're responding to something they deem more important--probably customer opinion, since that's their Job One.


Karma is bigger than David OR Amazon.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

crebel said:


> To be fair, Atunah said she was no longer posting in the Writers' Cafe, not KB. When some of us received PMs asking us to no longer voice any negative opinions in WC threads because we discouraged writers, we decided it wasn't worth the grief.


Pushing the "report" button causes no grief. People who use PMs to tell others that they shouldn't do a thing are bullies, using the illusion of privacy to give the statement more weight. Ignore them and report those messages. No one can tell you what to say here, except the moderators.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Patty Jansen said:


> Pushing the "report" button causes no grief. People who use PMs to tell others that they shouldn't do a thing are bullies, using the illusion of privacy to give the statement more weight. Ignore them and report those messages. No one can tell you what to say here, except the moderators.


^^ This. I'm FURIOUS that someone(s) said that to you and Atunah (and who knows who else.).


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

crebel said:


> To be fair, Atunah said she was no longer posting in the Writers' Cafe, not KB. When some of us received PMs asking us to no longer voice any negative opinions in WC threads because we discouraged writers, we decided it wasn't worth the grief.


Considering the bullying that goes on here, I'm not surprised. I rarely come here any more, either.


----------



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

David VanDyke said:


> Turn away? No, just pointing out the bigotry.


Sorry, but turning away is what you do. If someone says they know dozens of male Romance authors who love the genre, read the genre, and do their best, a reader may reevaluate their own experience, try again even. However, the minute terms like bigot and sexist are tossed into a lecture-post, attitudes harden.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Recent posts seem to be moving off on a bit of a tangent. 

We had a lengthy thread a few months ago about men writing under female pen names, with a focus on how such authors should comport themselves when interacting with readers. That thread was never locked. I'd suggest those who want to discuss the issue of men writing as women might revive that thread, or one of the several others we've had on that subject, leaving this one to focus on the effects of Amazon's arbitration victory.


----------



## 9 Diamonds (Oct 4, 2016)

brkingsolver said:


> Considering the bullying that goes on here, I'm not surprised. I rarely come here any more, either.


Same here. Too much of it some days.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

I'm glad Amazon is coming down hard on the scammers, which I believe this lawsuit is. It's similar to what they did with all those review sellers on Fiverr a couple of years ago. 

But what confuses me is...how is publishing a boxed set of titles that were previously enrolled in KU, and also enrolling said boxed set in KU, different from adding bonus books to the end of new releases?


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

I've noticed an addition to a couple blurbs on one of these high ranking, popular titles that are over 500 pages long and massive in file size, stating that there is extra content included for a short amount of time in the book because it's a new release -- or something to that order. 

Very curious.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

crebel said:


> To be fair, Atunah said she was no longer posting in the Writers' Cafe, not KB. When some of us received *PMs asking us to no longer voice any negative opinions in WC threads* because we discouraged writers, we decided it wasn't worth the grief.





Patty Jansen said:


> Pushing the "report" button causes no grief. People who *use PMs to tell others that they shouldn't do a thing* are bullies, using the illusion of privacy to give the statement more weight. Ignore them and report those messages. No one can tell you what to say here, except the moderators.


WHAT This is the first I'm hearing of this. That's crazy. People who do something like that shouldn't be catered to, or they'll feel like they 'win.' I do hope this activity was reported.

Sorry, end of unrelated comment. Back to discussion of stuffing/scamming.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Just Griff said:


> That's odd. I would think writers would value the opinions of avid readers even more than those of their fellow writers.


Most of us do. I'll admit I'm curious as to who was doing the PMing, telling readers we didn't want to hear from them because they definitely weren't speaking for us all.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

Crystal_ said:


> The truth is most readers enjoy bonus books. When I've polled my readers (long before I ever considered stuffing), they've been overwhelming positive about it. Something like 90% of my readers were positive or neutral to bonus books.
> They like getting extra books for free.
> 
> Personally, bonus books annoy me. But I'm in the minority.
> ...


Readers enjoy bonus books, but wouldn't they prefer original bonus books? Wouldn't they prefer non-duplicated content? Or is it only duplicated so the author can take a shortcut and double (or 20) dip the system?



crebel said:


> To be fair, Atunah said she was no longer posting in the Writers' Cafe, not KB. When some of us received PMs asking us to no longer voice any negative opinions in WC threads because we discouraged writers, we decided it wasn't worth the grief.


Were these posts from authors here or the moderators?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

MarchFlowers said:


> But what confuses me is...how is publishing a boxed set of titles that were previously enrolled in KU, and also enrolling said boxed set in KU, different from adding bonus books to the end of new releases?


It's a question of disclosure and scope.

For, say, series books you'd typically create one box set and label it accordingly. Nobody is saying there's anything wrong with that.

Stuffing typically doesn't disclose (or says something vague like Contains Bonus Material). Oh, and usually it's more than once - stuffing the same stories again and again behind multiple different stories.

With a box set you know what you're getting. With a stuffed book, you might grab it and realize the story you wanted ends at 10% and the rest is, well, it could be anything else.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> It's a question of disclosure and scope.
> 
> For, say, series books you'd typically create one box set and label it accordingly. Nobody is saying there's anything wrong with that.
> 
> ...


It is different, but to be absolutely fair and avoid double dipping - however unlikely - boxsets should stay out of KU.


----------



## OhMo (Apr 1, 2018)

Becca Mills said:


> Recent posts seem to be moving off on a bit of a tangent.
> 
> We had a lengthy thread a few months ago about men writing under female pen names, with a focus on how such authors should comport themselves when interacting with readers. That thread was never locked. I'd suggest those who want to discuss the issue of men writing as women might revive that thread, or one of the several others we've had on that subject, leaving this one to focus on the effects of Amazon's arbitration victory.


Couldn't find that thread. Probably not using the correct search term. Will you provide a link to it?


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

I'm still not seeing any argument here that shows book stuffing isn't an acceptable.

Anyone on the "Amazon says its WRONG camp" care to explain that nugget from the TOS on making sure you outline what other content is in your books if it makes up a significant portion of the book (thus showing that Amazon knows people are putting in multiple titles, and addresses how they want authors to handle that situation)?

Gosh golly gee, why would Amazon clearly outline how to handle titles that have the headlining book not make up the greater percentage of the file?

It's just *such* a mystery.

Please explain to me so I can get back to whipping the army of ghostwriters I keep chained in the basement. They aren't pumping out enough bad boy romances for my catalogue. The beatings will continue until morale improves, as it were.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

C Winters said:


> It is different, but to be absolutely fair and avoid double dipping - however unlikely - boxsets should stay out of KU.


Not going to argue that, but in the case of this question I was just explaining the difference. At least for now anyway, Amazon seems to be okay with a clearly labeled box set.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

mawnster said:


> I'm still not seeing any argument here that shows book stuffing isn't an acceptable.


I'd say to re-read the thread, but I think it's more of a case that you're choosing not to see it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

Boyd said:


> Forbes sees it apparently - https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamrowe1/2018/04/07/amazon-has-filed-suit-to-stop-the-six-figure-book-stuffing-kindle-scam/#b9672e07344f


That's the equivalent of a huffpo vanity blog article. Yawn.



Rick Gualtieri said:


> I'd say to re-read the thread, but I think it's more of a case that you're choosing not to see it.


Sooo... no answer to why Amazon has exact detailed instructions on what to do with your title *that has so much extra content that the bonus books make up the majority of the file?* None? You got nothing? Because I think it's pretty clear that Amazon is fine with book-stuffing, since they tell you how they want you to declare it.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

mawnster said:


> Sooooo.... no answer? Gosh, that's so surprising to me.


If you can't see why deceptive packaging, reselling the same product recombined in several ways, appearing to be several different things in the storefront so as to take up as much of the store's limited visibility might simultaneously provide a bad customer experience and be unfair to other writers, then, well, I don't know what to say to you.

Your fellow authors, the press, and an Amazon lawsuit all think this behavior is unethical and violates KDP's terms of service.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

Boyd said:


>


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

dgaughran said:


> fwiw I'm TOTALLY OKAY with being viewed dimly by scammers, cheats, and weasels of any kind.


You should put this on your website


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

MonkeyScribe said:


> If you can't see why deceptive packaging, reselling the same product recombined in several ways, appearing to be several different things in the storefront so as to take up as much of the store's limited visibility might simultaneously provide a bad customer experience and be unfair to other writers, then, well, I don't know what to say to you.
> 
> Your fellow authors, the press, and an Amazon lawsuit all think this behavior is unethical and violates KDP's terms of service.


This 1000 percent.

The very term "stuffing" implies you're putting stuff that doesn't belong in the book, into the book. Why? To game the system and steal from the KU pot.

No legit author is going to give a thumbs up to this practice.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

MonkeyScribe said:


> If you can't see why deceptive packaging, reselling the same product recombined in several ways, appearing to be several different things in the storefront so as to take up as much of the store's limited visibility might simultaneously provide a bad customer experience and be unfair to other writers, then, well, I don't know what to say to you.
> 
> Your fellow authors, the press, and an Amazon lawsuit all think this behavior is unethical and violates KDP's terms of service.


Oh I'm not saying it's a super awesome practice and we should all do it. I'm not a book stuffer, and even though I've enjoyed it as a reader, I can see how it annoys the ever living piss out of most people especially if you're an author all-in on KU.

I'm asking why you think Amazon is telling us not to include multiple books as bonus content, when Amazon is telling us how they want us to label our multiple books that are bonus content.

Tell me why Amazon has clear detailed instructions on how we are to mark our bonus content when that bonus content makes up more of the file than the title book. Please. Explain to me why Amazon would *tell us how to do something* that is supposedly breaking their own TOS.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

C Winters said:


> This 1000 percent.
> 
> The very term "stuffing" implies you're putting stuff that doesn't belong in the book, into the book. Why? To game the system and steal from the KU pot.
> 
> No legit author is going to give a thumbs up to this practice.


1) Pretty sure that book stuffers call their it bonus books or bonus content. Since I'm not in direct communication with any one book stuffer, maybe someone can tell me which book stuffer came up with the term?

2) Amazon decides on the KU pot. Anyone deluding themselves into thinking that if all them nasty book stuffers stop stuffin' books, we'll all see a page rate increase is adorably Pollyanna. Why the hey-ho should Amazon pay any of us more than they're already paying us? They've seen we'll accept less than half a cent per page. They'll just shrink the Kindle fund accordingly to get the page rate they want to pay us.


----------



## Pizzazz (Dec 14, 2016)

MonkeyScribe said:


> If you can't see why deceptive packaging, reselling the same product recombined in several ways, appearing to be several different things in the storefront so as to take up as much of the store's limited visibility might simultaneously provide a bad customer experience and be unfair to other writers, then, well, I don't know what to say to you.
> 
> Your fellow authors, the press, and an Amazon lawsuit all think this behavior is unethical and violates KDP's terms of service.


Why would a book stuffer OR someone who's considering becoming a book stuffer OR someone who dismisses the Forbes article EVER say that book stuffing is wrong?

When Amazon gets rid of the practice, then the justifications and the arguments won't matter. This too shall pass.

If you know the history of Kindle Unlimited, and you're stuffing books, you had better be saving your money.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

mawnster said:


> Oh I'm not saying it's a super awesome practice and we should all do it. I'm not a book stuffer, and even though I've enjoyed it as a reader, I can see how it annoys the ever living p*ss out of most people especially if you're an author all-in on KU.
> 
> I'm asking why you think Amazon is telling us not to include multiple books as bonus content, when Amazon is telling us how they want us to label our multiple books that are bonus content.
> 
> Tell me why Amazon has clear detailed instructions on how we are to mark our bonus content when that bonus content makes up more of the file than the title book. Please. Explain to me why Amazon would *tell us how to do something* that is supposedly breaking their own TOS.


Bonus content is different than DUPLICATE content. You can write ten novels and release them in one ebook if you want, lots of bonus content for the readers, everyone is happy. OH WAIT - you want to release 10 copies of that same book with the bonus crap in different sequence?? Not OK


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

mawnster said:


> Amazon decides on the KU pot. Anyone deluding themselves into thinking that if all them nasty book stuffers stop stuffin' books, we'll all see a page rate increase is adorably Pollyanna. Why the hey-ho should Amazon pay any of us more than they're already paying us? They've seen we'll accept less than half a cent per page. They'll just shrink the Kindle fund accordingly to get the page rate they want to pay us.


Stealing is stealing. You should get on the right side of the line with the authors who aren't stealing.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

MarchFlowers said:


> But what confuses me is...how is publishing a boxed set of titles that were previously enrolled in KU, and also enrolling said boxed set in KU, different from adding bonus books to the end of new releases?


This was already addressed, but it was like ten pages ago so....

Bonus content:
I have a book. I add a bonus story to the end of the book that is related to the book. Or I add a sample chapter from the next book. Or I "bogo" it and add book two of the series after book one.

Stuffing:
I have twelve books published on Amazon. I "bundle" book one with the 11 other books. Then I "bundle" book two with the other 11 books. Then I "bundle" book three with the other 11 books. Essentially, I create 11 separate "bundles" but they are ALL THE SAME BOOKS, just reordered.

I will say that...intent matters. Intent ALWAYS matters. Intent is the difference between "manslaughter" and "murder." Intent is the difference between reckless endangerment and aggravated assault. If a co-worker accidentally bumps into me and his hand hits my butt, that is an accident. If he deliberately grabs my butt, that is sexual harassment.

Intent matters.

I don't think authors with the INTENTION of providing an excellent reader experience are stuffing. Authors who are, in fact, "reader-focused" tend to stay on the side of the angels and do things to improve the reader experience. The stuffers tend to be the people who aren't focused on the reader but just maximizing profit at all costs. They are the ones who don't even factor the reader into the equation, but split hairs over the TOS to justify their behavior regardless of whether or not it hurts the greater ecosystem.

So an author who decides to create a box set of their books, markets it as a boxed set, and puts in in KU is trying to create value for the reader. But the author who takes their books and creates a dozen "boxed sets" of the same book isn't actually thinking about readers.

You all know how I love to use food as a reference. Imagine that say, McDonald's came out with a new "Value Bundle" meal that includes a cheeseburger, fries, drink, and cookie. But they advertise that they actually have FOUR ALL NEW VALUE BUNDLES available. When you get to the store, those value bundles are:

Cheeseburger, fries, drink, and cookie.
Fries, drink, cookie, and cheeseburger
drink, cookie, cheeseburger, and fries.
cookie, cheeseburger, fries, and drink.

Does ANYONE think this would be a "customer-focused" marketing plan? Does it actually provide customer value, or is it just a scheme to trick customers into coming in the door?

And would anyone argue "Yeah, but if a person is only looking for a cookie they won't complain if they get the cheeseburger, fries and drink too!" or "Hey, if someone already bought the cheeseburger, fries, drink, and cookie deal and accidentally bought the Fries, drink, cookie, and cheeseburger not realizing it was the same thing they can always just not eat the stuff they don't want." Yet these are sort of the arguments that the stuffers use to pretend they are providing "value."


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

C Winters said:


> Bonus content is different than DUPLICATE content. You can write ten novels and release them in one ebook if you want, lots of bonus content for the readers, everyone is happy. OH WAIT - you want to release 10 copies of that same book with the bonus crap in different sequence?? Not OK


False equivalence. Amazon has already said that exact duplicated content that's undifferentiated is unacceptable, and I have no problem believing that as a fact.

But they've also said that adding in a new book with the same extra content tagged after it is not considered undifferentiated. So you could have ten new books, each stuffed with the same ten old books at the back, and that's not considered duplicated/undifferentiated.



Pizzazz said:


> Why would a book stuffer OR someone who's considering becoming a book stuffer OR someone who dismisses the Forbes article EVER say that book stuffing is wrong?
> 
> When Amazon gets rid of the practice, then the justifications and the arguments won't matter. This too shall pass.
> 
> If you know the history of Kindle Unlimited, and you're stuffing books, you had better be saving your money.


God it must be so hard to accept that a non-book stuffer points out that Amazon is not just turning a blind eye, but is actively condoning the practice. I'm wide, man, I put my eggs in multiple baskets because I know KU is a clusterfuck waiting to happen. Just go hang out in 20books and see all the regular, tiny baby authors, non-fiction and fiction alike, who've had their page reads slashed for no discernible reason.

And also, yeah, the Forbes article? Huffpo-quality blog piece. It's not even written by Forbes staff. They consulted one source that has a noted bias.



C Winters said:


> Stealing is stealing. You should get on the right side of the line with the authors who aren't stealing.


Hey, I have all bunch of bones to pick with people using click-farms and/or are publishing scraped content. That's a pretty clear line in the sand.

But your big top 100 romance author who's book-stuffing with real written content? No, they're not stealing. Because Amazon decides how much they're gonna pay us. This month it's .00488. Next month maybe .00471. They look at how many pages read, they times that by the rate they want to pay, and boom there's the Kindle fund #. Bad boy romance authors who come by their reads honestly through readers who are enjoying all them bonus books aren't taking money out of your pocket or stealing reads. They're not standing with a gun to their readers' heads, forcing them to turn pages.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Getting through Dante's 9 circles of hell is a breeze compared to this debate


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

thesmallprint said:


> Getting through Dante's 9 circles of hell is a breeze compared to this debate


In the end it doesn't really matter cause Amazon isn't cracking down on book-stuffers that aren't using clickfarms or bots, and aren't posting the same 10 books 10 times in a different order each time. I probably should go finish my next book that's due out in a few weeks.


----------



## AlecHutson (Sep 26, 2016)

mawnster said:


> believing that as a fact.
> 
> But they've also said that adding in a new book with the same extra content tagged after it is not considered undifferentiated. So you could have ten new books, each stuffed with the same ten old books at the back, and that's not considered duplicated/undifferentiated.


What? That's clearly against the TOS. Where did they say that? You can't just shove the same 9 books in KU over and over again as 'bonus' content in other books. It is simply unbelievable that after all this you or anyone else would think this. Wow.

So this is okay?

A B C D E F

G B C D E F

H B C D E F, etc

Because that's what you've just claimed. Clearly you cannot have 'B' book in a dozen different other books. Right in the 'unacceptable content' clause of the KU program policies it says you cannot have

'Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store'

So according to you, everyone in KU with a bunch of books should shove everything they've ever written into every new book so that you hit that 2k limit or whatever, no matter how many times the same content appears in other books? Sometimes coming to these boards is like experiencing an episode of the Twilight Zone.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

mawnster said:


> Sooo... no answer to why Amazon has exact detailed instructions on what to do with your title *that has so much extra content that the bonus books make up the majority of the file?* None? You got nothing? Because I think it's pretty clear that Amazon is fine with book-stuffing, since they tell you how they want you to declare it.


Where are these instructions?


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

mawnster said:


> Just go hang out in 20books and see all the regular, tiny baby authors, non-fiction and fiction alike, who've had their page reads slashed for no discernible reason.


The fact that a large amount of authors in the same group have all had page reads slashed seems like an important bit of info to me.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

mawnster said:


> Amazon decides on the KU pot. Anyone deluding themselves into thinking that if all them nasty book stuffers stop stuffin' books, we'll all see a page rate increase is adorably Pollyanna. Why the hey-ho should Amazon pay any of us more than they're already paying us? They've seen we'll accept less than half a cent per page. They'll just shrink the Kindle fund accordingly to get the page rate they want to pay us.


This is one of the points of this thread. Amazon as part of its arbitration claim and in docs filed with federal court has said this practice, along with botting, harms other authors. Harm isn't simple rank. Harm is monetary. Yes, Amazon tops up the pot after the fact, but they don't subtract from the stated base sum. And that base sum keeps rising. I wonder what would happen if one of the harmed authors (or a group of them) were to file a civil suit against one or more of the "bad actors" using those public claims of harm. Hmmm.



> They're not standing with a gun to their readers' heads, forcing them to turn pages.


Putting a gun to readers' heads to read those pages? No. Dangling gift cards and other incentives? Manipulation, plain and simple. And there are plenty screenshots to prove it. And that extends far beyond the bad boy romance authors, because much as some folk want to focus on them, this isn't just about them.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

*blows into page 16 of a thread*

"But consider this point made five times already and answered six times already, only now with sarcasm."

*rides off, victorious*


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

EB said:


> The fact that a large amount of authors in the same group have all had page reads slashed seems like an important bit of info to me.


The group has 19,000 members and counting. Their page reads getting slashed is probably not related to them being in the 20books group.



jb1111 said:


> Where are these instructions?


https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G202018960



GeneDoucette said:


> *blows into page 16 of a thread*
> 
> "But consider this point made five times already and answered six times already, only now with sarcasm."
> 
> *rides off, victorious*


yawn. if my points had actually been addressed, then I wouldn't be here rolling my eyes at the amount of fact cherry-picking. I'd be sitting on my couch, watching the sun come up, enjoying the peace and quiet of another day on the farm.



AlecHutson said:


> What? That's clearly against the TOS. Where did they say that? You can't just shove the same 9 books in KU over and over again as 'bonus' content in other books. It is simply unbelievable that after all this you or anyone else would think this. Wow.
> 
> So this is okay?
> 
> ...


You put the word "should" in there when really, it's that according to me, everyone in ku COULD shove everything together as long as there's new content in each book so that exact file content isn't exactly duplicated.

I think you CAN do it without breaking tos. Amazon has gone on record with email response saying that was fine. I definitely don't think everyone should. That would be crazy town.


----------



## SuzyQ (Jun 22, 2017)

jb1111 said:


> One thing I have either missed, or perhaps it is something that hasn't yet been covered in this thread, is what seems to be the million dollar question: did the company gain from these 'book stuffers' at all? Perhaps that is why such a practice has gone on for at least two years without much action?
> 
> I mean, best selling authors on various national newspapers' lists (I've seen USA Today mentioned a lot on some of these) gives the company, and its products, visibility.
> 
> Just a thought.


Yep. Apparently the worst of them just spend crazy high AMS dollars. I know a lot of legitimate authors spend significant advertising money but most of the scammers spend even more. From I've heard its nuts. If their book is 3000 pages long and they incentivize someone to click to the back, they are getting something like $14 per read. Its despicable and clearly wrong on so many levels. Some of them spend up to 1000 or more a day on Amazon ads. Of course this is just what I've heard from the grapevine and I'm not really in the loop (thankfully). But that's what I believe the scammers are doing.

I loathe that this is happening and I absolutely believe it impacts everyone's profits. But I disagree with the hardliners on one major point. Not everyone who includes a moderate amount of bonus material is a scammer. Especially those who just include a short story or older book thats not being read (notice I said book not books). I write in a genre that doesn't do that so I don't do it. But lots of good authors DO include bonus material with new releases and I dont see it as scamming the system if people are actually reading it and not just clicking to the back for a 'bonus epilogue' (UGH). I think there's a big difference between a 'free' short story or novella in the back and a 3000 page book. I also think that lawsuit has more to do with click farming and republishing the same massive glut material over and over and over again WHILE TRICKING THE SYSTEM INTO BELIEVING IT WAS BEING READ. It's not about a limited amount of bonus material that's there for reader enjoyment &#128580;


----------



## Pizzazz (Dec 14, 2016)

mawnster said:


> God it must be so hard to accept that a non-book stuffer points out that Amazon is not just turning a blind eye, but is actively condoning the practice. I'm wide, man, I put my eggs in multiple baskets because I know KU is a cluster[expletive] waiting to happen. Just go hang out in 20books and see all the regular, tiny baby authors, non-fiction and fiction alike, who've had their page reads slashed for no discernible reason.
> 
> And also, yeah, the Forbes article? Huffpo-quality blog piece. It's not even written by Forbes staff. They consulted one source that has a noted bias.


Forbes piece aside, book stuffing aside, I agree on the "KU is a cluster[expletive] waiting to happen." Took me a long time to admit it.

The upside is that I'm going wide with absolutely no anxiety. That was NEVER the case before.


----------



## DonovanJeremiah (Oct 14, 2017)

AlecHutson said:


> 'Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store'


Has anyone come up with a definition for 'significantly'? This is what appears to me to be the main bone of contention in this circular discussion.

I suspect the answer to that is 'what you'd expect', which is Amazon's pat answer for just about everything when they start swinging their hammer around.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

mawnster said:


> The group has 19,000 members and counting. Their page reads getting slashed is probably not related to them being in the 20books group.


It's a common link many of the authors share; I've seen this point mentioned several places here on KBoards, and many times on FB. When something keeps popping up that ties the affected authors together it's hard to ignore.

I left that group over an exchange where the moderator blatantly supported an individual who teaches/uses book gifting/giveaways to manipulate sales rank. Having an association with groups or individuals that promote/endorse black hat methods just muddles the water when something like this comes up. 
I suspect that most of the authors who had page reads slashed are innocent of any wrongdoing, and they simply became targets of botters who bot up random books to attempt to make the bots accounts look like legitimate accounts. Those bots targeted innocent authors in _some_ way, but it looks a lot less random when there is a common link.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

SuzyQ said:


> I also think that lawsuit has more to do with click farming and republishing the same massive glut material over and over and over again WHILE TRICKING THE SYSTEM INTO BELIEVING IT WAS BEING READ. It's not about a limited amount of bonus material that's there for reader enjoyment &#128580;


This ^^^



Pizzazz said:


> Forbes piece aside, book stuffing aside, I agree on the "KU is a cluster[expletive] waiting to happen." Took me a long time to admit it.
> 
> The upside is that I'm going wide with absolutely no anxiety. That was NEVER the case before.


Wide will set you free. D2d is great. I don't bother with Smash. GPlay gets almost no sales now that Pronoun is gone (why? I have no idea). The best part of wide is there's no 30 day cliff. If I publish a title in May, I'll make the same amount of money in July, August, September that I did in June even with no new titles published during that time. It's a fucking gift to know your rent is paid. Having a big back catalogue really helps. my 70+ titles click away steadily in historical fiction and earn me low 4 figs to mid 4 figs each month, and sometimes get close to breaking 5 figs.



DonovanJeremiah said:


> Has anyone come up with a definition for 'significantly'? This is what appears to me to be the main bone of contention in this circular discussion.
> 
> I suspect the answer to that is 'what you'd expect', which is Amazon's pat answer for just about everything when they start swinging their hammer around.


Anything more than 10% and less than 100%, I'm guessing, based on how much KU content you're allowed to share outside KU. I'm interested to hear other ideas on that.



EB said:


> It's a common link many of the authors share; I've seen this point mentioned several places here on KBoards, and many times on FB. When something keeps popping up that ties the affected authors together it's hard to ignore.
> 
> I left that group over an exchange where the moderator blatantly supported an individual who teaches/uses book gifting/giveaways to manipulate sales rank. Having an association with groups or individuals that promote/endorse black hat methods just muddles the water when something like this comes up.
> I suspect that most of the authors who had page reads slashed are innocent of any wrongdoing, and they simply became targets of botters who bot up random books to attempt to make the bots accounts look like legitimate accounts. Those bots targeted innocent authors in _some_ way, but it looks a lot less random when there is a common link.


I'm in that group. My page reads didn't get hit. Shrug.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

Clearly the point in using bonus books is to reduce friction: it's easier to keep someone reading inside one single file rather than asking them to make the leap to your backlist. The smart business decision is to get someone to continue reading by presenting them an easy option not to click anywhere else. That is not to say this is ethical or not, in fact business is not normatively ethical, whether we would wish it to be or not

Another point is that I'm not sure how much bonus books actually dilute the pot inside KU3. In KU2 this was not the case, bonus books were absolutely dilutive. But now, since the readers actually have to read a page in order for the publisher to get paid, does this actually create any dilution? The assumption is either the reader would be reading Romance A or Romance B, since reading is the chosen pastime. Whether they read further into Romance Novel A, because it contains bonus books, or move to Romance Novel B doesn't actually matter: there are no more pages being read in absolute terms. Now, the rewards absolutely skew towards the person who can keep a reader inside their book file for longer using bonus books, but no additional reward is created. That's why in absolute terms I'm not actually sure that anyone outside the romance market is affected by book stuffing.

Romance authors are absolutely affected, because the skew of rewards inside the genre will automatically go to people who use bonus books. But not because more pages are being created! As such, I'm pretty confident that the other genres (who don't practice stuffing as rapaciously as romance) are not affected by the use of bonuses inside romance. Or am I wrong?


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

badtothebone said:


> Clearly the point in using bonus books is to reduce friction: it's easier to keep someone reading inside one single file rather than asking them to make the leap to your backlist. The smart business decision is to get someone to continue reading by presenting them an easy option not to click anywhere else. That is not to say this is ethical or not, in fact business is not normatively ethical, whether we would wish it to be or not
> 
> Another point is that I'm not sure how much bonus books actually dilute the pot, only since KU3. In KU2 this was not the case, bonus books were absolutely dilutive. But now, since the readers actually have to read a page in order for the publisher to get paid, does this actually create any dilution? The assumption is either the reader would be reading Romance A or Romance B, since reading is the chosen pastime. Whether they read further into Romance Novel A, because it contains bonus books, or move to Romance Novel B doesn't actually matter: there are no more pages being read in absolute terms. Now, the rewards absolutely skew towards the person who can keep a reader inside their book file for longer using bonus books - but no additional reward is created. That's why in absolute terms I'm not actually sure that anyone outside the romance market is affected by book stuffing.
> 
> Romance authors are absolutely affected, because the skew of rewards inside the genre will automatically go to people who use bonus books. But not because more pages are being created!


With regard to reducing friction, I see your point, but we don't really know enough about reader reactions to know whether that's the way things really work out or not. Just speaking for myself, if I loved a book, I'm going to get the next one in the series whether or not it's in the same file. If I was indifferent to it, I'm not going to read the next one just because it's right there. I'd be the first to agree that, prior to making a purchase, the more time a purchaser or borrower has to click, the fewer who will make it all the way through. However, the same reasoning doesn't necessarily apply to someone who's already started a series. The argument also presupposes that the book in question will never sell. Surely, if one were worried about sales, the last thing one would want to do is put several books in one, thus cannibalizing the sales of the individual volumes. Doing that in a box set with an occasional promo and/or a discount for buying the whole series seems like a different proposition to me.

With regard to pot dilution, if Amazon really did what it said in KU3, then that's also a good point. However, stuffed books still make a more efficient use of bots possible, and that remains a concern. I agree someone is unlikely to read the same novel twice, but putting the same novel out several times packaged with other things does enable bots to read the same content multiple times with a smaller number of downloads, potentially making the activity less conspicuous.

With regard to the effect on the romance genre, that seems to rest on how true your friction point is.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

Amazon should never threaten authors without hard proof that they're doing anything wrong. Amazon should do what it did with people selling reviews on Fiverr--pursue the vendors, not the alleged customers. Yes, that would be an expense to Amazon, but by making things like botting more expensive, it could cause some scammers to rethink who they're scamming. In the long run, it would be a better move for Amazon.

That said, removing botted pages from a legitimate author's account is not the same thing as threatening the author with account closure. If the pages really are bogus, the author shouldn't get a payout for them, whether the author is at fault or not. If a hacker throws a sum of money into my checking account to disguise his activities, I shouldn't be punished for his activities--but nor should I expect to keep the money that isn't really mine. I know that's frustrating, but it's an unavoidable part of getting rid of botting.

As far as Amazon fostering botting and other illicit practices, I have yet to see any actual evidence presented. It's easy to see negligent enforcement, but that's a different thing. There really isn't a way that Amazon profits from botting. Does it make KU more attractive? No. Does it help keep legitimate authors in KU? No. So what's the benefit to Amazon? None.  Amazon may have thought it wasn't worth spending money to curtail the problem, and that is negligent, but it's also different from encouraging it. (In general, it's dangerous to try to analyze motives. It's better to stick to actions, because there can be actual evidence. A lot of our discussions tend to boil down to, "My unsupported assertions are better than your unsupported assertions.")


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

> However, the same reasoning doesn't necessarily apply to someone who's already started a series. The argument also presupposes that the book in question will never sell. Surely, if one were worried about sales, the last thing one would want to do is put several books in one, thus cannibalizing the sales of the individual volumes. Doing that in a box set with an occasional promo and/or a discount for buying the whole series seems like a different proposition to me.


This is why you see this behaviour in romance, though. Typically in the high volume bad boy stuff that dominates right now, there are few series. By and large romance readers like to have the HEA wrapped up inside one book. Now of course there are exceptions, but this is the rule. As a result you're not going to get reader lockin like you would with a series. So they use bonus books instead.



> With regard to pot dilution, if Amazon really did what it said in KU3, then that's also a good point. However, stuffed books still make a more efficient use of bots possible, and that remains a concern. I agree someone is unlikely to read the same novel twice, but putting the same novel out several times packaged with other things does enable bots to read the same content multiple times with a smaller number of downloads, potentially making the activity less conspicuous.


I agree, a more elegant solution would involve Amazon blanket banning multiple books in a file. This would kill the 99c pricing model, and the market would shift to royalties. That said, I think this is where conflating romance authors who use bonus books and true Kindle scammers gets very muddy. Romance authors aren't using bots/clickfarms to my knowledge, because the ROI isn't there. These people are spending $1000+/day on ads - why would they do that if they could bot their way to the top? That bit has never made sense to me. So you can see from my theory above that romance bonuses, which don't cause dilution (see below) aren't the issue. Machine generated stuff that hides below the surface is. The last thing these real scammers want is the visibility (which this thread attests to) of being in the top 100. The times they have done that, like taking over the free charts, they got smacked down. Now they lurk in the sub 10,000 rankings, borrowing each book very few times, but uploading many, many scam books with a high page count. As a result they make the same amount of money with much less risk of discovery.

KU3 Proof:



> You're eligible for royalty payment from Kindle Unlimited (KU, or Abonnement Kindle in France) and the Kindle Owners' Lending Library (KOLL) for pages an individual customer reads in your book for the first time. A customer can read your book as many times as they like, but we will only pay you for the number of pages read the first time the customer reads them.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Source: https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G201541130


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

SuzyQ said:


> But I disagree with the hardliners on one major point. Not everyone who includes a moderate amount of bonus material is a scammer. Especially those who just include a short story or older book thats not being read (notice I said book not books). I write in a genre that doesn't do that so I don't do it. But lots of good authors DO include bonus material with new releases and I dont see it as scamming the system if people are actually reading it and not just clicking to the back for a 'bonus epilogue' (UGH). I think there's a big difference between a 'free' short story or novella in the back and a 3000 page book.


I don't think too many people feel that way, though. I have occasionally included the first chapter of the next book in a series as a teaser or hook to keep them moving forward, for example. I'm happy to put up a box set that has three or five books in them, then sell the box set at a heavy discount with the idea of making the bulk of my money with page reads, not purchases.

Essentially, what I'm doing are things that are recognized by the reader and/or clearly marked in the product description. A box set that shows all the volumes is legit. Readers are used to having the first chapter of a different book at the back; print has been doing this for years. A bonus short story set in the same universe? Sure, why not?

It's when you start tricking people with stuffed books, a ToC that forces people to click all the way to the back of a book to get to the actual content, thus showing "reads" of hundreds of unread pages, etc., that it's clearly not about user experience or transparency of marketing, and all about skimming as much cream as you can get away with.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

> It's when you start tricking people with stuffed books, a ToC that forces people to click all the way to the back of a book to get to the actual content, thus showing "reads" of hundreds of unread pages, etc., that it's clearly not about user experience or transparency of marketing, and all about skimming as much cream as you can get away with.


Yes, but a) the romance authors/publishers in this thread all have the primary novel at the front of the book, not the back as you attest; b) click to back no longer works as you described by showing reads of unread pages, and is not in fact used in any top 100 romance that I can see in the store today (and I have checked most); c) bonus books inside romance novels don't dilute the page rate in the KU3 era, because there are no "unread" pages being counted.

So we have to make up our minds, are we actually worried about these romance authors, or is it that we don't like the fact that this kind of content is what most/many people in Kindle Unlimited want to read? It seems to me that if the community was primarily worried about scamming, they would not be (as/overly) concerned by the authors being discussed in this thread, and instead move our focus to machine generated/translated/botted content, which is most likely where the truly bad actors are hanging out.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

badtothebone said:


> It seems to me that if the community was primarily worried about scamming, they would not be (as/overly) concerned by the authors being discussed in this thread, and instead move our focus to machine generated/translated/botted content, which is most likely where the truly bad actors are hanging out.


People can actually be concerned about more than one thing at a time. I think the civil war in Syria is a much bigger problem than book stuffing, but this particular thread is about book stuffing, not the war, and specifically, how Amazon is suing someone for this kind of behavior. If you would like to start a thread about another of life's injustices, there's a place for that, too.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

> People can actually be concerned about more than one thing at a time. I think the civil war in Syria is a much bigger problem than book stuffing, but this particular thread is about book stuffing, not the war, and specifically, how Amazon is suing someone for this kind of behavior. If you would like to start a thread about another of life's injustices, there's a place for that, too.


Um, ok? Apologies for stepping on your tail.

You didn't address any of my points actually related to book stuffing when you went for my throat, though, like the theory that bonus books as currently used in the romance genre don't in fact dilute the payment per page. I would actually love someone to knock this down, but right now it seems pretty strong.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

MonkeyScribe said:


> People can actually be concerned about more than one thing at a time. I think the civil war in Syria is a much bigger problem than book stuffing, but this particular thread is about book stuffing, not the war, and specifically, how Amazon is suing someone for this kind of behavior. If you would like to start a thread about another of life's injustices, there's a place for that, too.


But that's why people like me don't take this seriously. The focus is HEAVILY weighted on bad boy romance authors to the exclusion of almost all else. Shrug. I was anti-bookstuffing until I saw the amount of bullying, doxxing-encouragement, etc. practiced by the anti-stuffing camp. Now I'm just convinced it's rooted in somebody with an axe to grind, a profile to raise, and books to sell.



badtothebone said:


> You didn't address any of my points actually related to book stuffing when you went for my throat, though, like the theory that bonus books as currently used in the romance genre don't in fact dilute the payment per page. I would actually love someone to knock this down, but right now it seems pretty strong.


Don't expect them to refute anything. They'll refute the part of the argument they can, ignore the part they can't, and if you point that out they'll reply with a gif about how you're beating a dead horse (it's not dead if 'aint refuted) or accuse you of being a nasty scammer yourself.

The point is to not actually refute any valid argument. The point is to shout down people with different opinions, and use veiled threats of labeling someone as a scammer to frighten people into not disagreeing publically. Why would any author, large or small, speak out with their pen-name attached to their opinion in opposition to DG's view when the pack mentality is primed and ready to rip them apart for being a scammer.

_Edited to remove now-moderated quoted material. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I fully expect that Amazon will eventually make its position much clearer. I know what I think it is based on the (to me but not to book stuffers) perfectly clear email ECR and my rep sent me and others last year, but we will see. When Jeff does get it tattooed on his heinie and takes a picture, or when we get to account banning and warning emails and changed behavior, the scope of what is allowed will become clearer, I think. 

Meanwhile, if it were me, I would be changing to a more cautious approach. But then I am risk averse, which by definition people skating closer to the edges are not. Everybody can choose for themselves.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

badtothebone said:


> c) bonus books inside romance novels don't dilute the page rate in the KU3 era, because there are no "unread" pages being counted.


Yes, they do. It's double-dipping.

Reader reads Book A published as Book A. Author gets paid for that read. If reader re-reads Book A ten times when it's published as Book A, author does not get paid more than that first read.

But clever author puts Book A at the back of Book B published as Book B with bonus Book A. Reader reads Book B then re-reads Book A. Author gets paid for the read of Book B and the re-read of Book A.

First scenario, author gets paid for 400 page reads of Book A.
Second scenario, author gets paid for 800 page reads of Book A.

KU pool is $X. Per page rate is that pool divided by total pages read which have been artificially inflated with scenario two.

Extra pages for that Book A read, mean lower payout rate per page. PLUS, author of Book A gets paid for 800 page reads on that title instead of 400.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

Cassie Leigh said:


> Yes, they do. It's double-dipping.
> 
> Reader reads Book A published as Book A. Author gets paid for that read. If reader re-reads Book A ten times when it's published as Book A, author does not get paid more than that first read.
> 
> ...


By that definition, box sets and omnibuses are also double dipping then.

And the KU pool is determined by the page rate Amazon wants to pay, not the other way around. They don't go "oh gosh let's be generous this month and pay out 30 million". They look at how many pages were read. They squint at how many authors are leaving the KU program (churn). They pick a page rate they think will keep the KU authors appeased for another month, and then they times that page rate by how many pages read to get the payout pool.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

badtothebone said:


> You didn't address any of my points actually related to book stuffing when you went for my throat, though, like the theory that bonus books as currently used in the romance genre don't in fact dilute the payment per page. I would actually love someone to knock this down, but right now it seems pretty strong.


That was actually mild annoyance that people keep getting off topic and thus risk getting the thread locked. Not exactly going for the throat.

In addition to what Cassie mentioned, there's the fact that the book stuffers are frequently the all star bonus receivers, which of course has a finite number of "winners." My primary concern in all of this is that I want a clean ecosystem. When self-pubbers as a whole have a reputation that already struggles against charges of crap writing, lack of editing, and the like, the last thing we need is to also be associated with shady business practices as well.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

> Extra pages for that Book A read, mean lower payout rate per page. PLUS, author of Book A gets paid for 800 page reads on that title instead of 400.


Yeah no doubt, but this doesn't seem functionally different from a boxed set, does it? Are we really saying there are legions of readers who simply read the same circle of five books over and over again? That seems absurd to the point of ridiculousness. Perhaps they read the same book twice, which might be the same as a boxed set, for example. (In fact I find this very, very unlikely, given how much new content there is out there). But at most, I'd suggest these authors are "double dipping" once. I'd hazard a guess the actual numbers are somewhat lower than this, which is why Amazon has taken no action to this date.

What is more likely, again I am confining my theory to KENPC 3.0, is that readers skip over the books they have already read, if they stay in the same file at all. The publisher doesn't get paid for this skipping, only for pages actually read. So what's actually happening is if the reader stays in the file, they are reading one of the books they haven't already read. Which theoretically takes reads away from the next author the reader might have downloaded, but doesn't create any additional reads.

This whole thing seems like a storm in the proverbial teacup. Maybe there really are 1 million readers who can only read the same small circle of books, but if this is the basis of the assertion that bonus books are killing the industry I think it's a little overblown.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

> In addition to what Cassie mentioned, there's the fact that the book stuffers are frequently the all star bonus receivers, which of course has a finite number of "winners." My primary concern in all of this is that I want a clean ecosystem. When self-pubbers as a whole have a reputation that already struggles against charges of crap writing, lack of editing, and the like, the last thing we need is to also be associated with shady business practices as well.


This is a fair point, but:

a) unfortunately this is the way the Kindle Unlimited incentive structure is designed. I expect no fundamental change until Amazon redesigns the incentive structure in KU4. As Warren Buffett famously says, it's only when the tide goes out that you see whose swimming naked. Right now though, there is literally a policy called "Bonus Content" [https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G202018960] which simply advises stuffers to make it clear that they are stuffing in the book description!

b) again, unfortunately since the KU incentive structure rewards quick publishing, the way the system is designed (unfortunately) militates towards "crap editing, lack of editing and the like", since it's pretty hard to both write quickly and publish good content. I can do not far shy of 10K/day (dictating), but the cliff and the recommendation engine often mean I put out content that I'm confident I could have improved given more time. (Amanda I know you can do better!) Due to this, there is so much drivel out there that this stuffing is barely the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## FelissaEly (Jan 15, 2017)

badtothebone said:


> Yeah no doubt, but this doesn't seem functionally different from a boxed set, does it?


The fact of the matter is there's ONE box set and it's LABELED as such, books that are stuffed? NOT labeled in any way that it's a boxed set and the 'bonus' content is not labeled as such. Granted I haven't seen every single stuffed book out there but the ones I've come across in no way indicate there are bonuses to be had or that they are a box set.

Seems different to me.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

kw3000 said:


> Anyone wondering why laws become hopelessly complex need only read this thread. People are just the worst. They will push and push forcing you to come up with ever more rigid and detailed wording to nail things down to the level of a quark.
> 
> I could start a club for table enthusiasts and institute a rule stating: When attending meetings, you may only bring a blue painted table.
> 
> ...


Worth quoting again since the last several pages seem to have a lot of posts arguing that their green tables are actually blue.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

badtothebone said:


> This is why you see this behaviour in romance, though. Typically in the high volume bad boy stuff that dominates right now, there are few series. By and large romance readers like to have the HEA wrapped up inside one book. Now of course there are exceptions, but this is the rule. As a result you're not going to get reader lockin like you would with a series. So they use bonus books instead.
> 
> I agree, a more elegant solution would involve Amazon blanket banning multiple books in a file. This would kill the 99c pricing model, and the market would shift to royalties. That said, I think this is where conflating romance authors who use bonus books and true Kindle scammers gets very muddy. Romance authors aren't using bots/clickfarms to my knowledge, because the ROI isn't there. These people are spending $1000+/day on ads - why would they do that if they could bot their way to the top? That bit has never made sense to me. So you can see from my theory above that romance bonuses, which don't cause dilution (see below) aren't the issue. Machine generated stuff that hides below the surface is. The last thing these real scammers want is the visibility (which this thread attests to) of being in the top 100. The times they have done that, like taking over the free charts, they got smacked down. Now they lurk in the sub 10,000 rankings, borrowing each book very few times, but uploading many, many scam books with a high page count. As a result they make the same amount of money with much less risk of discovery.
> 
> ...


With regard to the first point, as a reader, if I loved a book, I'd also look for other things by the same author, not necessarily just series books. I'm sure having another book sitting right there might improve the read-through rate, but by how much? Absent a scientific survey of reader behaviors, there's really no way to know. Nor is there a way to know that any extra pages read are numerous enough to compensate for the lost sales that having multiple books in the same volume seems likely to produce.

With regard to the second point, I understand things might be different in Romance. That said, while I'm sure there are people spending more than a thousand dollars a day in advertising, how many could there possibly be? That's $365,000 per year in advertising. If I'm doing the math right--not a forgone conclusion -- at a .0048 payout, someone would have to get over seventy-six million KU pages per year (six million per month) just to break even. Surely, that can't be a common event. There couldn't be too many people making a decent ROI that way. It might be better to look at what average authors are doing--if we had any way of calculating that--than looking at extreme outliers. I'm also wondering how effective spending $1000 a day is if people feel they have to put multiple books in a file on top of that. All of that said, I agree that material without real value that can only draw bots is much more of a problem than multiple legitimate books in the same file. However, the latter is still a problem if Amazon's KU3 fix wasn't as good as it said.

I know Amazon said the problem was fixed, as you pointed out, but I've heard mixed things about whether or not it actually was fixed. Last I heard, the problem still existed on the cloud reader. That could mean that the bots all migrated to the cloud reader to exploit it, or it could mean Amazon has since plugged that hole. Anyone know?


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

> The fact of the matter is there's ONE box set and it's LABELED as such, books that are stuffed? NOT labeled in any way that it's a boxed set and the 'bonus' content is not labeled as such. Granted I haven't seen every single stuffed book out there but the ones I've come across in no way indicate there are bonuses to be had or that they are a box set.
> 
> Seems different to me.


But nowhere does Amazon ask these publishers to label their books as box sets. Those publishers who are in fact including bonus books WITHOUT making this clear in the blurb are of course acting against KDP policy, as outlined in the link I posted. But as long as they are upfront about the bonus content in the blurb, they are not contravening KDP regulations. Until Amazon change this, I think we are all howling into the wind.



> Worth quoting again since the last several pages seem to have a lot of posts arguing that their green tables are actually blue.


I'm not for bonus books, Rick. I think they are destructive of author brand value, and that getting a reader to actually purchase your backlist is a far more sensible business model. Every single unique purchase (or even Kindle Unlimited download) is another touch point that cements your author brand in a reader's mind. It's just my belief that: a) they don't contravene Amazon's guidelines; and b) they don't affect the page rate.

I really am trying to debate in good faith.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

> I know Amazon said the problem was fixed, as you pointed out, but I've heard mixed things about whether or not it actually was fixed. Last I heard, the problem still existed on the cloud reader. That could mean that the bots all migrated to the cloud reader to exploit it, or it could mean Amazon has since plugged that has been plucked. Anyone know?


I'm not sure whether the cloud reader loophole has been plugged. I fear not. I have no idea why Amazon wouldn't fix it, since it's clearly the biggest risk for bot activity: it's way easier to run a bunch of VM instances clicking through Kindle pages that would be to have to buy/run a bunch of Kindle readers or funds!

But ultimately I think the cloud reader situation has little relevance to the romance bonus books discussed in this thread, and much more relevance to the true click farm scams that use junk files and stay under the radar.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

badtothebone said:


> But nowhere does Amazon ask these publishers to label their books as box sets. Those publishers who are in fact including bonus books WITHOUT making this clear in the blurb are of course acting against KDP policy, as outlined in the link I posted. But as long as they are upfront about the bonus content in the blurb, they are not contravening KDP regulations. Until Amazon change this, I think we are all howling into the wind.


A few years ago there was a thriller author who had a zillion bonus books, box sets that appeared to be collections of novels from the picture of a box set on the cover, but really had short stories, and ridiculous keyword stuffing in the title. It was behavior that made me roll my eyes, but the description did accurately describe what was in it. So I'm not really going to do anything but grumble when it's at that level.

What we're really talking about here, though, is the deceptive labeling, the mixing and matching of the same titles in endless permutations, and other behavior that pushes this over the line from "questionable marketing efforts" into "deceptive product description." And that's where the outrage has been focused.

There isn't a bright line, of course. You can recognize that, argue about the gray zone, but it seems hard to defend people who are clearly knee deep in the ethical swamp.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

BadtotheBone is so right. Amazon would not have updated their policy on bonus content to include requirements that it be after the main content, listed in the TOC & notated in the book description if they were not okay with bonus books being used in this manner. But some choose to read into things what they want to attack other authors because they don't like Amazon's policy of allowing bonus content so long as the reader is not mislead into thinking it's all one book, not to mention for much more nefarious reasons.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

> There isn't a bright line, of course. You can recognize that, argue about the gray zone, but it seems hard to defend people who are clearly knee deep in the ethical swamp.


Of course! I actually couldn't agree with you more. But I think when this argument descends into ethics is where it loses focus. It doesn't matter what we consider good ethical behavior.

Amazon wanted 100,000 books in the Kindle store when it launched the Kindle. So it bullied the traditional publishers into digitizing their collection, threatening publishers' existing revenue if they didn't comply. Then on the day Jeff launched the Kindle, he sucker punched the traditional publishers by telling them (at the launch event!) that the maximum list price would be $9.99 for Kindle novel.

But Jeff wanted more content than that. So he dreamed up Select, then KU. And they built an incentive structure that was specifically ethics blind. It simply rewarded faster content generation, and as a result Amazon has the biggest e-book library in the world. In a very real sense Amazon's e-book dominance has been built on the back of low-priced indie content. And they have persisted with that incentive structure. If Amazon really wanted to reward better books, or less bonus books, it would be a laughably easy exercise. They don't. They just want the biggest collection of books, exclusive books, on their platform to choke off their competitors. Which by and large they have now done.

All I am saying, and all I have been saying throughout this thread, is that it doesn't matter whether we like we don't like the situation. People respond to incentive structures, and until those incentive structures change, or are changed, nothing will&#8230;

Change.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

mawnster said:


> False equivalence. Amazon has already said that exact duplicated content that's undifferentiated is unacceptable, and I have no problem believing that as a fact.
> 
> But they've also said that adding in a new book with the same extra content tagged after it is not considered undifferentiated. So you could have ten new books, each stuffed with the same ten old books at the back, and that's not considered duplicated/undifferentiated.


So, let me get this straight, because I'm honestly confused. Amazon says it's okay to have the same ten old books stuffed into the back of each NEW book? So, New Book 1 (Old books 1-10", New Book 2 (Old Books 1-10) New Book 3 (Old Books 1-10), etc? And each bundle then has all ten of the old books counted in the KENPC? So every new book gives a stuffer the chance to get those new readers to page through every other book the author has?


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

Lol. So "people" in closed groups are complaining? That is the least likely source of anything that would change my opinion of David. 









_Edited to remove quoted material from a now-delete post. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

> So, let me get this straight, because I'm honestly confused. Amazon says it's okay to have the same ten old books stuffed into the back of each NEW book? So, New Book 1 (Old books 1-10", New Book 2 (Old Books 1-10) New Book 3 (Old Books 1-10), etc? And each bundle then has all ten of the old books counted in the KENPC? So every new book gives a stuffer the chance to get those new readers to page through every other book the author has?


It's contested. On this, Amazon is clear as mud. David, Phoenix and perhaps others have emails from KDP that suggest this is not okay. I believe in David's case (though he is free to correct me if I am mistaken) he used the (simplified) example of a publisher doing several books:

A/B/C

B/A/C

C/A/B

And so on. KDP replied this was unacceptable. I agree. What the accused publishers are doing is more like:

A/B/C

D/A/B

E/D/A

And so on, i.e. always having a fresh piece of content at the front of the file, which in Amazon's eyes appears to be fine. Some are obviously pushing it further, by having more and more bonus novels included. But in principle, as long as they have that first piece of fresh content I am not convinced that the file can be considered "undifferentiated" in Amazon's eyes. Ultimately they are the only people that matter.

I do think this summer Amazon will clean house and ban bonus books for good. They usually do a clean sweep over the summer, that's been the pattern for the last few years. However I think it's more than likely that they will also ban all boxed sets from inclusion in KU if the constituent content is already enrolled. Amazon don't like hiring people. Hell, Jeff doesn't even like his employees sending each other emails! He thinks communication is a sign of corporate failure. They prefer to come up with technical solutions, and it's going to be pretty damn difficult to come up with a technical solution that allows box sets but precludes bonus books. I think it could be done, but I think it's more likely Amazon will take the easy option and just ban them indiscriminately.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

badtothebone said:


> It's contested. On this, Amazon is clear as mud. David, Phoenix and perhaps others have emails from KDP that suggest this is not okay. I believe in David's case (though he is free to correct me if I am mistaken) he used the (simplified) example of a publisher doing several books:
> 
> A/B/C
> 
> ...


This this this this.

I did see an email where your second example was presented to KDP support and asked if that was acceptable.

The answer was yes. Because it was differentiated content.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

mawnster said:


> This this this this.
> 
> I did see an email where your second example was presented to KDP support and asked if that was acceptable.
> 
> The answer was yes. Because it was differentiated content.


Show us the email then. I furnished mine which conclusively shows that stuffing is forbidden. I've linked to the court docs which state likewise.

So where is this mythical email? Screenshot pls.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Somehow, we always end up with someone arguing that "same books, different order X 5 does not equal undifferentiated content." After that, we're stuck on "no it isn't/yes it is/no it isn't" and then the thread gets locked and everyone goes home until the next time this comes up.

If y'all want to believe the same five volumes presented in a different order doesn't violate the 'undifferentiated content' clause, there's nothing any of us can do to convince you otherwise. Later, maybe we can talk about how the earth is or isn't flat and the easter bunny does or does not exist.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

dgaughran said:


> Show us the email then. I furnished mine which conclusively shows that stuffing is forbidden. I've linked to the court docs which state likewise.
> 
> So where is this mythical email? Screenshot pls.


It's not mine to show, and the forum it was posted on has a strict no screenshots or direct copying allowed policy. You're welcome to write to Amazon and ask them if this other manner in organizing content falls within their scope of what is differentiated content.

If Amazon is anything like eBay, it won't be crazy to have two different answers coming from the same team.



GeneDoucette said:


> Somehow, we always end up with someone arguing that "same books, different order X 5 does not equal undifferentiated content." After that, we're stuck on "no it isn't/yes it is/no it isn't" and then the thread gets locked and everyone goes home until the next time this comes up.
> 
> If y'all want to believe the same five volumes presented in a different order doesn't violate the 'undifferentiated content' clause, there's nothing any of us can do to convince you otherwise. Later, maybe we can talk about how the earth is or isn't flat and the easter bunny does or does not exist.


Yeah, no one has said that. Like, no one. And if they did, they're an idiot. We've all said, over and over, that it CAN'T be the same five books presented in different ways.

But it can be the same five books stuffed into the back of five new different books.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

badtothebone said:


> I'm not for bonus books, Rick. I think they are destructive of author brand value, and that getting a reader to actually purchase your backlist is a far more sensible business model.


This is my thinking on the issue. I don't use them. But I do know people who do use bonus content, who put right in the book description that there's bonus content, and who don't use bots, clickfarms and crafty linking schemes to try to sweep up page reads they're not really getting. They're following the rules in Amazon's TOS, as far as they know. The conflation of people like that with people who use the same 8 books in different order to publish multiple titles and include gibberish content to max out their KENPC then use bots and clickfarms to fake reads on those multiple titles to steal money they're not entitled to, well, I think that's incredibly unfortunate. They're not remotely the same. And it seems even holding that opinion makes a person a scammer (or maybe just unethical and stupid) in some people's eyes, which is also unfortunate.

I think for the average author, putting a sneak peek of another book to entice the reader to download it is going to amount to more genuine double-dipping than an entire novel, because I don't think re-reading a book because it's there is all that common, especially among the most voracious KU readers. Rereading the first few chapters of a novel to refresh the memory is, in my opinion, a lot more likely. And if what some claim is true that skipped content still gets counted, it doesn't even matter if the reader reads it again.

I do think Amazon, especially if skipped pages still get counted, should limit bonus content to one story or book, because if people haven't read book x and it's behind six other bonus books they've already read, jumping to that means the author gets paid for the six books twice. Which Amazon should have made sure would never happen. If it does, they should limit bonus content to something that directly follows the main book. I think that kind of rule coming down the pipe is going to be more likely than anything. That's the one that makes the most sense to me, followed by a rule that says bonus content can be used as bonus content in only one publication.

Easy rules to make perfectly clear, if they want to. I'm not holding my breath, but neither rule would surprise me.



> I really am trying to debate in good faith.


I think the possibility of that went out the window pages ago. If you're not with us, you're against us, and all that. Disagree, and you're not even worthy of being part of the greater author community, it seems.



FelissaEly said:


> Granted I haven't seen every single stuffed book out there but the ones I've come across in no way indicate there are bonuses to be had or that they are a box set.


I see it all the time. I just randomly plucked 6 bad boy novels from the charts (because those are the ones this is all about). Two didn't have bonus content of any kind, and the other four all stated that they did right in the book description.


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

There's a difference between "different" and "unscrupulous." There are a million ways to promote a book and yet David consistently only highlights the ways that hurt other authors and/or are against Amazon's TOS. Is there room for clarification and even hair-splitting about the TOS as is happening in this thread and others? Of course. Spirited debate is helpful. Your statement is...not.

(Edited b/c my phone made those horrible symbols again.)

_Edited to remove material quoted from a now-deleted post. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

mawnster said:


> Yeah, no one has said that. Like, no one. And if they did, they're an idiot. We've all said, over and over, that it CAN'T be the same five books presented in different ways.
> 
> But it can be the same five books stuffed into the back of five new different books.


Hahahahahahaha.

Dude. I give. I'm gonna go check out the edge of the flat earth now, peace out.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

MaryMcDonald said:


> So, let me get this straight, because I'm honestly confused. Amazon says it's okay to have the same ten old books stuffed into the back of each NEW book? So, New Book 1 (Old books 1-10", New Book 2 (Old Books 1-10) New Book 3 (Old Books 1-10), etc? And each bundle then has all ten of the old books counted in the KENPC? So every new book gives a stuffer the chance to get those new readers to page through every other book the author has?


No, it's not okay, but this is what people are doing. Make sure to put a new short story at the very end to make sure the reader goes that far. It also helps to rearrange the order of Old Books 1-10 inside each cover so it isn't as apparent what someone is doing. You can also use machine translated or other garbage content to fill up a couple of thousand pages in the middle before reaching said bonus short story. And the covers don't necessarily agree with the contents. If you have a factory set up in the Philippines or Thailand, the labor is cheap and you can create a book a day. Then with the 30-day free KU trial, a lot of pages can be racked up pretty quickly.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

badtothebone said:


> Of course! I actually couldn't agree with you more. But I think when this argument descends into ethics is where it loses focus. It doesn't matter what we consider good ethical behavior.
> 
> Amazon wanted 100,000 books in the Kindle store when it launched the Kindle. So it bullied the traditional publishers into digitizing their collection, threatening publishers' existing revenue if they didn't comply. Then on the day Jeff launched the Kindle, he sucker punched the traditional publishers by telling them (at the launch event!) that the maximum list price would be $9.99 for Kindle novel.
> 
> ...


I usually don't nitpick historical examples, but Amazon's dominance may be less rooted in cheap indie content than we like to think. Indie sales have become a significant part of Amazon's ebook revenue--but I would argue that it's good indie books that did that, not random dross. Rewarding good content wouldn't actually be laughably easy because it would take human eyeballs, and Amazon doesn't want to spend money on that. Random dross if anything drives people away, but Amazon's competitors have done pathetically little to actually compete with Amazon in the book field, which is one reason Amazon is dominant.

I do agree that Amazon has created a faulty incentive structure, though how much of that was deliberate is open to question. However, that doesn't prevent us from having an opinion about what's right ethically. Jeff Bezos does not determine my ethics for me.

I think the problem is not so much that Amazon is the devil as that Amazon hasn't figured out a cheap way to police the book store. Granted, it should have invested more money in that a long time ago. But here's what happens when it tries, a pattern I've seen several times. Amazon cracks down. Legitimate authors get caught in the net. They justifiably complain. So do people who actually are scammers, making it difficult for us to know who's who. Amazon gets tired of the uproar and more or less backs off. I wouldn't say Amazon is entirely indifferent to these issues. It just isn't willing to spend the money it would take to fix them.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

mawnster said:


> It's not mine to show, and the forum it was posted on has a strict no screenshots or direct copying allowed policy.


So surprised you can't produce that email!



mawnster said:


> If Amazon is anything like eBay, it won't be crazy to have two different answers coming from the same team.


Luckily we have the view of Amazon's legal team right here. A handy tie-breaker! https://twitter.com/DavidGaughran/status/981941113576738816



mawnster said:


> But it can be the same five books stuffed into the back of five new different books.


LMAO. The whole argument from the stuffers/defenders is hilarious. It's basically:

"Yes, I know the law clearly states that stealing is illegal, but what if you are wearing a pink t-shirt and hop on one foot while doing it? The law isn't clear on that exact point, so even though I hate stealing I'm weirdly compelled to keep doing it."


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

mawnster said:


> About as surprised as I am that you won't just ask Amazon yourself.


Because you guys are just playing games. In the last thread, you claimed Amazon said it was okay. So myself and a bunch of others emailed Amazon and ALL got the same response: it's not okay. We posted the emails.

And now you are saying "But what if the t-shirt is yellow instead of pink, it's unclear."

Weak.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

dgaughran said:


> Because you guys are just playing games. In the last thread, you claimed Amazon said it was okay. So myself and a bunch of others emailed Amazon and ALL got the same response: it's not okay. We posted the emails.
> 
> And now you are saying "But what if the t-shirt is yellow instead of pink, it's unclear."
> 
> Weak.


Seriously, dude, just email them. It'll take you 30 seconds. The email I saw back from them was very clear that it was fine to use bonus books and multiple bonus books at that, as long as each tile was not the exact same books simply re-ordered. New content needed to be introduced each time.

I find it pretty hilarious you wouldn't want to just... double check on that. I mean, if it were my rep and my bully pulpit on the line, I'd wanna cover my ass. But different strokes.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

mawnster said:


> Seriously, dude, just email them. It'll take you 30 seconds. The email I saw back from them was very clear that it was fine to use bonus books and multiple bonus books at that, as long as each tile was not the exact same books simply re-ordered. New content needed to be introduced each time.
> 
> I find it pretty hilarious you wouldn't want to just... double check on that. I mean, if it were my rep and my bully pulpit on the line, I'd wanna cover my ass. But different strokes.


He has emailed them and the response was posted publicly. He had provided endless amounts of evidence to back up his point--also, all available publicly. David also reports publicly under his own name. 
Your claims (anonymous claims that have no risk to your "rep and bully pulpit", since you're posting under an alias) founded on evidence that you claim exists but can't provide simply have no substance. If you want to discredit what has been said so badly, provide some proof.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

David your question to KDP:



> If I'm an author with four books - Title A, B, C, & D. I will publish my books like this:
> 
> Title A (with B, C, D in the back also, and then an exclusive short to get readers to skip the content they have already read previously, so that the full page reads are counted by Amazon).
> 
> ...


Their answer:



> Thank you for your questions about bonus content. Generally, bonus content is permitted, so long as it and its placement do not create a misleading or disappointing customer experience, this applies to all books including books enrolled in KU.
> 
> To your specific example, authors are not permitted to publish the same work multiple times with only minor changes or a reordering of content, regardless of whether the book includes bonus content. When we determine authors are publishing undifferentiated titles like this, the titles are subject to removal from the Kindle store and the author is subject to potential account-level action.
> 
> If you have other examples you would like us to look into, please send them to [email protected]


They replied that "authors are not permitted to publish the same work multiple times with only minor changes or a reordering of content regardless of whether the book includes bonus content".

However your example only included reordering the same four titles: A/B/C/D, rather than the addition of fresh content. I'm not sure their response means what you are contesting it means. That said, it's entirely possible that I am wrong. It happens often enough that I wouldn't be surprised.

The thing is, if your interpretation is correct, of course romance bonus books should be removed. But if it's not, then the "duplicate content" referred to in the arbitration documents mean very little, because it's apples and oranges. My point is, these two pieces of supporting evidence you provide are not mutually supportive - they rest on the same assumption. If that assumption is incorrect, then neither stands on its own merits.

Regardless, I'm not sure any of this matters. I'm wondering whether you saw my theory on dilution of page reads (above). I'm not actually convinced that bad boy bonus books increase the total volume of pages read, rather than simply affecting to some extent where a constant amount of pages gets parceled out. If this is the case, then very few people are actually affected - basically only people who would otherwise have received an All-Star bonus. Even then, I think since people actually reading those pages this still counts as legitimate reading activity anyway. I'd hazard a guess that this is why Amazon has done little to "fix" the situation.

What do you think?


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

EB said:


> He has emailed them and the response was posted publicly. He had provided endless amounts of evidence to back up his point--also, all available publicly. David also reports publicly under his own name.
> Your claims (anonymous claims that have no risk to your "rep and bully pulpit", since you're posting under an alias) founded on evidence that you claim exists but can't provide simply have no substance. If you want to discredit what has been said so badly, provide some proof.


  You don't find it funny that he could put this to bed with one email, and he won't?

I find it very funny.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

mawnster said:


> You don't find it funny that he could put this to bed with one email, and he won't?
> 
> I find it very funny.


I'm perfectly happy with the clarity Amazon has provided in the email above, and in the court docs.

But go for it, dude. Looking forward to you posting the email...


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

mawnster said:


> You don't find it funny that he could put this to bed with one email, and he won't?
> 
> I find it very funny.


No. I find it funny that you won't.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

Also if I type a dash, then I get this question mark icon. I usually lurk here, so I assumed that the people I saw whose posts included this issue with doing something wrong. But the same thing happens if I try to italicize/bold using the tools provided. Is it perhaps a browser issue, or is it just board wide? Can I do anything to fix it?


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

mawnster said:


> Seriously, dude, just email them. It'll take you 30 seconds.


He has. He emailed them and posted the evidence. At this point, I'm pretty sure Dave has a hotkey programmed for emailing Amazon he has done it so much.

Your unsubstantiated statements do not carry the same weight as David's already-presented-on-multiple-occasions-in-different-formats-no-less evidence.

What you think you are accomplishing with your "fake news" behavior I don't know. Just because you claim top secret information behind a screen name doesn't mean a single person is going to believe you over the ACTUAL EVIDENCE a person we have all known for years has posted repeatedly.

Just...stop...


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

badtothebone said:


> Also if I type a dash, then I get this question mark icon. I usually lurk here, so I assumed that the people I saw whose posts included this issue with doing something wrong. But the same thing happens if I try to italicize/bold using the tools provided. Is it perhaps a browser issue, or is it just board wide? Can I do anything to fix it?


Are you on mobile? I get that a lot when I'm on a phone.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

> Are you on mobile? I get that a lot when I'm on a phone.


No, running the latest version of Chrome on Windows 10 desktop computer. I'm dictating because my wrists are fried, but I don't see how that would affect anything.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

badtothebone said:


> No, running the latest version of Chrome on Windows 10 desktop computer. I'm dictating because my wrists are fried, but I don't see how that would affect anything.


Ah, bummer. I got nothing. I'm on Chrome w/Win 10 desktop PC as well & dictating via Dragon; no funny marks on my end. Very strange.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

These questions do not seem to be asked in good faith, but I will answer them anyway.

Here was the specific content of my email last year, and the answer.

Hi:

You may be aware that there's a brouhaha going on right now about the prevalent pattern of some KU romance writers publishing "stuffed" books--books with their entire catalog stuffed behind the ostensible "title" book to total as much as the max 3,000 KENPC. These authors may or may not put a "bonus story" at the end of the material in order to trigger the full pages read (since the software apparently can't tell whether a page was indeed read or just skipped over).

Many of the authors whose 99-cent books regularly land in the top 100 are doing this--rearranging their entire catalog to appear in every book. 
Title A: Books 1, 2, 3, 4, *bonus*
Title B: Books 2, 1, 3, 4, *bonus*
Title C: Books 3, 1, 2, 4, *bonus*
Title D: Books 4, 1, 2, 3, *bonus*
*
***In other words: I made it clear that there was differentiated "bonus" content in every book.****

They're then using the enormous profits from all those pages "read" to advertise on Facebook to the tune of thousands of dollars a day, and also receiving All-Star payouts.

The question: Is this actually OK with Amazon, as it seems to be? A couple big sellers in romance who DON'T do this and have reps at KDP have emailed and been told that such "bonus content" is fine, as long as it's all the author's own copyrighted material.

If this is indeed OK and not a violation of the TOS, I and others should perhaps look into doing it, as we're leaving a lot of money on the table and reducing our competitive advantage. Like others, I've assumed it was a violation of the TOS (requiring books to be "significantly differentiated" from each other). But so far, people are getting OFFICIAL answers from KDP personnel (including individuals' reps) that it's fine.

It would be great if Amazon could clarify this so we'd know what is and isn't kosher to do. I sure don't want to risk my account, but I also need to make the most of my catalog and content. Well, actually, I probably won't do what these folks are doing, because it still seems scammy to me. However, I could certainly put in my book in one series that's a "catchup" with all the other books, and a bonus story at the end, since that might be a plus with my readers. I could double my KU payout that way on every book, and right now, I'm feeling like a sucker for not doing it.

Would appreciate any insight.

A link to the thread on Kboards where this is brewing (last 10 pages or so): http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,253302.0.html
It's being discussed in all my author groups as well, and the bigger the author, the more disgust they're expressing, and the more distrust of putting books into KU as this (and the scambot books) are the competition. It's seen as a pretty enormous problem.

***

Executive Customer Relations response;

Hello Rosalind,

Thank you for your questions about bonus content. Generally, bonus content is permitted, so long as it and its placement do not create a misleading or disappointing customer experience, this applies to all books including books enrolled in KU.
To your specific example, *authors are not permitted to publish the same work multiple times with only minor changes or a reordering of content, regardless of whether the book includes bonus content.* When we determine authors are publishing undifferentiated titles like this, the titles are subject to removal from the Kindle store and the author is subject to potential account-level action.
If you have other examples you would like us to look into, please send them to [email protected]

Best regards,

Emily Taylor
http://www.amazon.com
=============================

That was a perfectly clear question and answer to me, but apparently not to the folks continuing to do this--and apparently the court action hasn't changed any minds either. Like I've said, either Amazon is going to come down on this or not--maybe they care about the big-whale authors KU has lost recently over this and maybe they don't. it is people's risk to take.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

Interesting. Thank you. I think that's the best response I've seen yet. I know you are going to think I'm deliberately seeing the wood for the trees for what I'm about to say, and I hope I can dissuade you from thinking I'm just yanking your chain!

I'm not sure phrasing it the way you did – even though it's significantly clearer than David's example – truly fits the situation either. It basically comes down to the question of whether your "bonus" is or isn't different if its primary content – a fresh novel which is the primary focus of advertising (e.g. cover, book description). The reason I question is because you put the bonus at the end, rather than the front, which would contravene the Bonus Content Policy (which specifically differentiates Primary and Bonus content – that is to say it's not a distinction I'm inventing for the sake of argument).

I just emailed content review asking for clarification on my dilution point, which as I see it is the critical question we need answered. If bonus content reading dilutes the page pool, then it's a problem. If it doesn't, as I suspect, then no one is being harmed. I'll see what they say and report back. Tried emailing ECR and I got a bounce back this time! Clearly no longer in the magic circle.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Usedtoposthere said:


> These questions do not seem to be asked in good faith, but I will answer them anyway.
> 
> Here was the specific content of my email last year, and the answer.
> 
> ...


Seems to me this puts the whole topic to bed. Perfectly clear that any bonus content can only appear once within KU, regardless of all the wiggling to try to spin it differently. As soon as you put bonus content or any content into the 2nd book or beyond, it's violating TOS.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

badtothebone said:


> This is why you see this behaviour in romance, though. Typically in the high volume bad boy stuff that dominates right now, there are few series. By and large romance readers like to have the HEA wrapped up inside one book. Now of course there are exceptions, but this is the rule. As a result you're not going to get reader lockin like you would with a series. So they use bonus books instead.


Well, they could do what most romance authors do when they realize people like series: write a romance series in which the common thread is a family, or a town, or a circle of friends, or even a theme, and lure readers into the books by seeding previous stores with the characters who will be in subsequent books. This works like a charm and readers HOUND authors for "Jenny's story" or "Brynna's HEA" all the time.

But of course you can't do this when you're sourcing your books from ghost writers you find on Fiverr and publishing them as is or with bare-bones proofreading.

Seriously, they're destroying my category. I hate them.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

badtothebone said:


> b) click to back no longer works as you described by showing reads of unread pages


It works in Cloud reader as of two weeks ago.



> and is not in fact used in any top 100 romance that I can see in the store today (and I have checked most)


They no longer have a link at the front that says "Click here to go to the back" because Amazon caught on to that, but I'd bet there's a decent rate of clicking to the back when the TOC lists 6 books you've read and then "Exclusive Sneak Peek!" There's more than one way to skin a cat.



> or is it that we don't like the fact that this kind of content is what most/many people in Kindle Unlimited want to read?


I'd dispute this but I cant' debate with words like "most/many." There are plenty of reviews complaining about bonus books. They're just often drowned out by the 200+ ARC reviews.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

And from a thread about this July 26, 2017 http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,253302.msg3533149.html#msg3533149. Here's the question I put to ECR:

Hello.

Apparently authors are currently being told by KDP reps that including the same books over and over as bonus content in other books of theirs in Select is perfectly fine as long as all the books in question follow the exclusivity guidelines.

If this is truly the case, this is very exciting news for me. I have up to 90 titles I manage that I can add bonus books into to ensure each title has up to the 3000 KENP maximum that KU pays.

But I've also seen some authors whose accounts have been terminated for appearing to have followed this practice. So Amazon's responses are coming across mixed.

I would love to add bonus books to my titles. I already create boxed sets of series/related collections and always list what titles are included. So I'm good on understanding what constitutes a boxed set of content. I'm also good on understanding the terms of Select. Please do NOT quote boilerplate at me. If a script is all you have to go by, PLEASE ESCALATE this query. If I receive boilerplate back, I'll just bounce this up again. And again, if need be.

Very plainly, please let me know:

1) whether I will be paid for all the pages read in a book that contains bonus content as created below.

2) if the following examples of creating bonus content are within the Terms & Conditions for Select:

From my personal catalog:
A.) I offer the single title BH, then simply add as a surprise bonus:
PH
NH
HH

B) I offer the single title PH, then add:
BH
NH
HH

C) I offer the single title NH, then add:
TH
HH

D) I offer the single title TH, then add:
BH (same pen name)
HS (different pen name, different subgenre)
AH (different pen name, different subgenre)

From the SMP account I manage for another author (she has close to 80 titles available):
A) I include the 504 KENP series starter CH, the 338 KENP series starter LP, and the 265 KENP series starter TRW in ALL 80 titles, adding an extra 1100 KENP pages of content to every title in that catalog.

B) I include a brand new short story not yet published anywhere as an extra bonus incentive at the end of all 80 titles.

This author typically gets around 1-1.6 million page reads per month. I think by adding the above bonus material, we can at the very least double that amount, assuming bonus content gets counted and paid no differently.

But I want to be 100% sure that this is within guidelines. So please be 100% sure of your answer.

Please advise.

_(Reply in next post)_


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

I received this reply:

Hello,

My name is [redacted], one of the Customer Support Supervisor with the Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) team.

I understand you concern about including the bonus content in the Kindle books which are enrolled in KDP Select.

I see that, you would like to combine four of your books "BH," "PH", "NH" and "HH" and publish, where you would submit the books with a single title and offer the other books as bonus content.

If you do so, a customer who is purchasing the books "BH" and "PH" perceiving that he/she purchases two different books, would end up with having the same content in the both the books repeatedly.

Since, this will be considered as duplication of the content, you may not include the other books in the primary content as our KDP Terms and Conditions doesn't allow submitting the duplicate books.

Further, you may certainly include a short story as a bonus content in your book, however you may not include the same story on all the titles in your catalog as the customers who are purchasing different titles from the same publisher will have the same short story as a duplication.

Just so you know, content published through Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) is held to the same high standards customers have come to expect from Amazon. The addition of distracting bonus content can result in a poor customer experience. If our content review team found that a book is resulting in a poor experience or genuine reader confusion, or is designed to unnaturally inflate sales or pages read, they will take action and remove the title.

Check Help for more information on bonus content:
https://kdp.amazon.com/help?topicId=A3CFOBV9O6PLD7

Thanks for using Amazon KDP.
http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,253302.msg3533150.html#msg3533150


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

badtothebone said:


> I'm not sure whether the cloud reader loophole has been plugged. I fear not. I have no idea why Amazon wouldn't fix it, since it's clearly the biggest risk for bot activity: it's way easier to run a bunch of VM instances clicking through Kindle pages that would be to have to buy/run a bunch of Kindle readers or funds!
> 
> But ultimately I think the cloud reader situation has little relevance to the romance bonus books discussed in this thread, and much more relevance to the true click farm scams that use junk files and stay under the radar.


The thing is, if we know it's not fixed in Cloud reader, why should we believe it's fixed everywhere else? Nobody I know has every Kindle app/device and a catalog of 20 or more books that never get read (and are therefore good test candidates), so it's hard to get a good fix on it, but if they're lying to us about one app, why not about others?

The entire KU2-and-beyond ecosystem was undertaken in bad faith. They said they could count pages and they have never been able to accurately do so. That is a class-action lawsuit waiting to happen, and frankly at this point I'm just about ready to spearhead one, but I'm not in KU anymore.


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

Boyd said:


>


Boyd, you have a special talent for finding the perfect post to fit the moment.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

But what if I stuff while hopping on the other foot?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

dgaughran said:


> But what if I stuff while hopping on the other foot?


When the ban hammer comes down, there will be lamentation.

Or maybe it won't come down.

Everybody's choice which way to gamble.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

lilywhite said:


> I'd dispute this but I cant' debate with words like "most/many." There are plenty of reviews complaining about bonus books. They're just often drowned out by the 200+ ARC reviews.


Personally (just my own $.02) I imagine it's kind of like this.

(warning, lots of "You" follows. It's a general "you")

Say you're buying a 32oz box of Cap'n Crunch. You get it home and discover it's actually 10oz of Capt'n Crunch with 11oz of Grape Nuts, and 11oz of Wheat Crisps

Some people like Grape Nuts and Wheat Crisps, so they're going to be okay with it.

Other people like to mix it up a bit, so they're likewise going to be okay with it.

A few more might have already eaten Grape Nuts that week, but liked it, so they're willing to eat it again.

However, some (or most, it's hard to say), might be ticked off because they paid for 32oz of Cap'n Crunch, and that's what they expected to get. If they wanted Grape Nuts and Wheat Crisps, they would have gone to Costco and gotten one of those clearly labeled mixed boxes (as opposed to the ones saying "contains bonus cereal" in the fine print)

The thing here that makes it a poor customer experience is not the people who are happy with it, but the risk you're running for the people who won't be. You're adding a wildcard to the customer experience, potentially ticking some people off ... but you (the Cereal Maker) don't care, because 1) Your reputation is safely hidden behind your cereal company, which you can change the name of in a heartbeat and 2) you get paid extra for those few people who do eat your Grape Nuts, making the risk worth it in your book.

In short you're earning money that you aren't entitled to, as well as purposely creating a misleading product. Now, I suspect Amazon cares more about the latter, but regardless that's two strikes in my book


----------



## DonovanJeremiah (Oct 14, 2017)

I've been following this discussion with interest. Wading past the rudeness, the insults, the name calling, the smug condescension, the out an out attacks on several people on both sides of the discussion, this is finally the answer I think should put the whole damn thing to rest.



PhoenixS said:


> I see that, you would like to combine four of your books "BH," "PH", "NH" and "HH" and publish, where you would submit the books with a single title and offer the other books as bonus content.
> 
> If you do so, a customer who is purchasing the books "BH" and "PH" perceiving that he/she purchases two different books, would end up with having the same content in the both the books repeatedly.
> 
> ...


I also note that no one has been willing to tackle my question from a few pages back.

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,262307.450.html


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

lilywhite said:


> It works in Cloud reader as of two weeks ago.
> 
> They no longer have a link at the front that says "Click here to go to the back" because Amazon caught on to that, but I'd bet there's a decent rate of clicking to the back when the TOC lists 6 books you've read and then "Exclusive Sneak Peek!" There's more than one way to skin a cat.
> 
> I'd dispute this but I cant' debate with words like "most/many." There are plenty of reviews complaining about bonus books. They're just often drowned out by the 200+ ARC reviews.


Way back in 2012, before there was KU, I put out a prequel in my series after I'd already written 3 books in the series. I kept it short, just 45k compared to the average of 90k for the other books so I felt guilty it was so short. I charged less, but still felt I should give my readers more, so I included several short, but related stories I'd written. I think it came to less than 5k total, added because my book was about 50k then. (including my usual back matter of a few pages of notes, contact links). I stated in the description it contained bonus content. About a year in, someone in the UK left a bad review. Here's what they said: "This series is a great idea although this book ended at only 77% and was relatively short anyway. The remainder was excerpts of more of the series along with differing chapters in Book 1. Not sure really why the author's messing about like this with it. To me, it's making it all needlessly convoluted and she shouldn't do it !!"

She called them excerpts from the rest of the series, but they weren't. They were clearly labeled as short stories or deleted scenes. I thought I was being fun and doing like DVDs do with bonus content. Apparently it was just annoying. I took out all the bonus content and learned my lesson. Btw, this was before page reads since KU wasn't even created yet. My only intent was to give readers more for their money, not screw anyone over.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

MaryMcDonald said:


> She called them excerpts from the rest of the series, but they weren't. They were clearly labeled as short stories or deleted scenes. I thought I was being fun and doing like DVDs do with bonus content.


That actually does sound fun to me!


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

DonovanJeremiah said:


> I've been following this discussion with interest. Wading past the rudeness, the insults, the name calling, the smug condescension, the out an out attacks on several people on both sides of the discussion, this is finally the answer I think should put the whole damn thing to rest.
> 
> I also note that no one has been willing to tackle my question from a few pages back.
> 
> http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,262307.450.html


That is because nobody knows the answer. (How much "bonus" content is unacceptable.) Amazon has never defined this. To me, "significantly differentiated" would imply that more than 50% of the content is new--but hey, some people will say the right number is 5%. Who knows?

I've been guessing for more than a year now that Amazon would go to one title, one book, period, 1000 KENPC limit, to cut down on the guessing and gaming. I've been wrong so far.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

> I've been following this discussion with interest. Wading past the rudeness, the insults, the name calling, the smug condescension, the out an out attacks on several people on both sides of the discussion, this is finally the answer I think should put the whole damn thing to rest.


It does seem like a compelling response.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

Usedtoposthere said:


> That is because nobody knows the answer. (How much "bonus" content is unacceptable.)


I work in consumer commodities. So my answers are colored by those industry standards. But there actually ARE standards for these words that are commonly used in other industries.

In general, "bonus" content would be called an "add-on" in most consumer products. And, in general, an "add-on" is a sample size (usually no more than 25% the size of the primary product being sold.) Anything over 25% the size would be considered a BOGO (Buy one-get one). Which is NOT the same thing as a multi-pack. A BOGO is traditionally multiple products packaged together but sold at or near the price of a single product. A multi-pack is a pack of multiple items sold at a higher price (either the same price multipled by the number of units, or a reduced price per unit but a higher overall price).

So I would say that any content that is equal in word count to less than 25% of your primary product would be considered "bonus" content.

So if you have a 50,000 word novel, "bonus" content should not extend more than 12,500 words. If you have bonus content that is more than that, then, considering what it is, you may want to reclassify the product. If it is two books that are related, then release it as a duology. If it is three related books, it is a trilogy. If you are bundling the entire series, call it a box set. But at no time should you call it "Name of Book with bonus content" if the bonus content is more than 25% the word count of the primary product.

Most of the problems in this thread can be avoided by:

1. Being completely transparent
2. Knowing the right names of things and using them (some of you know I have a long history of complaining about authors using the wrong names for things lol)
3. Thinking about the customer experience


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

I don't think the response usedtoposthere (and others, I think) have gotten from Amazon (quoted a ways up the thread) is nearly clear enough.

I think some authors would get that answer and think, "Okay, so I'm 'not permitted to publish the same work multiple times with only minor changes or a reordering of content.' Well, no problem! I'm putting a 100% new full-length novel at the front of each thing I publish, and no one would call a 100% new and unduplicated novel an 'only minor change.' A change like that is major, not minor. So, I'm good: the book files I'm uploading are not reordered duplicates of one another; rather, they are differentiated from one another in a significant way."

And then they'd proceed to do something like ...

A, L, M, N, O, P
B, L, M, N, O, P
C, L, M, N, O, P
D, L, M, N, O, P
Etc.

The *only *thing I've seen from KDP that clearly says bonus content cannot be duplicated at all from book file to book file is the answer Phoenix got some time ago, which she quotes above:

Phoenix:


PhoenixS said:


> B) I include a brand new short story not yet published anywhere as an extra bonus incentive at the end of all 80 titles.


KDP Rep:


PhoenixS said:


> Further, you may certainly include a short story as a bonus content in your book, however you may not include the same story on all the titles in your catalog as the customers who are purchasing different titles from the same publisher will have the same short story as a duplication.


But that's it. That one answer Phoenix got, which she was very kind to share with us, I might add, since who knows? KDP could decide to be touchy about that sort of thing. That one email, which I only saw because I read this forum and a member was generous enough to share it here, is the only reason I believe Amazon does not want *any* duplicate bonus material between book files, and comport myself accordingly.

Should it be this way? NO IT SHOULD NOT. This horrible contention within our community comes from Amazon's refusal to make this policy absolutely clear. And of course it needs to be absolutely clear. Like, _impregnably_ clear. It's in the nature of people to interpret stuff -- all kinds of stuff -- in ways that fit our own preexisting viewpoints and needs, so people will inevitably misinterpret language that is not completely, totally, unassailably clear. Anyone who writes rules of any kind knows they will be subjected to ... let's all it "interpretive pressure." And thus they try to be as clear as they possibly can be. Not always successfully, of course, but there's an attempt.

But I see no sign at all that Amazon is trying to be clear on this matter. It's all "only minor changes" ... well what the blanky-blank counts as "minor"?? Where does "minor" cross the line into "not so minor"? Oh, and "not significantly differentiated" ... can someone please offer up a way to distinguish "significant" from "insignificant" that everyone will easily agree on? No? Didn't think so! When it comes to antonyms, significant-insignificant is even less clear than major-minor, since very small things can nevertheless be significant. TLR: This isn't clear language. Frankly, it looks like intentionally loopholey language to me.

Sorry, this is not aimed at anyone in particular, here. It just infuriates me that Amazon has put us in this position of being at one another's throats when it could all be made clear with the adjustment of a sentence or two on the site and in their emails to us. "No two books participating in the Kindle Unlimited program may share more than 20 pages of duplicated text." How about that? Everyone can include their copyright page, "other books by," "about the author," and a short excerpt from the next in series. Any other bonus material will have to appear nowhere else. So easy. Why hasn't Amazon done this? It really cheeses me off.

Edited to add: The first lawsuit-papers image in this post from EB also, to my mind, pretty clearly indicates Amazon does not want *any* duplicate material. The language calls out books that "contained content that had been previously included in other works published through the Kindle program" as problematic. That's pretty darned straightforward.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Usedtoposthere said:


> These questions do not seem to be asked in good faith, but I will answer them anyway.
> 
> Here was the specific content of my email last year, and the answer.
> 
> ...


All four books still contain the exact same content, exactly as they did in David's example. I'm about to send an email to KDP providing very specific scenarios in which all books do not contain the exact same content, but contain the same BONUS content. This is a distinction I haven't seen anybody make yet, or if that email and reply have been posted, I missed it.

Then at least nobody can argue it (though some will).


----------



## wilsonharp (Jun 5, 2012)

Shelley K said:


> All four books still contain the exact same content, exactly as they did in David's example. I'm about to send an email to KDP providing very specific scenarios in which all books do not contain the exact same content, but contain the same BONUS content. This is a distinction I haven't seen anybody make yet, or if that email and reply have been posted, I missed it.
> 
> Then at least nobody can argue it (though some will).


Posted by: PhoenixS
« on: Today at 11:47:55 AM »

"Further, *you may certainly include a short story as a bonus content in your book, however you may not include the same story on all the titles in your catalog* as the customers who are purchasing different titles from the same publisher will have the same short story as a duplication."


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

Amazon's position can easily be explained in a couple of theoretical terms. First: constructive ambiguity, as espoused by Henry Kissinger.



> It refers to the deliberate use of ambiguous language on a sensitive issue in order to advance some political purpose.


I think this issue definitely applies.

OK, to what purpose? I believe it is to leverage their power over us, their suppliers. Amazon, especially in e-books, is what Aggregation Theory describes as a super aggregator: functionally speaking they have a horizontal monopoly over the user experience and means of distribution. Long gone are the days in which there were dozens of stores to go to to sell our wares.

Aggregators in this theory leverage their outsize power over suppliers (created because they aggregate consumer demand), thus decreasing the amount paid to those suppliers. Put another way, aggregators seek to minimise suppliers' pricing power, thus increasing their own margins.

That's clearly what's happening. We have no idea how many KU subscribers there are - constructive ambiguity. We don't know what the page rate will be - constructive ambiguity.

The purpose of this ambiguity as I see it is to stop us banding together to demand better terms. A good way to do that is to pit us against each other.

That might be a bit Machiavellian though. Maybe it really is more Occam's Razor, and they have no idea what they're doing.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

wilsonharp said:


> Posted by: PhoenixS
> « on: Today at 11:47:55 AM »
> 
> "Further, *you may certainly include a short story as a bonus content in your book, however you may not include the same story on all the titles in your catalog* as the customers who are purchasing different titles from the same publisher will have the same short story as a duplication."


That's a start, but most don't include the same single story on all of their titles, just some. You can extrapolate from this the idea that they don't want bonus content used more than once, I agree, but I'm attempting to get them to nail down the language and actually say that a piece of bonus content can only appear in one title, not two or more. If that's true, they should have no problem stating it or confirming it.

Also, that says short story. I'm asking about complete books, since that's the content everybody's up in arms about. I am almost desperate to have them say yes an entire book currently in KU is acceptable bonus content or no it is not. It can't be that hard to get a straight answer, can it? Let's find out.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

badtothebone said:


> Amazon's position can easily be explained in a couple of theoretical terms. First: constructive ambiguity, as espoused by Henry Kissinger.
> 
> I think this issue definitely applies.
> 
> ...


I've long believed KDP is grossly understaffed and underfunded compared to other areas of the Amazon behemoth. That belief is based on no evidence other than the gross disparity between how expertly I'm handled as an Amazon _customer_ and the experiences authors report here.

But if KDP is, in fact, the Kissinger of self-publishing ... well, we haven't a hope.


----------



## wilsonharp (Jun 5, 2012)

Shelley K said:


> That's a start, but most don't include the same single story on all of their titles, just some. You can extrapolate from this the idea that they don't want bonus content used more than once, I agree, but I'm attempting to get them to nail down the language and actually say that a piece of bonus content can only appear in one title, not two or more. If that's true, they should have no problem stating it or confirming it.
> 
> Also, that says short story. I'm asking about complete books, since that's the content everybody's up in arms about. I am almost desperate to have them say yes an entire book currently in KU is acceptable bonus content or no it is not. It can't be that hard to get a straight answer, can it? Let's find out.


If you want a straight answer, one they have no problem stating or confirming, then you are wasting time asking non-Amazon related people on threads on Kboards. You need to be directing this line of questioning towards the only entity that can give you this much desired information: Amazon.

If this information is of such importance that simple logical inferences from available verbiage provided by Amazon to others is not sufficient to satisfy your queries, it is not worthwhile soliciting advice or suppositions from those who cannot, by definition, provide the answers that will satisfy you. I would highly recommend questioning Amazon until you are content.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2018)

*Authors who feel bad about being "stolen" from, are not actually being stolen from. Once authors understand this, they will feel much better. *

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Gaugran and the rest of the anti-stuffing crowd is correct that 
1) bonus content is against TOS; and 
2) bonus content is equivalent to theft.

(These are legitimately contestable, by the way, and not just by "flat earthers" as has been suggested. But let's just assume for a second that they are beyond question, 100% true.)

*Still, no one is stealing from fellow authors. **They're stealing from Amazon.* _Amazon_ sets the final rate each month, and it is not directly tied to the # of KU subscribers.

Even if the base pot is directly tied to that number, which we can never know for sure, Amazon is 100% transparent about juicing the pot with an arbitrary extra $ amount each month. Thus, Amazon decides the final rate. 

It is just pollyannaish to think that Amazon will suddenly pay authors more per page, if the total number of pages read decreases. They pay authors the minimum they can, and they decide what that is by a proprietary calculation that we are not privy to, and never will be. If the # of pages goes down, they will just juice the pot less and keep the rate the same.

Even if bonus content equates to theft, the theft is from Amazon, not fellow authors.

Surely once this is understood, the attacks against fellow authors will stop immediately. If they don't...then bonus content was never the issue in the first place, and there must be another factor at play... in which case we should identify what that factor is, so it can be properly discussed going forward.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

wilsonharp said:


> If you want a straight answer, one they have no problem stating or confirming, then you are wasting time asking non-Amazon related people on threads on Kboards.


I didn't ask a single question of anyone here.



> You need to be directing this line of questioning towards the only entity that can give you this much desired information: Amazon.
> 
> If this information is of such importance that simple logical inferences from available verbiage provided by Amazon to others is not sufficient to satisfy your queries, it is not worthwhile soliciting advice or suppositions from those who cannot, by definition, provide the answers that will satisfy you. I would highly recommend questioning Amazon until you are content.


Maybe reread the post you originally replied to. I _am_ asking Amazon. That was pretty much the point. You can also lay off the condescension.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

wilsonharp said:


> If you want a straight answer, one they have no problem stating or confirming, then you are wasting time asking non-Amazon related people on threads on Kboards. You need to be directing this line of questioning towards the only entity that can give you this much desired information: Amazon.
> 
> If this information is of such importance that simple logical inferences from available verbiage provided by Amazon to others is not sufficient to satisfy your queries, it is not worthwhile soliciting advice or suppositions from those who cannot, by definition, provide the answers that will satisfy you. I would highly recommend questioning Amazon until you are content.


I have to agree with this.^^

The emails I've read explain it quite well to me. Authors here on KBoards can argue the intent of specific wording 'til they're blue in the face and it's still never going to be a verifiable answer. If the emails posted here and the court documents are not enough to clarify it to you (and I'm not naming a specific "you") it would probably be sensible to send an email to [email protected] Get your response to your specific sticking point and post it up.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

EB said:


> I have to agree with this.^^
> 
> The emails I've read explain it quite well to me. Authors here on KBoards can argue the intent of specific wording 'til they're blue in the face and it's still never going to be a verifiable answer. If the emails posted here and the court documents are not enough to clarify it to you (and I'm not naming a specific "you") it would probably be sensible to send an email to [email protected] Get your response to your specific sticking point and post it up.


I intend to, as I made clear from the beginning. It's an academic exercise for me, since I don't use bonus content. The court document means nothing in any practical sense, however, until it's reflected in the TOS and in Amazon enforcing it. Evidence for that is still lacking, but I sure would like to be able to post a reply in the simplest language possible that has only one interpretation no matter what anyone wants it to really say. Maybe it'll help.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

EB said:


> I have to agree with this.^^
> 
> The emails I've read explain it quite well to me. Authors here on KBoards can argue the intent of specific wording 'til they're blue in the face and it's still never going to be a verifiable answer. If the emails posted here and the court documents are not enough to clarify it to you (and I'm not naming a specific "you") it would probably be sensible to send an email to [email protected] Get your response to your specific sticking point and post it up.


I think that people have the right to gamble their accounts on their own interpretation of Amazon's ToS. Many have done so in the past. Then we get to listen to them whine when they get hammered. Who would have thought there was so much drama to be had from a bunch of nerds sitting at home in their pajamas playing with their keyboards.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

badtothebone said:


> That's clearly what's happening. We have no idea how many KU subscribers there are - constructive ambiguity. We don't know what the page rate will be - constructive ambiguity.
> 
> The purpose of this ambiguity as I see it is to stop us banding together to demand better terms. A good way to do that is to pit us against each other.


I only wish I didn't believe this. I've long felt that the best way for them to keep us all fighting is to make this a zero-sum game, which is what they've done. We used to say "a rising tide lifts all boats." Not as many people say that, these days.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Cocker said:


> *Still, no one is stealing from fellow authors. **They're stealing from Amazon.*


Even if I grant you this (which I don't), so what? I can't believe I have to say this out loud, but *stealing is wrong no matter who you're stealing from*.

And you (and yes, obviously anyone with a single-post Doctor Seuss account who joined ONLY to post this pathetic defense is clearly one of the people I'm speaking to here) don't deserve twice or three times or ten times the money for a new release than does an author who's following the rules, just because you happen to have decided that the rules don't apply to you.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Cocker said:


> It is just pollyannaish to think that Amazon will suddenly pay authors more per page, if the total number of pages read decreases. They pay authors the minimum they can, and they decide what that is by a proprietary calculation that we are not privy to, and never will be. If the # of pages goes down, they will just juice the pot less and keep the rate the same.


Yes, no, maybe. I don't know... If bots are reading and thus boosting pages read by an inhuman amount each month, the pot, sweetened or not, is divided by inflated numbers. Remove bot reads and the same pot pays remaining page reads more.

I don't think Amazon pays the minimum they can -- they want KDP to thrive -- but they have to be sensible. If they paid a dollar a page, the Warrior Forum would empty in a nanosecond and spill onto this board. Then we'd see some real scams.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Cocker said:


> *Authors who feel bad about being "stolen" from, are not actually being stolen from. Once authors understand this, they will feel much better. *
> 
> Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Gaugran and the rest of the anti-stuffing crowd is correct that
> 1) bonus content is against TOS; and
> ...


I don't believe it is about payout per page (ETA--at least not entirely. I do think the fraud affects the payout to a certain extent.) The negative effects, from what I've seen, boil down to 3 things:

*1) Bonus payments.* (this is a big one.) I know for myself, after getting payments every month of 2017 through August, I haven't had one since. Maybe I just suck (always possible), but when I look at the work David Gaughran and Phoenix Sullivan have done, it's pretty clear where a lot of those payments have gone.

*2) Visibility.* (another huge one, especially in the genre where most of the dubious stuff is happening--contemporary romance.)

*3) KU reputability and reader skittishness. *Harder to pin down, but I think the hit to KU's reputation has been considerable amongst readers. They no longer believe in reviews, chart position, etc., because those have been so gamed. It is not so bad for somebody like me, with 5+ years of reputation-building, but it makes it a lot tougher for new authors without a history. Even if they get fabulous reviews--even if they get 100 fabulous reviews, or 500--readers won't believe it until their friends on Goodreads or other reader groups tell them. They've become jaded due to the continuing bad acting, and who can blame them?

Do I blame Amazon? You bet. But they're the police whistling and looking the other way, not the shoplifters.


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

One simple question:

Would everyone be this upset if a page read equaled a page read?


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Cocker said:


> Surely once this is understood, the attacks against fellow authors will stop immediately. If they don't...then bonus content was never the issue in the first place, and there must be another factor at play... in which case we should identify what that factor is, so it can be properly discussed going forward.


So, is your argument that as long as we view this as people robbing from our main distribution partner, then that's okay and fine and dandy? So no problem seeing that our industry has people who act unethically and taint the overall perception of self-publishers? As long as it's the big bad corporation whose pockets they're dipping into we should all just be fine with this and go about our merry way?

Yeah, no.

One, theft is theft is theft and I will call it out regardless of who is being stolen from. Two, it is possible that this type of activity could prove so difficult for Amazon to deal with (between the actual scamming that costs it cash and the complaints from all sides about the activity that require staffing to handle it and a damage to its reputation) that they say screw it and close down KDP. Three, we've already seen readers say they've turned away from self-publishers because of these kinds of shenanigans, so that impacts every single self-published author out there.

Every time one of these conversations occurs I am amazed by where people draw their moral lines and how they justify their actions.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Folks ...

1) The motivations of David G. and other authors who have been pursuing the stuffing issue should not be impugned.

2) The choice to join KB anonymously solely for the point of articulating a pro-stuffing position in this thread should not be used as a point of attack.

I'd like to see these two tenets followed better. They spring from the basic KB practices of 1) giving each person the benefit of the doubt to the greatest extent possible and 2) allowing as many viewpoints as possible to be given a public airing, so that people can decide for themselves what they're going to do.


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

Cassie Leigh said:


> So, is your argument that as long as we view this as people robbing from our main distribution partner, then that's okay and fine and dandy?


No. The argument is:

If there was no bonus content would there still be a problem in KU?

The answer to that would be yes. Botting could still elevate books and unbalance the amount paid.

There are many problems.

There's a problem when a page read doesn't equal a page read. ( Amazon said a page equals a page).

There's a problem when people can hack the system and artificially get reads.

There's a problem when people can make fake accounts and inflate pages read.

Page stuffing / bonus content is not the problem--it's the symptom.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Cassie Leigh said:


> Every time one of these conversations occurs I am amazed by where people draw their moral lines and how they justify their actions.


This, and ditto.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

I am a reader as well as a writer.  I like novels, I like short stories/short story collections, and I like omnibuses.  However, if I am in the mood for a novel I don't want to pick up what I thought was a full-length novel and long before I thought the novel was going to end, I get hit with "bonus" content.  If I get to the end of a novel and I'm happy with it and there happens to be a bonus story, then fine.  But it shouldn't take up a big percentage of the ebook.  I'm also fine with a chapter to the next book as an enticement. 

It needs to be really clearly labeled for the reader.  Ebooks are not physical products so we can't pick them up and leaf through them to get a good sense of what we are getting. Yes, we have the Look Inside but if you are used to reading novels, there is a certain length that you tend to get used to when reading in your genre and it's easier to tell with a physical book.  Do I have to go to the table of contents to see if I'm getting a full-length novel or not?  I can't rely on the number of pages of a book and instead have to click through to the table of contents to see what I'm getting? Do these books even tell you where the novel ends and the "bonus" content begins? Why are things getting so complicated for the reader?  

People are adding bonus content because they want high page reads without having to pay ghostwriters to write 600+ page novels, so they are making shortcuts somewhere.  I don't think all of the short stories are unique.  I glanced at some of the books and the titles from some of the "bonuses" sound quite similar.  I bet a lot of them are spun - replace the name of characters, a few details, etc.  Not everyone who is adding to the main novel is doing this, but these scams are built on shortcuts in one form or another.  They are adding "bonuses" to pad the books to make more money per book not because they just happened to write a long epic fantasy novel or the next War and Peace. 

I personally wouldn't pad my book with an extra short story for the page reads given all that is going on. If it's a nice bonus I can give it to my subscribers.  It's not the worse thing in the world but you could get associated with the stuffers that way.  Better to just write longer books if you really think page reads are where it's at.  With all the back and forth in this thread, it really comes down to providing your readers with the best experience that you can.  Those who are ethical and care about their readers are doing that and will continue to do that. 

The worst thing about the stuffing is the reader experience.  Although in the short-term writers might be robbed of All-Star bonuses or the KENPC being affected, the long-term is what is more serious - driving people away from independent writers/ KU books.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Boyd said:


> How many accounts is a user allowed?


The TOS isn't clear to me personally so 36?


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> 2) The choice to join KB anonymously solely for the point of articulating a pro-stuffing position in this thread should not be used as a point of attack.


With respect, I don't understand this at all.

Posters have the right to do so anonymously, but to be given the go-ahead to create accounts solely for expressing an opinion does nothing to add to the discourse. Whether Phoenix is her real name or not, we know that when she posts we can trust her data, because she's proven time and time again how accurate her research is. There is history there, and we can use that history to give weight (or not) to the post.

Sock puppet accounts have no history by which to assess their knowledge or character. You've asked that we not use the word "trolls" and I'm happy to comply, but I push back against the idea that a person can create an account 1 minute before posting and not have it called out. Your house, your rules, but I dissent.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

ChristinaGarner said:


> With respect, I don't understand this at all.
> 
> Posters have the right to do so anonymously, but to be given the go-ahead to create accounts solely for expressing an opinion does nothing to add to the discourse. Whether Phoenix is her real name or not, we know that when she posts we can trust her data, because she's proven time and time again how accurate her research is. There is history there, and we can use that history to give weight (or not) to the post.
> 
> Sock puppet accounts have no history by which to assess their knowledge or character. You've asked that we not use the word "trolls" and I'm happy to comply, but I push back against the idea that a person can create an account 1 minute before posting and not have it called out. Your house, your rules, but I dissent.


Seconded.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Boyd said:


> How many accounts is a user allowed?


Except in very limited circumstances, and with the forum's prior permission, only one. If you know someone is running a second account, please drop us a line.


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> Except in very limited circumstances, and with the forum's prior permission, only one. If you know someone is running a second account, please drop us a line.


I would think the mods would know better than us--IP addresses and all. Certainly those can be masked, but it would be a place to start.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

People using bonus books aren't stealing from Amazon.

For one, Amazon has said bonus books (so long as they are not the vaguely defined "undifferentiated content") are fine many times.

For another, Amazon is the one in charge. They could very, very easily roll out new terms of service that say "your book may not include more than 10% duplicate content," or something else incredibly clear. "Kindle Unlimited books may not be published under two separate ASINs." Etc. Etc.

They could very, very easily hire someone to go though new releases to make sure they aren't full of bonus books.

They've known this was a problem for well over a year and done nothing. On the contrary, they've replied to emails in ways that make it clear bonus books are allowed.

Are they stealing from other authors? It really depends on how you define stealing. But the fact of the matter is bonus books make people a lot of money, so, as long as they're allowed, people will keep doing them. Calling people immoral on the internet doesn't lead to changes in behavior. Trust me, I've tried.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Crystal_ said:


> On the contrary, they've replied to emails in ways that make it clear bonus books are allowed.


Show the email pls.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

ChristinaGarner said:


> With respect, I don't understand this at all.
> 
> Posters have the right to do so anonymously, but to be given the go-ahead to create accounts solely for expressing an opinion does nothing to add to the discourse. Whether Phoenix is her real name or not, we know that when she posts we can trust her data, because she's proven time and time again how accurate her research is. There is history there, and we can use that history to give weight (or not) to the post.
> 
> Sock puppet accounts have no history by which to assess their knowledge or character. You've asked that we not use the word "trolls" and I'm happy to comply, but I push back against the idea that a person can create an account 1 minute before posting and not have it called out. Your house, your rules, but I dissent.


I see no reason at all why you or anyone else should give equal weight to the comments of an anonymous newbie, compared to those of a known colleague with a long track record. But there's a big difference between reading a post and thinking to oneself, "I'm going to ignore all this because I don't find the poster credible," and launching an attack against that person based on their account status. The former is fine, the latter is not. And why should it be necessary, anyway? Are other members really less able to notice the newness and anonymity of certain accounts than you are? Everyone can see when accounts were created; everyone can notice a poster is anonymous. The forum software makes that info perfectly clear. The attacks degrade the tone of our conversation while providing nothing we don't all already notice.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

ChristinaGarner said:


> I would think the mods would know better than us--IP addresses and all. Certainly those can be masked, but it would be a place to start.


Betsy has the magic global moderator powers to check IP addresses, and I'm sure she will do that the next time she's online. Ann might be able to ... not sure. Unfortunately, I'm the only one around right now, and I can't do it.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> I see no reason at all why you or anyone else should give equal weight to the comments of an anonymous newbie, compared to those of a known colleague with a long track record. But there's a big difference between reading a post and thinking to oneself, "I'm going to ignore all this because I don't find the poster credible," and launching an attack against that person based on their account status. The former is fine, the latter is not. And why should it be necessary, anyway? Are other members really less able to notice the newness and anonymity of certain accounts than you are? Everyone can see when accounts were created; everyone can notice a poster is anonymous. The forum software makes that info perfectly clear. The attacks degrade the tone of our conversation while providing nothing we don't all already notice.


How is it an "attack" to point out that someone is an anon poster who is not known in the community and has only contributed to threads on stuffing?

Seems pertinent. Considering what you do allow this seems a weird place to draw a line.


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> I see no reason at all why you or anyone else should give equal weight to the comments of an anonymous newbie, compared to those of a known colleague with a long track record. But there's a big difference between reading a post and thinking to oneself, "I'm going to ignore all this because I don't find the poster credible," and launching an attack against that person based on their account status. The former is fine, the latter is not. And why should it be necessary, anyway? Are other members really less able to notice the newness and anonymity of certain accounts than you are? Everyone can see when accounts were created; everyone can notice a poster is anonymous. The forum software makes that info perfectly clear. The attacks degrade the tone of our conversation while providing nothing we don't all already notice.


Pointing something out does not strike me as an attack. Also, we have right here yet another 20 page thread thread with people still defending book stuffing as in line with Amazon's TOS so I'm pretty sure pointing out the obvious is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary.


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2018)

Cassie Leigh said:


> So, is your argument that as long as we view this as people robbing from our main distribution partner, then that's okay and fine and dandy? So no problem seeing that our industry has people who act unethically and taint the overall perception of self-publishers? As long as it's the big bad corporation whose pockets they're dipping into we should all just be fine with this and go about our merry way?


No. my argument is:

1) the negative effects caused by stuffing are far less harmful to other authors than the rhetoric on Kboards says. KU is not a zero-sum game. Amazon wants us to _believe_ it is because it keeps us divided and off their ass. but it actually isn't, because they control the final payout each month and that payout is not tethered to pages read. They are pretty much playing us like fiddles when we squabble amongst ourselves.

2) Bonus content/stuffing is a huge cluster-f of a gray area. Amazon's policies and emails are vague and inconsistent, enforcement is vague and inconsistent. From the big perspective, it's really, really gray. Some here see it as the purest black and white, but I'm not the only one who sees it as gray. And it's not only bonus content that's a cluster-f. It's all of KU. The system is fundamentally broken, and Amazon's "constructive vagueness" makes it that much worse.

3) stuffing is primarily Amazon's problem, not your (nonspecific) problem, and certainly not your job to police

4) certain Kboards members are _so_ morally self-assured that they want other authors' careers ended and incite action toward that end, which is very chilling. A deep sense of moral purity frequently enables terrible treatment of other people who are perceived to be on the wrong side, which is exactly what is happening here, and the consequences of that are far more tangible, immediate, and detrimental than the original problem itself.

5) the focus on bonus content is a distraction from REAL problems like clickfarms, botting, Amazon hiding borrow numbers, stripping ranks willy-nilly, etc.. we're all so busy cutting each other down over bonus books that there's no energy left to collectively pursue any of the more serious problems.

what chills me most is certain authors being SO self-assured of their own moral righteousness that they are willing to ruin others' livelihoods over it. Like, for example, I feel _pretty_ sure of what I'm saying in this post, otherwise I wouldn't post it, but I would *never* dare to self-appoint myself as some kind of moral authority over anyone else here, by reporting them to Amazon "authorities" or smearing their reputations. and I am super skeptical of anyone who is willing to do that, especially when it's used as a justification to string up other authors or there are possible profit motives involved.



Cassie Leigh said:


> Every time one of these conversations occurs I am amazed by where people draw their moral lines and how they justify their actions.


Equally amazing are the bad actions and treatment that people here justify based on their own sense of moral purity. There are two sides to this coin.



ChristinaGarner said:


> Sock puppet accounts have no history by which to assess their knowledge or character.


It is possible to evaluate ideas on their own merit, without knowing who put them forth. I post on a throwaway account because I'm not interested in making myself a target, and I assume that's the same reason all the other "sock puppet" accounts post this way. No one is going to willingly throw themselves into a pack of wolves.



ChristinaGarner said:


> with people still defending book stuffing as in line with Amazon's TOS so I'm pretty sure pointing out the obvious is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary.


The thing is, it is not a settled issue in the slightest. It is only settled among a certain group here at Kboards.


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

Cocker said:


> It is possible to evaluate ideas on their own merit, without knowing who put them forth. I post on a throwaway account because I'm not interested in making myself a target, and I assume that's the same reason all the other "sock puppet" accounts post this way. *No one is going to willingly throw themselves into a pack of wolves*.


Boy are you making that argument to the wrong person


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

ChristinaGarner said:


> Boy are you making that argument to the wrong person


That darn missing Like button.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> I see no reason at all why you or anyone else should give equal weight to the comments of an anonymous newbie, compared to those of a known colleague with a long track record. But there's a big difference between reading a post and thinking to oneself, "I'm going to ignore all this because I don't find the poster credible," and launching an attack against that person based on their account status. The former is fine, the latter is not. And why should it be necessary, anyway? Are other members really less able to notice the newness and anonymity of certain accounts than you are? Everyone can see when accounts were created; everyone can notice a poster is anonymous. The forum software makes that info perfectly clear. The attacks degrade the tone of our conversation while providing nothing we don't all already notice.


It's not only the newness of the account. It's how it all adds up:

New account.

Highly articulate and apparently knowledgeable about the topics at hand.

On the gray or black side or, at best, ultra-libertarian (in a general, not a political sense) of the argument.

Defending practices that the vast majority of known, highly respected posters have exposed as deceptive, unethical, abusive, out of bounds, not in line with the letter or spirit of the rules, deleterious to fellow authors, etc.

Often, there are proven links with the person or website in question, e.g., personal FB friends, accounts from the same IP address, accounts using handles similar to or the same as the person or website in question has used before, and so on.

Rather like in a court of law, when there's a hostile witness or a witness with proven conflicts of interests, the cross-examining lawyer gets more leeway to grill them. That principle should apply here, subject to the moderators' considered judgment.

By analogy, a group of scientists should not be forced to the same standard of restraint and fairmindedness when a flat-earther tries to claim equal time and consideration. Some claims really should be dismissed with extreme prejudice and contempt.


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

Cocker said:


> I post on a throwaway account because I'm not interested in making myself a target, and I assume that's the same reason all the other "sock puppet" accounts post this way.


Just pointing out that yet again you're admitting you break the rules to suit your own ends.

"Throwaway accounts." Thoughts on this tactic, Becca?


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> It's not only the newness of the account. It's how it all adds up:
> 
> New account.
> 
> ...


This exactly.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

dgaughran said:


> How is it an "attack" to point out that someone is an anon poster who is not known in the community and has only contributed to threads on stuffing?
> 
> Seems pertinent. Considering what you do allow this seems a weird place to draw a line.





ChristinaGarner said:


> Pointing something out does not strike me as an attack. Also, we have right here yet another 20 page thread thread with people still defending book stuffing as in line with Amazon's TOS so I'm pretty sure pointing out the obvious is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary.


Hm. Well, if you really think the rest of us need it pointed out, I suppose you could do so. But the ways I've seen it done here -- with sock-puppet gifs and disparaging language -- are attacks, yes. So please find a different way to call our attention to the "Posts: 1," the lack of avatar, the empty sig, the "Date Registered: [today]," the "SorryNoName" handle, and all the other indicators.



ChristinaGarner said:


> Just pointing out that yet again you're admitting you break the rules to suit your own ends.
> 
> "Throwaway accounts." Thoughts on this tactic, Becca?


Depends on what "a throwaway account" means. If Cocker already has an account and started a new one just to comment on this thread, then he/she is in violation of our rules and will be subject to moderation. If he/she doesn't already have an account and started one just for the purpose of commenting on this thread, planning never to come here again, then he/she is not in violation of the rules. I have no way of knowing, but it will be looked into -- we always try to, on threads like this.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Boyd said:


> So you folks know people have made second accounts to defend pro stuffing. It isn't a secret, they're on other forums and complaining about people saying stuffing is no bueno. Just was wondering where the owners and moderators stood. Good to know. Kboards is no longer a safe place.
> 
> Back to lurking mode. Nothing here worth sticking my neck out on anyways.


Apparently I'm not only those other sites where these folks brag about their second accounts. When we discover a second account, or an account belonging to someone who's been banned, we nix it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2018)

Boyd said:


> Is it an attack against somebody who's a self admitted sock puppet? NOPE. If the sock fits.... And you did ask for proof and darn it... the culprit admitted to it.


I am posting anonymously because it is highly likely that my pen name/career would be burnt to a crisp in the ensuing witch hunt, if I revealed it. Why would I subject myself to that?

All the arguments I posted stand on their own, regardless of who I am or what my business practices are. But, the responses so far seem more interested in removing me from the conversation entirely rather than actually discussing what I said.

I won't insult you or anyone else here with gifs or snide comments, and if you are willing to return the courtesy, that would be a good starting point.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Boyd said:


> I'm guilty of the porkchop gif, that was me. I've used it for at least 4-5 years calling out the same stuff. It's the same gif the way that I've always been the dancing darth vader while using my real name. Is it an attack against somebody who's a self admitted sock puppet? NOPE. If the sock fits.... And you did ask for proof and darn it... the culprit admitted to it.
> 
> You're defending them? Hmmmmmmmmm?? For realz?


The only thing I'm defending is the right of every person on this board to be spoken to respectfully -- even the people you think suck.

Due to others' commitments, I've mostly been the only moderator around. This thread has taken two of my days. If the only thing left to focus on is my many failings, I'm shutting this puppy down and getting back to my writing.


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> Depends on what "a throwaway account" means. If Cocker already has an account and started a new one just to comment on this thread, then he/she is in violation of our rules and will be subject to moderation. If he/she doesn't already have an account and started one just for the purpose of commenting on this thread, planning never to come here again, then he/she is not in violation of the rules. I have no way of knowing, but it will be looked into -- we always try to, on threads like this.


Hey Cocker-- can you please confirm this account you started today just to post in this thread is the only KBoards account you have?


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

It is not a 'settled' issue with an 'obvious' answer or this thread would not be 21 pages long. Those who like to insist their own opinion & interpretation are right claim it's settled & like to try to silence disagreement or opposing opinions. IMO it is quite clear from Amazon TOS that bonus books are allowed & expected. Just because some here like to make fun of me & many other authors for having that opinion doesn't make their opinion settled science like the fact that the earth is round. That is ridiculous & I could say the same about those with opposing opinions but it doesn't make it true.

If we all would quit fighting & take a moment to ponder the fact that Amazon is full of stuffed books in the top 100 that might be an answer as to whether or not Amazon thinks book stuffing is okay. It is almost laughable to think that Amazon would continue to allow a practice that some of ya'all claim is obviously 'settled' as being against Amazon TOS. All Amazon would have to do to books they don't like is remove them from sale, not display them prominently in the top 100 & give KU all star bonuses each & every month to books with bonus books. Amazon is sending a message loud & clear. Instead of facing this fact some feel like demonizing the authors who do understand it's allowed. Jimminy crickets- Talk about being willfully blind & not only stubbornly insisting on something incorrect but also attacking others who may in fact be correct.

ETA- sorry Becca, I think I was editing as you were editing & thought I had messed up my post & lost some of it. If I accidentally put back in something you meant to remove please re remove it of course.

_Edited in the area of the brackets. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_
_ETA: No need -- your edit of that area is better than mine was. - Becca_


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

The very fact that ya'all misunderstood Becca's post is proof of how your own interpretations of things might just be incorrect. She said people are allowed to register anonymously to comment on this very timely & hotly debated issue without being attacked for doing so. Some people thought she meant people are allowed to register second accounts just to debate this issue, & so jumped on her, when she in fact meant something very different [she was talking about first time posters]. Maybe this is a great example of how sometimes people accidentally read what they want to read or think they read into things & no one should be on a crusade against other people for having differing interpretations because they just might be wrong about their own interpretations.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

It's a little bit like an FBI investigation. Time will tell if it's a witch hunt.  Amazon keeps things very close to the vest until they move. 

I certainly do agree that they could be clearer, and could act more decisively (or at all), if this is indeed not A-OK with them. The events of the past week seem to indicate that something is going on behind the scenes.


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

Usedtoposthere said:


> I certainly do agree that they could be clearer, and could act more decisively (or at all), if this is indeed not A-OK with them. The events of the past week seem to indicate that something is going on behind the scenes.


Agree with this. It's been said before, but Amazon doesn't care...until they do.

I'd add something though: The very explicit wording in the TOS prohibiting publishing a KU title under two accounts (your own and the publisher of a box set's for example) was put in place long before Amazon chose to enforce it. Just because people got away with it for a time didn't make it any less against the rules--however much people argued the opposite. It didn't make the people doing it right; they just weren't caught. Until they were.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

ChristinaGarner said:


> Agree with this. It's been said before, but Amazon doesn't care...until they do.
> 
> I'd add something though: The very explicit wording in the TOS prohibiting publishing a KU title under two accounts (your own and the publisher of a box set's for example) was put in place long before Amazon chose to enforce it. Just because people got away with it for a time didn't make it any less against the rules--however much people argued the opposite. It didn't make the people doing it right; they just weren't caught. Until they were.


Right, but I don't think the comparison is apt due to the fact that that TOS contained, as you say, very explicit wording. To my plain view reading of the TOS that applies to bonus content, Amazon specifically allows it & even tells us how to do it.

https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G202018960

'Bonus Content
If you choose to include bonus content (e.g. other stories, or previews of other books), it should be relevant to the customer and should not disrupt the reading experience. To meet these guidelines, we require placing additional content at the end of the book, listing the bonus content in your book's table of contents, and including a note in your book description if a significant portion of your book's content is not from the book listed in the title field.

Primary and bonus content must meet all program guidelines (e.g., bonus content in KDP Select titles must be exclusive). Translated content must be high quality and not machine generated. Disruptive links and promises of gifts or rewards are never allowed.'

I've seen arguments about the definitions & interpretations of 'other stories,' 'relevant,' & even 'exclusive' so to me there is room for debate about what those things mean & not at all any explicit guideline. IMO these are just 'hopeful' interpretations or muddying of the waters by those who want bonus content to be prohibited but it's certainly nothing conclusive like the other TOS you mentioned.

Of course my own view is that this TOS pretty explicitly allows for bonus content so long as the customer is notified that it is included.

_Edited, pursuant to this. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## AlecHutson (Sep 26, 2016)

writerlygal said:


> Right, but I don't think the comparison is apt due to the fact that that TOS contained, as you say, very explicit wording. To my plain view reading of the TOS that applies to bonus content, Amazon specifically allows it & even tells us how to do it.
> 
> https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G202018960
> 
> ...


Bonus content is allowed. No one that I've seen in this thread has ever suggested that bonus content is NOT allowed. It is the TYPE of bonus content. You want to add a unique short story that's never appeared anywhere else in KU at the end of your book? Fine. You want to throw in an entire book that is not elsewhere in KU? Fine, as it's not explicitly forbidden according to the content guidelines.

But the guidelines are very clear about bonus content that has appeared elsewhere in KU. It is not allowed. Not. Allowed.

This is the exact wording:

'We do not allow content that disappoints our customers, including but not limited to: Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store'

So publishing book B at the end of book A, C, D, E and F is clearly - clearly - in violation of this. It is not differentiated content. It is the exact same book, tens of thousands of identical words.

To recap:

Bonus content that is unique is allowed

Bonus content that already appears elsewhere in the store is - very clearly, to anyone with basic reading comprehension - not allowed.

Yeesh.


----------



## Nicholas Erik (Sep 22, 2015)

I deleted a long post defending the moderation, but after a few more posts, I decided it was worth whatever flak I might get.

I think it's extremely bogus the amount of heat Becca is taking for this. Moderating is a thankless job, and there are 4 - 5 (?) mods to moderate a community of almost 100,000 users. They spend countless hours for free for our collective benefit. KBoards is an invaluable resource, and the mods are a large part of what makes this possible. Managing an albatross of a thread where emotions are running high is an impossible task, and I think she's acquitted herself admirably. 

The main violations I see, from most of these purported "sock puppets" are A) being anonymous and B) having an opinion that is unpopular. The people who are outright trying to stir the pot - both established and new members - have been quickly removed. Warnings have been given to those who have made unsubstantiated claims about people's ulterior motives. 

It is often lamented that Amazon wields an automated hacksaw rather than a scalpel. Indeed, that looks to be Amazon's response to this debacle - removing page reads and banning innocent authors. Yet people are calling for Becca to wield that same hacksaw by banning accounts that they believe are sock puppets on what amounts to circumstantial evidence. Even if said circumstantial evidence is strong, I would hope that the mods would give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they can confirm such allegations with IP addresses. And, in that vein, I see the moderators give established/respected posters a much greater benefit of the doubt when it comes to issues of forum decorum than the newcomers. This is reasonable, but I call BS on this whole idea that bullies/pot stirrers are allowed to run rampant on KBoards - and I think such accusations damage not only the discussion, but the community. 

I have zero horse in this book stuffing race, but since I'm here I will say this: it takes mental gymnastics beyond my capabilities to believe that Amazon approves of it. 

Leaving aside interpretations of the poorly worded TOS, there are two clear-cut problems with stuffing: one, it skews the All Star bonuses in favor of stuffed books. Truly individual titles lose out on what can be substantial bonuses to individual titles stuffed with multiple other books. That doesn't affect most of us (myself included), but it isn't nothing. And two, while the focus almost always centers on KU readers, and thus the "harm" of getting something different than advertised is zero, this ignores the people who purchase books. If a reader pays $5 thinking they're buying a single 500 page novel and instead gets two 200 page novel and a novella, it is disingenuous to consider these "bonuses." Some readers shop based on book length. Much of this "bonus content" is not clearly labeled in the book description, making this essentially a bait-and-switch - where one thing is advertised, then a different good is delivered. Given that this is against the law in the US, I can't imagine that Amazon would want to encourage anything that can remotely be construed as such. 

All in all, the court documents, (spirit of the) TOS, and ECR responses all strongly suggest Amazon does not want this behavior on their storefront and that you're playing with extreme fire if you stuff. If it's a gray area, it's extremely dark gray, if only because the TOS is purposely vague. In any event, I can't see how the risk would possibly be worth it, especially because the pages gained from stuffing have been reported to be only 10 - 20%+. That just seems like a high risk, low reward bet. 

Nick


----------



## The one with all the big dresses on the covers (Jan 25, 2016)

Nicholas Erik said:


> I deleted a long post defending the moderation, but after a few more posts, I decided it was worth whatever flak I might get.
> 
> I think it's extremely bogus the amount of heat Becca is taking for this. Moderating is a thankless job, and there are 4 - 5 (?) mods to moderate a community of almost 100,000 users. They spend countless hours for free for our collective benefit. KBoards is an invaluable resource, and the mods are a large part of what makes this possible. Managing an albatross of a thread where emotions are running high is an impossible task, and I think she's acquitted herself admirably.
> 
> ...


Thanks Nick. I'm sick in bed today and couldn't bring myself to formulate a post of my own, but I'm in agreement with what you've said (including re book stuffing). Kboards already gets accused of being biased (wrongly in my opinion), but given that, I'm always glad to see the moderators defending posters who the established community here (and even potentially the moderators themselves privately) disagree with. It gives the lie to the idea that they--and by extension the community--are biased and unwilling to hear dissenting opinions.


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

Nicholas Erik said:


> The main violations I see, from most of these purported "sock puppets" are A) being anonymous and B) having an opinion that is unpopular.


The main violation (and objection to) sock puppets is that they are sock puppets. The problem isn't anonymity but deception, which is the point of a sock puppet.

When a lurker is moved to create an account or post for the first time because a particular thread inspires them to do so, that's not a sock puppet; it's a legitimately new member of the community. It's also pretty clear when that's what is actually happening. Refer to David's post for the very marked difference when a person creates a duplicate account just so they can express an opinion and not have to stand behind it in any real way.


----------



## MmmmmPie (Jun 23, 2015)

mias said:


> Just a random thought, but if these KU 99c brigade "bonus book" people are spending way large sums on AMS advertising as some claim, why would Amazon make any effort to bring down the hammer on them? If All-Star bonuses are just going back into Amazon's pocket via AMS?


Let's say a stuffer spends $1,000 a day on AMS ads. That's $30,000 a month. With All Star bonuses, plus stuffed page reads, a mega-stuffer can gross over $100,000 a month, easy. So, even though Amazon is making money on the AMS ads, they're still paying the stuffer $70,000 a month, likely for many pages that aren't, in fact, being read.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

dgaughran said:


> Show the email pls.


All of the emails posted on this thread say that bonus content is allowed under certain (broad) ciumstances. It is only not allowed when it's reordered content, which is not a thing people do regularly anyway


----------



## MmmmmPie (Jun 23, 2015)

You know what's frustrating about this whole discussion? It's that short term, those of us who don't stuff are made to feel like fools. 

Yes, we could increase our income exponentially by stuffing our novels to the gills and using those 10-dollar borrows to buy a ton of advertising. Oh, and hey, let's use some bots to read those pages. And while we're at it, let's use some bots to borrow our books to boost our ranks. After all, Amazon hasn't done much to address these issues, so it must be okay, right?

Month after month, I've told myself that Amazon will address these issues, and month after month, this has been allowed to continue. After a while, it's easy to say, "Cripes, why am I sitting here like an idiot, while the stuffers rake in all the visibility, all the bonuses, all the page-reads, and drive down the payout for everyone? Damn, I should jump on this gravy train. Yee-ha!"

But I don't. Because I've spent a long time building genuine fans, and I don't want to trash what I've built for short-term gains. Plus, I don't want to risk it. If I'm "stuffing" or engaging in other iffy practices when the ban hammer comes down (as it almost surely will eventually), I've risked my income, my job, my passion. It's not the same for the scammers, because when the ban hammer comes down, they'll just move onto something else.

A few months ago, I began pulling out of KU. I'm glad I did. I'm not a huge name, but I am a genuine USA Today Bestselling Author, and have had multiple books hit the top 100. My next release will surely suffer rank-wise, because I'm not releasing it in KU. But I've gotten to the point where I simply don't care. I'd rather build a slower and steadier audience on other retailers than engage in this dog-eat-dog game of, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

And here's another thing, as long as I'm ranting, it's gotten to the point where KU doesn't get you a ton of visibility anyway. My genre is new adult romance, which is the primary nesting place for these stuffers. Try releasing a non-stuffed book for $2.99 or $3.99 when the category is absolutely littered with 99-cent stuffed books, many of which are boosted by bots, outsized advertising budgets (thanks to the 10-dollar borrows), and other dubious practices. 

Amazon has created an environment (at least in some categories) where if you don't cheat/scam/stuff, you're at a huge disadvantage. So yes. I guess I'm a fool. But now I'm wide, and I can't tell you what a relief it is to be getting out of this toxic system.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

Maybe the simplest solution would be to ask Amazon to end the All-Star program. It seems to me that the original intention of the program was to encourage the production of quality content in a very different landscape, one in which there was no indie publishing scene, and as a result there was too little competitively priced content available for purchase. Think of it like an "X prize", which have been successfully used to start the development of technologies like electric cars and space travel.

The thing is, these prizes don't continue to pay out every single month years after the initial technology has been seeded. This is for the precise reason that continuing the incentive would create distortions in a free and fair marketplace: technology developers would chase the prize (which has a simple yes/no criteria for winning) rather than developing a more complex and competitive business model. It's the same in the overall economy: tax incentives (e.g. for oil companies) distort the free market. We are seeing precisely these distortions in our market! I see no particular reason why the All-Star "X prize" should continue.

As I have demonstrated in this thread, bonus books as used by romance authors* do not inflate the gross volume of total pages read. Neither do they dilute the value of the page rate. They are not hurting most of you in the way you believe they are: by taking money out of your pocket. In financial terms, they are only hurting those publishers who would otherwise be receiving All-Star bonuses. These bonus books simply entrench the share of the pie for certain books: those who ride high in the top 100, supported by vast advertising spends. These books and publishers are then rewarded with additional money that continues to entrench that dominance.

In fact, the more I think about it the more I think this might work. The problem with "fixing" bonus content is it requires Amazon to either spend money developing a technical system for identification of content, which will no doubt throw up false positive readings, which will in turn raise more community ire, or hire staff to police the Kindle store. We know they are loath to consider either option, since both of these possible solutions cost them money and time.

By contrast, killing All-Star payments would save Amazon both money (across the multiple storefronts) in the region of $1 million/month, and time. They could even then invest both these resources either in the pot, or in developing better policing tools. I would suggest that we should campaign for them to return this money to the overall pot , where it can be distributed more equitably. Right now it seems to me that the All-Star system is simply entrenching inequality. More importantly, though, at a stroke it would remove the vast majority of the incentive for using bonus books.

Of course, you could argue that my position is ridiculous. Why should successful authors lose out on All-Star bonuses they believe are rightfully theirs because of bonus books? Look, no system is stable forever. I have already demonstrated my position that the All-Star program is a legacy relic that should have been removed long ago. The majority of All-Star recipients get less than $1000. If an author is receiving one, it means they are doing something right with the business already. My argument is exactly the same as the argument on tax brackets, many hate the idea of ultra high net worth paying lots of tax, because they believe that one day they might reach the same lofty heights. But when you look at the statistics, about half of 1% of people would actually pay more, yet the tax generated would help everyone. I think this situation is the same. There are a hundred thousand authors on this board alone. Even if every single bonus had to go to unique recipient (hint, they don't), only 200 authors would get anything out of the All-Star program at all. Half of those would get in the region of $250/$500. Are handouts for the already successful really the hill we want to die on?

ETA: or if this suggestion isn't palatable, what about simply saying that only books using the 70% royalty rate are eligible for All-Star payments? Slam dunk?

*Again, I believe there is a more insidious usage of bonus books which is the machine generated 3000 page content that we DO NOT see in the charts. The stuff that gets borrowed once or twice a day, but which there are thousands of volumes of. This stuff absolutely does both inflate the total page volume and dilute the page rate. But this is an entirely different argument that I do not believe should be conflated. "Stuffed" romance novels are being read by real readers with paid-up Kindle accounts. Machine generated content is being read by machines using unpaid trial account, all directed by a computer program.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Nicholas Erik said:


> I deleted a long post defending the moderation, but after a few more posts, I decided it was worth whatever flak I might get.


I respect your view, even though we disagree on this. I've taken my mod comments to PM - which might be more appropriate.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

PaulineMRoss said:


> As someone else pointed out upthread, bonus books do indeed inflate the gross volume of total pages read. They do it by double dipping. Here's how:
> 
> A customer downloads book A. Author gets paid for book A. Reader likes the author's work, so she downloads book B. She finds book A stuffed at the back of book B, so she reads it again. Author gets paid for book B AND book A. The author has now been paid TWICE for the same reader reading the same book, which isn't supposed to happen.
> 
> I agree that this is worse, far worse, because there are no real authors or readers in the equation, just fraudsters. But this does not negate the point that books stuffed with duplicate content, even by legitimate authors using legitimate books, harms other authors by diluting the KU pool. And Amazon agrees, because there it is in the court case.


Yes that's the section of my argument that rests on an unprovable assertion, I guess: that there is not a massive pool of readers who are only reading the same book over and over again. There is so much fresh content out there it seems to defy belief that the readers driving the dominance of bad boy romance in the top 100, all of which is fresh content let's not forget, are then proceeding to read a bonus book a dozen times. The way I think about it is this: if these readers were deeply engaged with the books they were reading (i.e. rereading old books), rather than constantly seeking out fresh substitute goods in their genre, then bad boy romance would not dominate the top 100, because the readers wouldn't constantly be searching out new content. The proof that they are in fact searching out new content is the dominance of brand-new books in the top 100: the rank boost only happens once, so the fact these books are being boosted to the top is due to readers searching for new content. Since they provably want fresh books, they probably are not reading old books over and over again. It seems to stand up logically.

Is there some element of double dipping? Probably. But likely no more than box sets. Do box sets also cheat other authors? I personally believe not, I believe that neither situation is harmful. Amazon has never shown any intention of paying us more than half a cent a page. They have found the lower bound at which we will search for other options, and they keep us in between those two variables. This can basically be described as our wholesale transfer pricing problem. https://25iq.com/2013/06/12/wholesale-transfer-pricing-and-the-free-parking-business-model/

It's also worth noting that this filing is not a court case, as someone pointed out up thread. It's an arbitration, which is a very different kettle of fish, and has a much, much lower burden of proof. Amazon's filing threw everything including the kitchen sink at this guy. That's what happens in a real court case: you go with everything you have, and then see what sticks. This case was never seen by a judge. All the judges decision was in this instance was confirming that the arbiter for the arbitration was fair and unbiased. This is not the same as saying the Supreme Court has made a decision.

ETA: I accidentally pressed post before I was finished when I meant to press preview, apologies if my initial response confused anyone.


----------



## ivyquinn (Mar 23, 2017)

This takes a bit of a social justice angle as well and has a bit of explicit content but it's pretty interesting - https://medium.com/legendary-women/amazon-scammers-an-unregulated-group-pushing-out-women-lgbt-and-african-american-authors-in-4c96b156a14d


----------



## SuzyQ (Jun 22, 2017)

Crystal_ said:


> All of the emails posted on this thread say that bonus content is allowed under certain (broad) ciumstances. It is only not allowed when it's reordered content, which is not a thing people do regularly anyway


Yeah, exactly this. That's what I find so confusing. I don't really like the practice of stuffing in principle, but I think a lot of the legit authors don't do anything like what David's email proposes.

Most of the bonus books I see are used once during a new release and ususlly removed. Author writes A. A few years later author writes G and includes A because nobody's reading it anyway. It's unlikely the same people are reading that bonus book for the second time but that's up to the winds of chance, my friends.

That was a very specific question with a very specific answer and it doesn't really prove anything.


----------



## gonegonegonegone (Apr 9, 2018)

wow, I hadn't realised things were that bad in romance. In sci-fi and fantasy, it seems to me the readers like knowing and rewarding authors over content-mills.


----------



## OhMo (Apr 1, 2018)

Article started with a report on Amazon's recent crackdown on stuffing, which has nothing to do with the writer's message.  Seems to be trying to ride in on the coat tails of a real issue, and a great way to stuff keywords for better search results.  From my perspective makes the entire article suspect.

And to say, "Female fans can get fooled..." is about as sexist as such scribbling can get.  Men can't "get" fooled by the same supposed scammers?  Or is she saying men cannot enjoy, so don't read, romance?  

Reads much like one of those mills she claims to oppose.  I seriously doubt the romance industry is impacted by what she reports any more than any other industry.  No, thanks; not my cup of tea. As content goes, this one is complete non-content.

And I'm not knocking anyone who enjoys her blog or shares her unfounded fears.  I concluded the thread was started and link shared for comment.


----------



## ivyquinn (Mar 23, 2017)

I'm just posting something I found interesting out there. I think after the court filings and the Forbes article, more pieces are starting to come out.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

_Some of the material contained below is sexually graphic and might be triggering._ I've no idea what that means. Might be triggering? Triggering what? It also states that the all star bonus comes out of the fund; I understood it was separate. I think the article is just regurgitating what David Gaughan said; nothing new here.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

Folks, I can't help feeling this is part of the same story as the long scammer thread and I'm going to merge the two to keep it all in one place.

Sorry for any confusion!

Evenstar, Moderator


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

Nicholas Erik said:


> I have zero horse in this book stuffing race, but since I'm here I will say this: it takes mental gymnastics beyond my capabilities to believe that Amazon approves of it.


This, 100% ^^

With Amazon's arbitration suit, which states:









and










and










and










and from Amazon KDP


> Disappointing content
> We do not allow content that disappoints our customers, including but not limited to:
> 
> Content that is either marketed as a subscription or redirects readers to an external source to obtain the full content
> ...


I'm not understanding how anyone can continue to say that Amazon is ok with it, Amazon is not clear on it, or it's not harming any other authors. Amazon has specifically spelled out in the arbitration case that they consider the stuffing practice a violation of their TOS and a harm to other authors; they filed a suit against those who they consider are in violation (because clearly, they do NOT think it's okay), and they WON the suit. *It really doesn't matter how anyone wants to interpret the TOS at this point. What matters is how Amazon has interpreted it, and how they legally sought and won arbitration in this case.*

The facts of the case are that Amazon determined book stuffing is a practice that violates their TOS and harms other authors. They're not arguing in court over the order of ABCD, ACDE, ABCLMNOP, or BCDQRST+Bonus, for Pete's sake. Amazon simply stated that *books contained content that had been previously published in other works*. That's what Amazon considers a violation, and that's what they won the arbitration on.

Ultimately, the TOS protects Amazon. With nuggets like this, Amazon has the power to crack down on whatever they want. 
HERE


> Poor customer experience
> We don't accept books that provide a poor customer experience.* We reserve the right to determine whether content provides a poor customer experience*. See the Guide to Kindle Content Quality for examples of content that's typically disappointing to customers.


We all agree to the TOS when we publish to Amazon. We also agree to arbitration, which will decide disputes and is legally binding. They have plenty of broad verbiage in the TOS that covers anything they deem to be a violation. And in the case of book stuffing, no matter how anyone wants to spin it, Amazon has cracked down.

Everyone needs to decide how close they want to skirt the line and how far they are willing to go in risking their own accounts. If you want to engage in book stuffing and think your AXYZ, JKLMNOPXYZ+Bonus versions aren't a TOS violation when they include content previously published in other works, more power to you. If you want to steer clear of tactics that Amazon is now cracking down on, then read the court documents carefully to ensure you understand what Amazon is opposed to, and keep yourself way clear of doing anything like it. No one on the internet can make that decision for you, and ultimately, your good account standing with KDP can be terminated at any time. They have demonstrated they won't be swayed with arguments and explanations after they've taken action, so don't give them a reason to hone in on you.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

PaulineMRoss said:


> But a box set is clearly labelled with the books it contains, and it usually has a very different style of cover.


I think that's another "benefit" to those stuffing and merely putting a "contains bonus content" message. They can reload it with different stories as they please, for whatever reason.

Got a content warning from Amazon? Replace those 2500 "bonus" pages with a short story. Once the heat is off, switch it back. etc


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

As one of the newbies here, I'd like to reiterate the obvious: book stuffing is a controversial subject, hence there have obviously been some new people like myself deciding to join in and say something about it. 

Being that such books are prominent in some of the more popular categories, it's an industry within an industry. And that is very hard to ignore -- even by guys like myself, who are small-time, non-KU authors, who find it fascinating that the system could, and can, be gamed so well. 

I've noticed that many of the top-selling 'book stuffers' now have included extra sentences in their blurbs to apparently bring them up to Amazon's official policy. 500K page+ books that are megabytes in file size that had no such warnings in their blurbs just a week ago now all seem to have them. These are books that are still highly ranked.

As for the authors who do such practices, they obviously have thousands of avid readers, and big followings. Unless every review is fake, these books seem to have real readers. It's difficult for me to presently believe that a #1 book in prominent category can be ranked that high due to some form of gaming the system alone.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

jb1111 said:


> As for the authors who do such practices, they obviously have thousands of avid readers, and big followings. Unless every review is fake, these books seem to have real readers. It's difficult for me to presently believe that a #1 book in prominent category can be ranked that high due to some form of gaming the system alone.


I can't and won't say they are. It's unfair to make a blanket statement like that.

What I will say, though, is having been here long enough and seen enough different scams run through the system, is that you'd be surprised what can be accomplished by gaming the system.


----------



## DonovanJeremiah (Oct 14, 2017)

writerlygal said:


> The very fact that ya'all misunderstood Becca's post is proof of how your own interpretations of things might just be incorrect. She said people are allowed to register anonymously to comment on this very timely & hotly debated issue without being attacked for doing so. Some people thought she meant people are allowed to register second accounts just to debate this issue, & so jumped on her, when she in fact meant something very different [she was talking about first time posters]. Maybe this is a great example of how sometimes people accidentally read what they want to read or think they read into things & no one should be on a crusade against other people for having differing interpretations because they just might be wrong about their own interpretations.


Yes.



ChristinaGarner said:


> Hey Cocker-- can you please confirm this account you started today just to post in this thread is the only KBoards account you have?


I'm not Cocker but it's precisely this reaction that had me very wary in interacting on the board at all. I can't prove I'm not a sock puppet until I engage in conversation. I can't engage in conversation if I'm viewed as a sock puppet.

It's very hard here and to be perfectly honest, even when I have an opinion that agrees with the majority, I don't feel safe at all.

I just remain quiet if I have an opinion that doesn't.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

DonovanJeremiah said:


> I'm not Cocker but it's precisely this reaction that had me very wary in interacting on the board at all. I can't prove I'm not a sock puppet until I engage in conversation. I can't engage in conversation if I'm viewed as a sock puppet.
> 
> It's very hard here and to be perfectly honest, even when I have an opinion that agrees with the majority, I don't feel safe at all.


Sorry to hear that, but it's hard to not become jaded after seeing the same thing happen again and again:

- Controversial thread is started
- Some people argue one side, others argue the other side
- Out of nowhere new accounts arrive to argue in favor of whatever is controversial. 
- Those new accounts are never seen or heard from again afterwards

It's hard not to be skeptical when you see that, especially when you've been here long enough. Not to generalize, but it seems typical new account behavior involves starting a "Hi, I'm new here" thread, and/or jump into multiple other threads asking questions etc etc.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Sorry to hear that, but it's hard to not become jaded after seeing the same thing happen again and again:
> 
> - Controversial thread is started
> - Some people argue one side, others argue the other side
> ...


This is exactly me too. I always try and engage with anybody. I seek out opinions different from my own all the time. I attempt to engage with everyone with intellectual honesty. But the stuff Rick describes can grate, and then you start getting a bit cynical.

Which leads to words or reactions that might seem harsh to someone encountering the topic for the first time, but the above context is important here also.

(IMO, YMMV, etc...)


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hey, folks...

I think this thread has taken a few wrong turns...and we want to keep the discussion moving forward.

I think it's perfectly normal for a thread this active (and this widely linked to) to be a compelling reason for a new member or a lurker to want to join in.  This should be celebrated--we have a discussion that's generating new interest and new members.  

There is no right way or wrong way to make your first post on KBoards.  (Unless you are a spammer.)  Our experience, from the beginning, is that new members join for a specific question or discussion.  And *then* we invite them to also introduce themselves in our Introductions forum and let them know what else is going on here.

I also think it's extremely common for what are known as "sock puppet accounts" to be created for the purpose of stirring the pot. As Becca said, secondary accounts in some rare circumstances are allowed on a case by case basis--but must be okayed by the mod squad.  If we find that you have created a secondary account without approval, that account is subject to deletion.

If you suspect that a new account is not legitimate, please report a post by that member to the moderating staff using the "report to moderator" link on each post.  This has two benefits: it does not derail the thread and it ensures that multiple moderators see the question.

Let me reiterate what Becca said earlier.  Calling out a member based on the number of posts is not/should not be the KB way. These are personal comments, which are not allowed.  And, as has been noted in this thread, it intimidates new members.  Responses should be made to the content of a member's post and let the readers decide how much weight to give to a particular poster.

Vigorous, respectful discussion is what we aim for here.  Let's aspire to that, please.  If you want to discuss this issue with me further, please PM me so that the discussion of the Amazon lawsuit can continue without distraction.

Betsy
KB Admin


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

Puddleduck said:


> Personally, I'm going to avoid grey-hat tactics. I know that won't save me from getting nailed by Amazon if they decide to nail me for some perceived infraction, since we have no recourse to defend ourselves or even know the details of our accusation, but it probably puts me out of at least a couple lines of fire. (Oh, and because I believe avoiding grey-hat tactics is the ethical thing to do, and I intend to run my publishing business according to ethics that I'd want others to run theirs.)


I agree.

Following the TOS is important, but it's not more important than one's personal ethics. The Amazon TOS is often vague. The ethical path (which involves not trying to find loopholes in the system to exploit) is remarkably clear.

As authors, we ought to be producing the best possible reader experience. I can't speak for all readers, but I know I'd be irritated to buy a book (or borrow one if I had KU) and discover that the actual book stopped at the 17% mark, to be followed by other content I might or might not be interested in. While I see the advantage in having the content right there for a KU subscriber, I also see how having the same content in several places makes it more easily exploitable by bots, which in my mind outweighs any potential advantage. (Sure, a bot can download the same content any number of times, but a bot account can only get credit for any particular title once, requiring the creation of multiple bot accounts and far more downloads of that one title, which makes the activity more conspicuous. Say the same material is duplicated twenty times, and all of those files have nine other titles in them. One bot can download each title once and get a scammer page read credit for the same ten books. Essentially, that gives each bot two hundred times the reach. Fewer bots, more spread out downloads=less easily detected activity.)

It would be nice if Amazon only allowed each novel to be represented only once in the KU catalog. Box sets could be handled virtually (Amazon gives authors an option to discount series books if the whole series is purchased at once and gives the customers a streamlined way to do that. (The series pages I think already have the second part built in.) That kind of system would be much easier to police and much clearer.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Bill Hiatt said:


> I agree.
> 
> Following the TOS is important, but it's not more important than one's personal ethics. The Amazon TOS is often vague. The ethical path (which involves not trying to find loopholes in the system to exploit) is remarkably clear.
> 
> As authors, we ought to be producing the best possible reader experience.


Ditto on this. Yes, sometimes you can keep your nose as clean as possible and still get caught up in an Amazon purge, but personally I feel you greatly increase your odds the more you try to push or cross those boundaries.

That said, I'm all about best possible reader experience. Every marketing decision I make has two parts to it: 1) whether I think it's viable and 2) whether I think its ethical. It has to meet both criteria for me to pursue it. I will occasionally test out new ideas and methods even if I feel viability is questionable. After all, there are no guarantees with legitimate marketing. However, 2 usually comes down to my gut. Some things just don't feel right, even if the potential rewards are great indeed.

ETA: There are definitely some grey areas where perhaps I don't feel it's right for me, but also don't consider it scummy tactics. In those cases, I have no issues with others doing it. Typically if I speak up about an issue, it's because I think it either crosses into black hat territory or has far reaching negative effects on the indie community as a whole.


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2018)

DonovanJeremiah said:


> I'm not Cocker but it's precisely this reaction that had me very wary in interacting on the board at all. I can't prove I'm not a sock puppet until I engage in conversation. I can't engage in conversation if I'm viewed as a sock puppet.


To clarify: the issue is not anonymity. The issue is making *sweeping statements of fact* with absolutely no evidence to support those statements, and then replying with a "trust me, I know things" even though nobody has any clue who you are.

It is one thing to state an opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, anonymity or not. But, no, you are not entitled to your own FACTS, so when you make statements of fact or claim secret knowledge, particularly when that knowledge in no way conforms with what *has already been presented with evidence by non-anonymous posters*, you should expect push-back.

I know who David is. I know who Phoenix is. I know their reputations and where they stand on issues. I have strong points of reference from which to judge their position.

When an anonymous poster comes in here claiming to be a best-selling author and having all sorts of communication directly with Amazon that supports his statements but CAN'T PRODUCE THAT EVIDENCE and I can't even confirm the person IS an author, let alone a best-selling one, THAT is where the pushback comes.

Chime in with opinions and questions all day long, but when you make statements of fact, people are going to examine who you are to determine if those statements are actually facts.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> To clarify: the issue is not anonymity. The issue is making *sweeping statements of fact* with absolutely no evidence to support those statements, and then replying with a "trust me, I know things" even though nobody has any clue who you are.
> 
> It is one thing to state an opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, anonymity or not. But, no, you are not entitled to your own FACTS, so when you make statements of fact or claim secret knowledge, particularly when that knowledge in no way conforms with what *has already been presented with evidence by non-anonymous posters*, you should expect push-back.
> 
> ...


All this


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

https://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,262307.msg3650034.html#msg3650034

I think this post by EB Brown pretty much clarifies 1) it is against TOS and 2) It hurts other authors (it is in Amazon's own words.)

To any of the noobs following this thread, you don't have to do this sort of BS to succeed, and if you do need to do this sort of BS maybe something else is wrong.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> To clarify: the issue is not anonymity. The issue is making *sweeping statements of fact* with absolutely no evidence to support those statements, and then replying with a "trust me, I know things" even though nobody has any clue who you are.
> 
> It is one thing to state an opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, anonymity or not. But, no, you are not entitled to your own FACTS, so when you make statements of fact or claim secret knowledge, particularly when that knowledge in no way conforms with what *has already been presented with evidence by non-anonymous posters*, you should expect push-back.
> 
> ...


Exactly. 
I'll add that the continued claim that "so many people" or "lots of people" in various closed/private groups are saying this or that means very little. That's the argumentative equivalent of stomping your feet and saying, "I'm right because all my friends said so!" People in closed groups ranting about the issue among like-minded individuals isn't verification of anything, nor does it substantiate your position. When anonymous posters make claims of fact, they should expect they will be asked to provide evidence just the same as the non-anonymous posters. Many of the authors in this thread have discussed this subject publicly on social media, websites, and blogs. By all means, add to the discussion, but be prepared to support any accusations or claims of fact that you make.


----------



## 98368 (Sep 4, 2017)

Bill Hiatt said:


> It would be nice if Amazon only allowed each novel to be represented only once in the KU catalog. Box sets could be handled virtually* (Amazon gives authors an option to discount series books if the whole series is purchased at once and gives the customers a streamlined way to do that. (The series pages I think already have the second part built in.)* That kind of system would be much easier to police and much clearer.


Bill--I was unaware that this was an option. I recently created a box set of 3 novels in a series in order to offer them for a discounted price. Also, I'm going to try for a BB with this box set, which I'm not sure is possible to do with a linked series. If someone does know the answer to this, would you mind answering? Sorry if this constitutes thread-hijacking, but it seemed crazy to copy Bill's post and start a new thread with it. Thank you.


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

EB said:


> Exactly.
> I'll add that the continued claim that "so many people" or "lots of people" in various closed/private groups are saying this or that means very little. That's the argumentative equivalent of stomping your feet and saying, "I'm right because all my friends said so!" People in closed groups ranting about the issue among like-minded individuals isn't verification of anything, nor does it substantiate your position. When anonymous posters make claims of fact, they should expect they will be asked to provide evidence just the same as the non-anonymous posters. Many of the authors in this thread have discussed this subject publicly on social media, websites, and blogs. By all means, add to the discussion, but be prepared to support any accusations or claims of fact that you make.


Amen.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

RTW said:


> Bill--I was unaware that this was an option. I recently created a box set of 3 novels in a series in order to offer them for a discounted price. Also, I'm going to try for a BB with this box set, which I'm not sure is possible to do with a linked series. If someone does know the answer to this, would you mind answering? Sorry if this constitutes thread-hijacking, but it seemed crazy to copy Bill's post and start a new thread with it. Thank you.


I think Bill was proposing an alternative to the boxed sets. At present, I don't think this is an option, though Amazon could easily do it through the series pages.


----------



## 98368 (Sep 4, 2017)

brkingsolver said:


> I think Bill was proposing an alternative to the boxed sets. At present, I don't think this is an option, though Amazon could easily do it through the series pages.


Thanks, brkingsolver.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

DonovanJeremiah said:


> It's very hard here and to be perfectly honest, even when I have an opinion that agrees with the majority, I don't feel safe at all.
> 
> I just remain quiet if I have an opinion that doesn't.


For what it's worth, I frequently voice opinions that may not agree with the majority in any particular thread, and nothing bad ever happens to me as a result.

I'll admit I find a good argument stimulating, and people disagreeing with me doesn't bother me as long as the discussion is productive.

Sure, sometimes tempers do get frayed, and people push a little harder than they should. I'm convinced, though, that the vast majority of people involved in these discussions are good people whose presence shouldn't make you feel unsafe.

I'm not dependent on writing as my primary income source--I'd starve to death if it were. If self publishing ceased to exist tomorrow, I'd be very sad, but the change wouldn't threaten my livelihood. Consequently, it's easy for me to forget how emotionally overwrought I'd be if the issues discussed here affected my economic well-being. If I find people irritating, I try to think how I'd feel if I had to make a living at writing, and that makes it easier to cut them some slack regardless of what side of an issue they're on. It also makes it easier to just let the occasional snark slide right on by.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> When an anonymous poster comes in here claiming to be
> Chime in with opinions and questions all day long, but when you make statements of fact, people are going to examine who you are to determine if those statements are actually facts.


In which case, just as with known posters, it is entirely appropriate to ask for data to support the claim of fact, and if not provided, judge the claim appropriately.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

brkingsolver said:


> I think Bill was proposing an alternative to the boxed sets. At present, I don't think this is an option, though Amazon could easily do it through the series pages.


The tech IS in already in place, however. This option is available for some ebook series -- Amazon runs such bundling deals often -- just not to those using the KDP platform.

As an aside, for all its faults, Scribd did something right from the get-go: It never allowed box sets in its subscription service.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

brkingsolver said:


> I think Bill was proposing an alternative to the boxed sets. At present, I don't think this is an option, though Amazon could easily do it through the series pages.


You're right--it isn't currently an option. It would be nice if Amazon created such an option. It would solve a number of problems.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Most of us do. I'll admit I'm curious as to who was doing the PMing, telling readers we didn't want to hear from them because they definitely weren't speaking for us all.


^^^^^ This. <3


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

I have a question for all of the people who say they offer ‘bonus content’ solely for the benefit of their readers: would you still give your readers all that wonderful bonus content if KU went away tomorrow?


----------



## FelissaEly (Jan 15, 2017)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I have a question for all of the people who say they offer 'bonus content' solely for the benefit of their readers: would you still give your readers all that wonderful bonus content if KU went away tomorrow?


Ding, ding, ding! I said something similar to my husband last night. Typically, if I read something I loved by an author, I go looking for more of their books to purchase and would not expect them to be stuffed into the back of their other books as a 'bonus'.

*Edited to fix wording


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

badtothebone said:


> Yes that's the section of my argument that rests on an unprovable assertion, I guess: that there is not a massive pool of readers who are only reading the same book over and over again. There is so much fresh content out there it seems to defy belief that the readers driving the dominance of bad boy romance in the top 100, all of which is fresh content let's not forget, are then proceeding to read a bonus book a dozen times. The way I think about it is this: if these readers were deeply engaged with the books they were reading (i.e. rereading old books), rather than constantly seeking out fresh substitute goods in their genre, then bad boy romance would not dominate the top 100, because the readers wouldn't constantly be searching out new content. The proof that they are in fact searching out new content is the dominance of brand-new books in the top 100: the rank boost only happens once, so the fact these books are being boosted to the top is due to readers searching for new content. Since they provably want fresh books, they probably are not reading old books over and over again. It seems to stand up logically.
> 
> Is there some element of double dipping? Probably. But likely no more than box sets. Do box sets also cheat other authors? I personally believe not, I believe that neither situation is harmful. Amazon has never shown any intention of paying us more than half a cent a page. They have found the lower bound at which we will search for other options, and they keep us in between those two variables. This can basically be described as our wholesale transfer pricing problem. https://25iq.com/2013/06/12/wholesale-transfer-pricing-and-the-free-parking-business-model/
> 
> ...


The problem I have with the argument that nobody is reading the stuffed content over and over is that if that is the case, they WHY are people stuffing at all? It doesn't make sense. It's more work for negligible return? I don't buy it. There's a reason.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

MaryMcDonald said:


> The problem I have with the argument that nobody is reading the stuffed content over and over is that if that is the case, they WHY are people stuffing at all? It doesn't make sense. It's more work for negligible return? I don't buy it. There's a reason.


Actually, badtothebone suggested the reason is to make it easier for someone to read the next book in the series. That's not inherently unreasonable, but, as I pointed out to him, we really don't know how many more reads that actually generates. That, the fact that it would reduce sales--why buy all the books when you can get them all in one?--and the fact that it creates a more efficient experience for the bots, whether or not that's the intent, would keep me away from it. Some stuffers, particularly extreme ones, may be using bots and click farms. Others may genuinely believe the argument that badtothebone presented, but they could be making themselves more vulnerable to bot camouflage efforts in the process.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

MaryMcDonald said:


> The problem I have with the argument that nobody is reading the stuffed content over and over is that if that is the case, they WHY are people stuffing at all? It doesn't make sense. It's more work for negligible return? I don't buy it. There's a reason.


This is fairly simple. The Kindle store is an iceberg. All of us can promote to 10% of the total reader base through means like FB ads, Newsletters, Bookbub etc. But 90% (and in fact probably more) of readers lie beneath the surface of the water. This is where the money is made: accessing readers through Amazon algorithms, emails, on-device recommendations. This is the point in driving a heavy promo campaign for two weeks, because then the reads start to roll in.

Romance moves so quickly in terms of the cliff, which is far shorter than in any other genre I've published in, and in volume of content produced, that there's little brand loyalty for a majority of indie romance authors. Bad boy romances are largely substitute goods. One is much the same as another. It's heavily trope and trend driven. As a result there's little ability to drive revenue through backlist cross selling. It's obviously possible, but in my experience the rewards of one top 100 book outweigh the benefits of backlist. YMMV.

So the goal is to maximise your revenue on those critical books that climb high in the charts. And that's where bonus books come in: to make that ad spend worthwhile.

But why did I talk about the iceberg? Because 95% of readers have no idea who the hell I am. They've never read a word I've written. If one of these iceberg, uncontactable readers comes across my new title Bad Boy to the Max, they might have come across me before, and read my books, but it's just as like they've never seen me. So I put a bonus in the back, and they keep reading and theoretically I make more money.

What I'm saying is there isn't a small pool of helpless readers stuck in a crab trap of the same five bonus books, endlessly reading them over and over. By contrast the reader is one of a million sharks swimming in an entire ocean of lovely content, just waiting to get their teeth into something, and keep reading. You don't need a few readers to read over and over again: there are millions of them who have never heard of you.

ETA: @MaryMcdonald I should add, people are affected by romance novel bonus books, claims to the contrary are wrong. But I believe the average KU forum member across many genres isn's affected. The real victims are primarily romance authors who don't use bonus books. Bonuses don't significantly change the absolute value of pages read, but they absolutely do change the relative distribution between the two publisher types. Any reader who stays in a book file and exercises a preference to continue reading that same file instead of exercising their option to move to another author's book is thus changing the relative distribution of reads. But if we assume, for example, that the venn diagram of historical romance readers doesn't integrate much with the circle of bad boy readers, then I'd suggest the historical romance author isn't being harmed. The person in this simplified example who is harmed is whichever bad boy romance author the reader might have read next. But since that author probably also uses bonus books, does it really change anything whatsoever?


----------



## MmmmmPie (Jun 23, 2015)

MaryMcDonald said:


> The problem I have with the argument that nobody is reading the stuffed content over and over is that if that is the case, they WHY are people stuffing at all? It doesn't make sense. It's more work for negligible return? I don't buy it. There's a reason.


One reason is the All Star bonuses. Aside from the author bonuses, there are bonuses for individual "books." These lucrative bonuses are awarded based on the highest number of pages read, per book. This means that by stuffing multiple "books" into one, you gain a huge advantage in competing for these bonuses. After all, a "book" with 3,000 pages has a much easier time racking up mega-page reads than a single 300 page novel.

What's especially galling is that in many cases, the actual title being promoted (and of course, stuffed to the gills) is often much shorter than a standard novel. As someone who used to earn All Star bonuses on a regular basis, I take exception to claims that these scammers aren't stealing from anyone. They're stealing from me, and probably you, too, if you're in KU and don't stuff.


----------



## OhMo (Apr 1, 2018)

FelissaEly said:


> Ding, ding, ding! I said something similar to my husband last night. Typically, if I read something I loved by an author, I go looking for more of their books to purchase and would not expect them to be stuffed into the back of their other books as a 'bonus'.
> 
> *Edited to fix wording


This is totally opinion and has no basis in fact. Honest. I think those who are being slapped down by Amazon right now - and others trying to follow their example - would stop giving "bonus" material simply because it would become too much effort for them. Not the copy/paste, but the effort to get around the new discipline. I also believe the a majority of writers who give real bonus material would continue to do so without KU because it is a great marketing channel at no additional cost, in fact the customer pays for the advertisement by buying the book.

Again, that's just my opinion which, like everyone else, I have at least two of for every issue.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

kw3000 said:


> Ugh, this thread. Give me a break.
> 
> You and I both know what this is:
> 
> ...


Well, it could be a transvestite chicken...


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

*Shrugs* Amazon will crack down. They always crack down. And when they do it will be with brute force methods.  No excuses and "but what-ifs" will work at that point. Accounts will be lost, incomes will be impacted, and some innocent folks will be caught in the crossfire. The best way to avoid the coming drama-- is not to play the game.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

MmmmmPie said:


> One reason is the All Star bonuses. Aside from the author bonuses, there are bonuses for individual "books." These lucrative bonuses are awarded based on the highest number of pages read, per book. This means that by stuffing multiple "books" into one, you gain a huge advantage in competing for these bonuses. After all, a "book" with 3,000 pages has a much easier time racking up mega-page reads than a single 300 page novel.
> 
> What's especially galling is that in many cases, the actual title being promoted (and of course, stuffed to the gills) is often much shorter than a standard novel. As someone who used to earn All Star bonuses on a regular basis, I take exception to claims that these scammers aren't stealing from anyone. They're stealing from me, and probably you, too, if you're in KU and don't stuff.


I am in KU with some of my books (only one in romance) and no, I don't stuff. lol


----------



## Desert Rose (Jun 2, 2015)

MmmmmPie said:


> Let's say a stuffer spends $1,000 a day on AMS ads. That's $30,000 a month. With All Star bonuses, plus stuffed page reads, a mega-stuffer can gross over $100,000 a month, easy. So, even though Amazon is making money on the AMS ads, they're still paying the stuffer $70,000 a month, likely for many pages that aren't, in fact, being read.


But those pages are being read, unless the "mega-stuffer" is engaging in other, clearly ToS-violating behaviors like employing click farms. If I pick up a book, and said book ends at 10%, nothing is forcing me through the remaining 90%. So, the options are:

1) People are actually reading the stuffed content, making those legitimate page reads
2) The stuffer is click-farming, making those page reads illegitimate whether the book is 3 pages long or 3000
3) Amazon is still unable to tell whether a page has been read, and the stuffer is using some sort of "jump to the back" enticement which is clearly a ToS violation


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragovian said:


> But those pages are being read, unless the "mega-stuffer" is engaging in other, clearly ToS-violating behaviors like employing click farms. If I pick up a book, and said book ends at 10%, nothing is forcing me through the remaining 90%. So, the options are:
> 
> 1) People are actually reading the stuffed content, making those legitimate page reads
> 2) The stuffer is click-farming, making those page reads illegitimate whether the book is 3 pages long or 3000
> 3) Amazon is still unable to tell whether a page has been read, and the stuffer is using some sort of "jump to the back" enticement which is clearly a ToS violation


Often the true "bonus content" the customer wants to read is at the very end, with 2,000 pages of unintelligible garbage in between. Take a look at the ToC in some of the stuffed books.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

Dragovian said:


> But those pages are being read, unless the "mega-stuffer" is engaging in other, clearly ToS-violating behaviors like employing click farms. If I pick up a book, and said book ends at 10%, nothing is forcing me through the remaining 90%. So, the options are:
> 
> 1) People are actually reading the stuffed content, making those legitimate page reads
> 2) The stuffer is click-farming, making those page reads illegitimate whether the book is 3 pages long or 3000
> 3) Amazon is still unable to tell whether a page has been read, and the stuffer is using some sort of "jump to the back" enticement which is clearly a ToS violation


4) The stuffer isn't click-farming, but stuffing makes a perfect target for click-farm camouflage. If the idea is to muddy the waters and make it hard for Amazon to crack down, what better target than people who may be engaging innocently in a behavior that looks superficially like what the botters and click farmers are doing.

I'd be the first to admit I'm theorizing, and, even if I'm right, obviously such books aren't the only target for click-farm camouflage. Think about it, though. If you wanted to sow the maximum amount of confusion, who better to frame than people with a superficially similar pattern.

Even if I thought stuffing made for a good reader experience, the idea that I was painting a target on my back by doing it would be enough to keep me away.


----------



## Phxsundog (Jul 19, 2017)

Dragovian said:


> But those pages are being read, unless the "mega-stuffer" is engaging in other, clearly ToS-violating behaviors like employing click farms. If I pick up a book, and said book ends at 10%, nothing is forcing me through the remaining 90%. So, the options are:
> 
> 1) People are actually reading the stuffed content, making those legitimate page reads
> 2) The stuffer is click-farming, making those page reads illegitimate whether the book is 3 pages long or 3000
> 3) Amazon is still unable to tell whether a page has been read, and the stuffer is using some sort of "jump to the back" enticement which is clearly a ToS violation


#3 isn't getting discussed nearly often enough. A good many of the serial stuffers into other shady practices deliberately format their books to get more pages. Large fonts, double or triple spacing, whatever it takes to limit the words per page on a screen and keep readers flipping. Many of their books aren't Page Flip enabled. Go look in the Top 100 and you'll find plenty. It's anybody's guess what this bad formatting does for page reads. They wouldn't keep doing it if the formatting did nothing positive for them. This point continually gets lost in the to stuff or not to stuff debate. It's something Amazon should address if it wants KU to have any integrity in the future. The fact that pages can be gamed with formatting tricks gives the romance group doing this another unfair advantage over KU authors who only format to make their books look pleasing and easy to navigate. They'll do whatever it takes beyond mere stuffing to inflate their page count and break accurate page counting by location.


----------



## Desert Rose (Jun 2, 2015)

brkingsolver said:


> Often the true "bonus content" the customer wants to read is at the very end, with 2,000 pages of unintelligible garbage in between. Take a look at the ToC in some of the stuffed books.


But no - or very, very few - legitimate reader is going to page through 2,000 pages of unintelligible garbage, they're going to jump to the book they want via the TOC (or, much more likely IMO, see pages of garbage and return the book). Amazon has allegedly fixed the "link to the back" issue. Unless Amazon is still paying out for pages skipped, page reads are going to fall into two categories: legitimate page reads from real customers, and botted page reads. The only way legitimate readers are getting "fooled" into reading an extra 2,000 pages is if Amazon are lying about their ability to count pages read.

I personally am no fan of stuffing - I hate it when I get to the end of a book at 17% or some ridiculous number - but at the same time, I think stuffing in and of itself is a minor issue compared to botted page reads and/or Amazon still not knowing when a page has been read. If Amazon can still be fooled into paying for 2,000 pages read because someone clicked a link, that's a major issue. If Amazon fixed the loophole, and we're looking at bots, I'd say stuffed books are not the problem so much as a sign to give that account's reads greater scrutiny.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

The top-level Romance Bestseller list - which is one of the competitive if not the most competitive category of all - has a bunch of books with "bonus content."  I just looked at the top 40 and found quite a number of them very easily.  Many of them the main book is not even close to being half of the total pages of the book, some of them you can't tell.  I didn't see any that just had one short story or a small bonus content section.  I was just skimming to see books over 400-500 pages and found them within minutes.  Maybe on shorter books, there is bonus content on a smaller scale. I don't know.  Romance is not my reading or writing genre.

Some disclose how long the main novel is - i.e. this is an 80,000 word novel with bonus stories for your enjoyment or something along those lines.  All the ones I saw did disclose that there was bonus content at the very end of the blurb and some gave the length of the novel or percentage it was of the main book but not all.  

The ones I saw were all selling for .99 cents and a lot of them 500-2000+ pages.  Most had review scores over 4.  Some complaints about editing but not a lot about the bonus content. From what I saw it didn't seem to be a huge deal to readers but I didn't look that carefully.  Maybe they have big advance teams to get a lot of reviews, but I was seeing a number of positive verified reviews as well. 

I'm pretty amazed. I was expecting more negative reviews, but again I didn't look super carefully.  It didn't look like it was a big deal to the readers. 
To me, it's a big deal and the bonus content is way exceeding the book they are selling as the novel on the cover and book description. As a reader, this is a huge turnoff for me and feels very deceptive.  But from the reviews, it doesn't seem to be a huge deal to the readers of these books. If readers don't make a big fuss then maybe it's not interrupting their reading experience.  Hard to say.

Edited to add: I was very surprised at the level of bonus content being so much more than the original book.  To me looking at the books, it's much worse than I was expecting. However, I don't see much talk at all of the bonus content in the reviews -either positive or negative - but mine was a very small sample.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragovian said:


> Amazon has allegedly fixed the "link to the back" issue.


That's the first I've heard of this. Amazon has always denied the issue. They simply banned putting in links to the end, but they didn't ban the last entry in a ToC.



Phxsundog said:


> #3 isn't getting discussed nearly often enough. A good many of the serial stuffers into other shady practices deliberately format their books to get more pages. Large fonts, double or triple spacing, whatever it takes to limit the words per page on a screen and keep readers flipping. Many of their books aren't Page Flip enabled. Go look in the Top 100 and you'll find plenty. It's anybody's guess what this bad formatting does for page reads. They wouldn't keep doing it if the formatting did nothing positive for them. This point continually gets lost in the to stuff or not to stuff debate. It's something Amazon should address if it wants KU to have any integrity in the future. The fact that pages can be gamed with formatting tricks gives the romance group doing this another unfair advantage over KU authors who only format to make their books look pleasing and easy to navigate. They'll do whatever it takes beyond mere stuffing to inflate their page count and break accurate page counting by location.


This is all an urban legend. Triple space your manuscript in 14 pt. type and upload it, and you'll get the same KENPC as before. Why do people do it? Because someone told them this was a "fact". The actual KENPC is based on the number of characters in the book through a formula Amazon has not divulged. But plenty of experimentation shows that a KENP "page" will contain between 190 and 225 characters.

If there truly was a way to format to generate more pages, I guarantee the members of this forum would have figured it out. And if you can tell me how to stop Amazon from enabling page flip on my books, I'll do it today.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

MmmmmPie said:


> You know what's frustrating about this whole discussion? It's that short term, those of us who don't stuff are made to feel like fools.
> 
> Yes, we could increase our income exponentially by stuffing our novels to the gills and using those 10-dollar borrows to buy a ton of advertising. Oh, and hey, let's use some bots to read those pages. And while we're at it, let's use some bots to borrow our books to boost our ranks. After all, Amazon hasn't done much to address these issues, so it must be okay, right?
> 
> ...


Amen to everything you said, especially the last bit. My Kobo/D2D/Play payments are modest, but by God I love them.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

JulesWright said:


> The top-level Romance Bestseller list - which is one of the competitive if not the most competitive category of all - has a bunch of books with "bonus content." I just looked at the top 40 and found quite a number of them very easily. Many of them the main book is not even close to being half of the total pages of the book, some of them you can't tell. I didn't see any that just had one short story or a small bonus content section. I was just skimming to see books over 400-500 pages and found them within minutes. Maybe on shorter books, there is bonus content on a smaller scale. I don't know. Romance is not my reading or writing genre.
> 
> Some disclose how long the main novel is - i.e. this is an 80,000 word novel with bonus stories for your enjoyment or something along those lines. All the ones I saw did disclose that there was bonus content at the very end of the blurb and some gave the length of the novel or percentage it was of the main book but not all.
> 
> ...


In general, most romance readers like bonus content. But a lot of authors are deceptive about their use of bonus content. They don't make it clear in the blurb or ToC if there is bonus content. Their ToC will look something like this:

Hot New Romance
Ch 1
Ch 2
...
Epilogue
Hot Old Romance 1
Hot Old Romance 2
Hot Old Romance 3
Author's Note

Where it's not clear if Hot Old Romance 1 is a teaser or a full book. If the main content book is broken into chapters, then a full book added as a bonus should be broken into chapters as well. People are absolutely doing this intentionally as all formatting systems would automatically break a book into chapters.

They'll also neglect to disclose what/how much bonus content is in their books. They might say something like "contains bonus content."

The books will also have strange formatting, that no doubt increases KENPC (but perhaps not by much).

The few times I used bonus content, I made it very clear what it was in the ToC and front matter, including the % where the book ended. I was scanning my numbers yesterday, comparing two similar releases--both at .99, one 100k book w/out bonus content, one 80k book with 80k of bonus content, trying to figure out how much more the stuffed book made per read, and I really couldn't tell. The rank trajectories were similar but not the same (the first was ranked better, overall). The best I can say is that about 25% of people read the bonus content, so the 100k book actually made about the same as the stuffed book (80k + 80k x .25 = 100k). That can be really significant if you're using multiple bonus books. Use four and you're getting double the pages you should.

Which is why people do it. I don't blame anyone for stuffing, especially not authors who are just trying to make a living--the majority of people publishing. (I don't absolve them, or myself, either. We make that choice knowingly. I did it because I did and still interpret the ToS to say bonus books are fine, and because the only way to really level the playing field in that case is to use bonus books as well. I made a rational, pragmatic decision. I may hate bonus books, but I love maximizing my sellthrough more).

Looking at my other stuffed book, it's really hard to say bc there's so much guesswork (anything from 0 to 50% of pages could be from people reading the bonus book, assuming there is one bonus book that's the same length as the original book). Something like 15-35% of people read on through the series (I put a first in series behind another first in series), so at least that many people read the bonus book. Would they have read it in KU anyway? Maybe. Maybe not. Hard to say. IME, sellthrough (borrows + sales combined) between series is around 20-30% with proper backmatter. What does that mean? I don't know. This is beyond my math modeling abilities.

I feel really comfortable saying bonus books are unfair but clearly allowed. So long as Amazon allows them, nothing will come out of the "I hate bonus books" teeth gnashing (I know, I've tried). All you can do is react to Amazon's rules.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Thank you for your reply Crystal.  I know I only looked at a small sample but I was truly blown away at the level of stuffing- the low percentage that was the main book.  But yes, it really seems like the readers of the books don't care or enjoy them judging from the reviews.  This is very eye-opening for me.


----------



## AYClaudy (Oct 2, 2014)

MmmmmPie said:


> One reason is the All Star bonuses. Aside from the author bonuses, there are bonuses for individual "books." *These lucrative bonuses are awarded based on the highest number of pages read, per book. This means that by stuffing multiple "books" into one, you gain a huge advantage in competing for these bonuses. *After all, a "book" with 3,000 pages has a much easier time racking up mega-page reads than a single 300 page novel.
> 
> What's especially galling is that in many cases, the actual title being promoted (and of course, stuffed to the gills) is often much shorter than a standard novel. As someone who used to earn All Star bonuses on a regular basis, I take exception to claims that these scammers aren't stealing from anyone. They're stealing from me, and probably you, too, if you're in KU and don't stuff.


I think this makes a good argument for eliminating all non-single title books from even having a chance at the book bonuses. Actually, I'm on board with Amazon making the policy that all titles in KU need to be packaged individually.


----------



## caitlynlynch (Oct 21, 2016)

JulesWright said:


> Thank you for your reply Crystal. I know I only looked at a small sample but I was truly blown away at the level of stuffing- the low percentage that was the main book. But yes, it really seems like the readers of the books don't care or enjoy them judging from the reviews. This is very eye-opening for me.


I'd point out that very few of the reviews are Verified. Which means many of the reviewers have probably received ARCs (a lot of them honestly state they have, which is perfectly legit), which very likely didn't contain the 'bonus material' anyway. So they're only reviewing the 'title' book.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

caitlynlynch said:


> I'd point out that very few of the reviews are Verified. Which means many of the reviewers have probably received ARCs (a lot of them honestly state they have, which is perfectly legit), which very likely didn't contain the 'bonus material' anyway. So they're only reviewing the 'title' book.


Yes, true. I was also seeing verified reviews too. The books I was looking at was a small sample and some of the books have just been released recently. It might be better to look at older books to get a better gauge. I was surprised by what I did see - both the extent of the stuffing and the lack of negative comments on the bonus content. I definitely see what you are saying though - with the ARC they would most likely only get the novel and not the bonus stuff to review.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Dragovian said:


> The only way legitimate readers are getting "fooled" into reading an extra 2,000 pages is if Amazon are lying about their ability to count pages read.


As of two weeks ago (the last time I had the time, wherewithal, and proper sort of book offered up to check), skipping to the end in Cloud Reader still registered a full read. If they are lying to us about fixing the loophole on that app, why should we believe them about the myriad other apps/devices?

KU has been a giant fraud from 2.0 onward. They told us they could tell when someone read a page, and it's never been reliably true, transparently tracked, or broken down in any meaningful way. *They don't know.* They just throw some random money at KU authors every month and hope they'll take it without complaining too loudly.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

JulesWright said:


> Thank you for your reply Crystal. I know I only looked at a small sample but I was truly blown away at the level of stuffing- the low percentage that was the main book. But yes, it really seems like the readers of the books don't care or enjoy them judging from the reviews. This is very eye-opening for me.


The same thing happened to me about ten months ago. I thought readers must hate bonus books as much as I did, but when I polled my readers, the response was overwhelmingly positive! At least half of them actively wanted bonus books and the majority of the rest were neutral at worst. Only a few readers (out of about 200) actively disliked bonus books (I'd never used them at that point, so my readers should have been skewed against bonus books if anything).

I'm not sure I believe that bonus books are the superior strategy for all contemporary romance authors. I write sexy new adult romance and I've had really mixed results with bonus books (I've done it four times now, vs. more than a dozen full priced or $1 off launches). It is much easier to get a .99 book into a super high ranking. That is for sure. And you do make extra money with a bonus book. But series sellthrough is also such a valuable took. I think (but can't say for sure) that you'll make more from series sellthrough with a series of 3+ (including the new book) standalones, but then I've always been a series writer, and I've always leveraged my sellthrough. I tend to advertise very aggressively to the point of barely breaking even or even losing money on first series (or new releases, though usually those do still make a profit) in order to get sellthrough. It irritates me that people can skip the hard work of writing an addictive series to get that sellthrough with bonus books, but there's nothing I can do about that, so I try not to think about it. I may or may not use bonus books for future first in series or standalones (what are those?), but I won't be using them in second, third, fourth, etc. in series anytime soon.



caitlynlynch said:


> I'd point out that very few of the reviews are Verified. Which means many of the reviewers have probably received ARCs (a lot of them honestly state they have, which is perfectly legit), which very likely didn't contain the 'bonus material' anyway. So they're only reviewing the 'title' book.


I mostly had positive comments in reviews. Probably 2-3 positive comments ("I loved the bonus book") for every negative one. And even the negative ones were more "the bonus book wasn't to my taste" vs. "I hate bonus books." I think I had maybe one review complain there was a bonus book. But that particular book was already 90k+, so I don't think anyone felt cheated by the book ending at 55% ish.

I wish readers did hate bonus books. And I wish Amazon would be them. But I can't control either of those things.

Whatever David wants to believe about me, I always put my readers' experience first. With all my decisions. I would not use bonus books, ever, if I thought my readers found them a turn off.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

brkingsolver said:


> If there truly was a way to format to generate more pages, I guarantee the members of this forum would have figured it out.


There is. It gets talked about in private groups but those who are using it obviously aren't willing to say so in public, and those of us who aren't using but know obviously don't want to put it out there so even more people can start doing it.

As Crystal mentioned above, it doesn't increase it by much. Over one of my 350ish KENPC books it wouldn't really be worth the extra trouble even if I were inclined to do it (which I am not). But over a 3000 KENPC book? Sure, especially when that book is #10 in the store and most readers are being enticed to click to the final "exclusive" short story or "sneak peek."


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

caitlynlynch said:


> I'd point out that very few of the reviews are Verified. Which means many of the reviewers have probably received ARCs (a lot of them honestly state they have, which is perfectly legit), which very likely didn't contain the 'bonus material' anyway. So they're only reviewing the 'title' book.


It's common for these authors to hand out only the title book to their ARC team, then put in all the bonus content and tell that same ARC team to buy or borrow the book so they can read the exclusive short at the end. Those who buy will end up being Verified reviews, which is valuable; those who borrow are, as we've established, worth something like $10-12 each. So, that's a thing.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

lilywhite said:


> It's common for these authors to hand out only the title book to their ARC team, then put in all the bonus content and tell that same ARC team to buy or borrow the book so they can read the exclusive short at the end. Those who buy will end up being Verified reviews, which is valuable; those who borrow are, as we've established, worth something like $10-12 each. So, that's a thing.


Yes, some of the verified could definitely be ARCs or subscribers who are happy to pay the 99 cents. I have to say though, there does seem to be an audience for these types of books, including the bonus content. I'm definitely not an expert that is just the quick impression that I got. Obviously, romance writers and readers are the ones who know and not me. Just my quick look has been an eye-opening experience for me though.

Obviously, romance is a big genre and different writers can attract different readers within the voracious reading pool.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

With KU, a lot of reviews are unverified. KU readers leave unverified reviews. You can't really know if an unverified review is a KU reader or an ARC (unless the reader discloses ARC status. They're supposed to, but that doesn't always happen).


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

JulesWright said:


> I have to say though, there does seem to be an audience for these types of books, including the bonus content.


I'm not saying there isn't. Romance reader are voracious and are often happy to just keep reading the book in their hand. It's astonishing how much some of these folks read.

I still contend that, if they weren't getting paid for the extra pages read, no author would include bonus books. And when you combine bonus books with the unsavory things like including EIGHT bonus book and/or inducing clicks to the back and/or including your effing NEWSLETTERS, etc etc, it's just gross and I think anyone who does is is cheating. I won't apologize for saying so.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

lilywhite said:


> I'm not saying there isn't. Romance reader are voracious and are often happy to just keep reading the book in their hand. It's astonishing how much some of these folks read.
> 
> I still contend that, if they weren't getting paid for the extra pages read, no author would include bonus books. And when you combine bonus books with the unsavory things like including EIGHT bonus book and/or inducing clicks to the back and/or including your effing NEWSLETTERS, etc etc, it's just gross and I think anyone who does is is cheating. I won't apologize for saying so.


Oh, I agree with you. The bonus stuff is there for page reads. They want long books for that but don't want to have to write long novels. It's clearly a shortcut. Personally, I find it very deceptive.

I don't mean to sound overly dramatic but I had no idea that I would see so many books where the so-called novel they were selling was only about 30% of the pages. I'm just blown away. Books that have been out longer might show more negative reviews, but honestly, if most readers don't care then Amazon might not do anything. Hopefully, they will.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

lilywhite said:


> I'm not saying there isn't. Romance reader are voracious and are often happy to just keep reading the book in their hand. It's astonishing how much some of these folks read.
> 
> I still contend that, if they weren't getting paid for the extra pages read, no author would include bonus books. And when you combine bonus books with the unsavory things like including EIGHT bonus book and/or inducing clicks to the back and/or including your effing NEWSLETTERS, etc etc, it's just gross and I think anyone who does is is cheating. I won't apologize for saying so.


I actually would include a bonus book again even if I couldn't get page reads. I think it increased sellthrough. And I have seen wide authors include a first in series free in the back of a new release before (though very, very rarely). I agree most people aren't in this situation, but it's not 100% just about page reads.

To me, cheating means breaking the rules of the game. I used to think bonus books were cheating... until it became clear to me that they're allowed by the ToS. If bonus books are allowed in the ToS, they're not cheating. They're incredibly unfair, but they're not cheating. They're more like a broken rule that should be corrected. I'd say they're poor sportsmanship. I'm married to a game designer, so I think about this a lot in terms of an actual game. But the thing is, in a game the goal is victory for the sake of it. Using a broken rule takes away from your victory bc there's less pride in it. With KU, the goal is money. Honor is a lot less important.

TLR If KU was a game, it would be super broken and everyone would house rule it to disallow bonus books. But it's not and money is different than the abstract feeling of victory. People pursue those things in different ways.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Crystal_ said:


> With KU, a lot of reviews are unverified. KU readers leave unverified reviews. You can't really know if an unverified review is a KU reader or an ARC (unless the reader discloses ARC status. They're supposed to, but that doesn't always happen).


And with the true scammers who are using 30-day free subscriptions to scan their "books", leaving lots of 5-star reviews just goes with the territory.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

brkingsolver said:


> This is all an urban legend. Triple space your manuscript in 14 pt. type and upload it, and you'll get the same KENPC as before. Why do people do it? Because someone told them this was a "fact". The actual KENPC is based on the number of characters in the book through a formula Amazon has not divulged. But plenty of experimentation shows that a KENP "page" will contain between 190 and 225 characters.


So the extra spaces between paragraphs, and the extra lines (sometimes as many as 3 or 4) around the numerous "chapter" headings do not count as characters?

I see these in a lot of LookInsides. Not all of the books we're discussing here have this, but most of them have them to some extent. I figured it was a way of gaining a few extra page reads. But -- not being in KU myself, I'm still figuring out how it actually works.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

JulesWright said:


> Some disclose how long the main novel is - i.e. this is an 80,000 word novel with bonus stories for your enjoyment or something along those lines. All the ones I saw did disclose that there was bonus content at the very end of the blurb and some gave the length of the novel or percentage it was of the main book but not all.
> 
> -snip-
> 
> Edited to add: I was very surprised at the level of bonus content being so much more than the original book. To me looking at the books, it's much worse than I was expecting. However, I don't see much talk at all of the bonus content in the reviews -either positive or negative - but mine was a very small sample.


I noticed the additions to the blurbs happening after this 'stuffing' thing became a controversy. Didn't notice it at all on any of the stuffed books just over a week or so ago.

Also, I have looked over some of the reviews... I have seen maybe one review mention a bonus story (or book).

Generally, they rave about the characters and the story line. They seem to really be involved in the plot, and the characters. The reviews seem genuine enough. If they're faked, they're very good at faking a review. I think a lot of the reviews are probably genuine... But then, what do I know?

There are other books I've seen that_ aren't_ stuffed romance books, with obviously faked reviews, often in broken English, that look like they were typed out by a computer with a broken keyboard -- but I haven't seen those types of "reviews" in these romance books we seem to be discussing here.


----------



## MmmmmPie (Jun 23, 2015)

Crystal_ said:


> So long as Amazon allows them, nothing will come out of the "I hate bonus books" teeth gnashing (I know, I've tried). All you can do is react to Amazon's rules.


I agree. And that's what makes this so awful. Authors who don't stuff are losing tons of money/visibility. Authors who DO stuff are taking a different kind of risk, meaning the risk of having page-reads clawed back or potentially seeing their accounts permanently banned. Both kinds of authors are running a risk.

In contrast, the internet marketers are risking very little -- since they're only in this for the quick buck. If they eventually get banned, so what? They'll just move onto another scam. But genuine authors -- those of us who truly love books and our readers -- are the ones with the most to lose.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

mawnster said:


> By that definition, box sets and omnibuses are also double dipping then.
> 
> And the KU pool is determined by the page rate Amazon wants to pay, not the other way around. They don't go "oh gosh let's be generous this month and pay out 30 million". They look at how many pages were read. They squint at how many authors are leaving the KU program (churn). They pick a page rate they think will keep the KU authors appeased for another month, and then they times that page rate by how many pages read to get the payout pool.


And you know this how?


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

jb1111 said:


> I noticed the additions to the blurbs happening after this 'stuffing' thing became a controversy. Didn't notice it at all on any of the stuffed books just over a week or so ago.
> 
> Also, I have looked over some of the reviews... I have seen maybe one review mention a bonus story (or book).
> 
> ...


Yeah, I agree. The reviews don't seem fake to me. I did look at some of their books that were older and saw some more negative reviews than the new ones, but it's still more way more positive. As people have pointed out ARC copies will most likely not have the bonus content in them so that is why they aren't mentioned, but also as Crystal said some of the unverified reviews can be from KU readers and not just ARCs. They could just be very good at getting ARCs and reviews, but these are books in the top of Romance and top of the store. So more shady stuff could be happening at books ranked lower. But even these at the top of the store, some of these books are stuffed to the gills with seemingly not that much flack from readers - at least not in the reviews.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Crystal_ said:


> the goal is money. Honor is a lot less important.


On that we are in complete agreement.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

MmmmmPie said:


> In contrast, the internet marketers are risking very little -- since they're only in this for the quick buck. If they eventually get banned, so what? They'll just move onto another scam. But genuine authors -- those of us who truly love books and our readers -- are the ones with the most to lose.


^^ This. I have been accused of being melodramatic about it, and I guess I am, but books are sacred to me. Being an author was a lifelong dream for me, to the point where I actually did that whole query nightmare and even have traditional publishing credit from the old black-and-white days of the 1990s. I *hate* seeing a bunch of internet marketers selling this garbage with all the passion they'd have for selling any other widget.

And yeah, a lot of readers don't seem to care. The thing is, I could make a good living on the readers who *do* still care, and *I can't find them*.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

Yes, romance readers are a notoriously voracious bunch & enjoy these books & since they enjoy them, they also enjoy free bonus books. I've been a reader my whole life & I've loved to buy box set & 2-for-1 book deals, etc. even before there were eBooks. I still enjoy reading lots of content & like being given free books as bonus books. I'm a book hoarder & any time I see a free book or even a book on sale I happily buy it up. Whether or not catering to this kind of mindset is good in the long term for authors is a different matter but it seems to me that many readers would appreciate rather than dislike getting extra books for free.

Amazon is a very customer focused/reader friendly site. It specifically changed the bonus book portion of the TOS to say that authors should disclose in the blurb if the book has bonus books & list the bonus books in the TOC. [THAT is why authors have been adding it to their blurbs- because Amazon started requiring it]. To me this change to the TOS re bonus books shows that Amazon knows readers like bonus books [this is why I don't think Amazon is taking any steps to get rid of books w/ bonus books currently in the store or preventing new ones from being published, now that romance readers are clearly used to them], but that they don't like the surprise of a book ending at a certain percentage without knowing in advance that there are extra books included for free. Since someone mentioned the cereal example- this is Amazon saying 'you can put different kinds of cereal in the box after the first kind of cereal but you can't dupe readers into thinking that the box only contains one kind of cereal.' It's logical to me that Amazon is trying to make sure there is nothing deceptive going on & that the reader knows they're getting extra books for free after the main story.

Therefore it is not engaging in mental gymnastics to see the TOS change as a clear signal from Amazon that away bonus books is fine as long as you tell the reader up front. Amazon cares about the readers & about itself, not about authors, since authors & publishers are just content creators for Amazon- who, yes, provide more content/books/widgets for Amazon to sell & who even pay Amazon AMS $$$$$ to advertise the books Amazon is selling. Love or hate Amazon they have a customer first policy & Bezos didn't get to where he is by being an idiot. Amazon knows exactly what it is doing & if it could change the TOS to say authors have to disclose the existence of bonus content, it could have just have easily changed it to say no bonus content or to better define what kind of bonus content is or is not allowed & then we wouldn't all be having this long & very repetitive conversation.

Someone mentioned that 'bonus content' doesn't mean previously published bonus books but if Amazon meant that then it also could have stated that in the TOS re bonus content when it changed them to require that bonus books be put after primary new content & require that the disclosure be added. A simple addition of the words 'bonus content that has not previously been published' or some other definition of 'bonus content' is all that is necessary if Amazon wanted to more narrowly define it. Without a definition the term 'bonus content' is completely open to interpretation & although it's an extreme example apparently it can even be recipes or journal entries or the content of newsletters unless Amazon deems that content irrelevant or disruptive to the reader experience, which are also requirements that must be met & that are just as completely open to interpretation as the phrase 'bonus content' or the phrase 'non-differentiated.' I would say that such bonus content is probably irrelevant or disruptive but Amazon really only cares about the readers & I personally haven't come across any bonus content like this as a reader so I don't know what I would think. Perhaps if they were related to the content or theme of the original book I might enjoy it. I know it is customary in some genres to include recipes or lyrics or interviews w/ the author at the end of the books. So to me that is bonus content that is probably just as allowed as 'other stories' are, even if I personally close the book without reading that kind of stuff because I'm only interested in the main story & not the extras. I probably wouldn't be annoyed enough to complain to Amazon about it. If a lot of readers do then I presume the author who is including those things will probably receive a notice from Amazon re customer complaints about their bonus content & be asked to change or remove it. Because again if Amazon thinks something is bad for readers it doesn't want it in the store.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

writerlygal said:


> Amazon is a very customer focused/reader friendly site. It specifically changed the bonus book portion of the TOS to say that authors should disclose in the blurb if the book has bonus books & list the bonus books in the TOC. [THAT is why authors have been adding it to their blurbs- because Amazon started requiring it].


Thank you for your observation. I was wondering about this.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

*************


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

I definitely get that most of us like to get stuff for free or extras.  I just find it deceptive when you have a novel on the cover when it's really a collection of stuff that you are getting and the novel is only around 30% of the total (not always the case but I saw a number where the novel was only that or less than half of the total).  But hey, I have to admit there does seem to be an audience for it.  Other romance readers who don't like it may have mostly moved on by now to other authors who don't stuff or who are more to their liking or who would have never been attracted to those sub-genres in the first place.

I do feel it sets a very bad precedent because you don't really know what you are getting, even when it's disclosed that there are bonuses.  But I do think it's the reader that counts.  I hope it doesn't come to my genres. If it does I'm not buying or borrowing the books that contain bonus content, but other readers do have different preferences than I do.  I mostly read fantasy and mysteries.  I write epic fantasy so I doubt the stuffers are going to want to write epic fantasy length and then stuff on top of it, although I wouldn't bet my life on it.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

writerlygal said:


> Someone mentioned that 'bonus content' doesn't mean previously published bonus books but if Amazon meant that then it also could have stated that in the TOS re bonus content when it changed them to require that bonus books be put after primary new content & require that the disclosure be added. A simple addition of the words 'bonus content that has not previously been published' or some other definition of 'bonus content' is all that is necessary if Amazon wanted to more narrowly define it. Without a definition the term 'bonus content' is completely open to interpretation & although it's an extreme example apparently it can even be recipes or journal entries or the content of newsletters unless Amazon deems that content irrelevant or disruptive to the reader experience, which are also requirements that must be met & that are just as completely open to interpretation as the phrase 'bonus content' or the phrase 'non-differentiated.'


It does seem to me that there are only two possible explanations for the vague language: 1) that Amazon employs no competent writers or 2) that Amazon likes vague because vague = flexible. It could be that they want to be free to take down any stuffed books that customers complain about or that generate negative PR while leaving up any that customers seem to like.

But as an author, I would not find that flexibility at all reassuring. I want my business environment to be predictable. I want to know that if I don't do X, I'll be safe from Y; that way I can make an informed choice about X. If the true situation is, "X might be totally fine and never cause a problem, or X might get your account banned and land you in arbitration," that's unacceptable. I know some folks are less risk-averse than I am, but I think adhering to the most cautious strategy makes sense when the situation is fundamentally unpredictable, and the most cautious strategy is to follow the strictest interpretation we've seen Amazon apply (no duplicate material).

One could always pack each completed series into a clearly labeled omnibus edition and put only that in KU ... right? That would minimize impediments to read-through without incurring any risk.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

PhoenixS said:


> A bit off the topic of the OP, but since it's being discussed... If I were wanting to get reviews, and didn't care about how they were gotten, here's how I might go about it:
> 
> Set up a review site and/or Facebook group where reviewers have to review with 4 or 5 stars or be dropped.
> 
> ...


Ee-yup. Which is why I say, if you want a career writing, the best bet is probably to write books that will get actual live readers recommending you to their friends, and will keep them buying that book beyond some 14-day cliff. It may or may not be the get-rich-quick road, but the readers are more loyal than the trend readers (whether or not you stuff or bot or incentivize), which also helps.

Neither I nor anyone else will convince the stuffing-is-fine-and-Amazon-loves-it folks.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

writerlygal said:


> Amazon is a very customer focused/reader friendly site. It specifically changed the bonus book portion of the TOS to say that authors should disclose in the blurb if the book has bonus books & list the bonus books in the TOC. [THAT is why authors have been adding it to their blurbs- because Amazon started requiring it]. To me this change to the TOS re bonus books shows that Amazon knows readers like bonus books [this is why I don't think Amazon is taking any steps to get rid of books w/ bonus books currently in the store or preventing new ones from being published, now that romance readers are clearly used to them], but that they don't like the surprise of a book ending at a certain percentage without knowing in advance that there are extra books included for free.


Except nowhere does Amazon refer to "bonus books." It only refers to "bonus content," for which it gives the examples of "other stories or *previews* of other books."

"If you choose to include bonus content (e.g. other stories, or previews of other books), it should be relevant to the customer and should not disrupt the reading experience. To meet these guidelines, we require placing additional content at the end of the book, listing the bonus content in your book's table of contents, and including a note in your book description if a significant portion of your book's content is not from the book listed in the title field."

Once again, no one is disputing that bonus content is allowed. It's the book stuffing practice that ECR and the court docs have validated is not allowed.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Ee-yup. Which is why I say, if you want a career writing, the best bet is probably to write books that will get actual live readers recommending you to their friends, and will keep them buying that book beyond some 14-day cliff. It may or may not be the get-rich-quick road, but the readers are more loyal than the trend readers (whether or not you stuff or bot or incentivize), which also helps.
> 
> Neither I nor anyone else will convince the stuffing-is-fine-and-Amazon-loves-it folks.


That's a silly false dichotomy. Most people who are using bonus books are legitimate authors trying to make a living. Most of them are doing their best to write books people love (not everyone succeeds, of course, but that's true in any segment of the market). Internet marketers are a small fraction of the "authors" out there. They just take up a disproportionate size of the earnings.

Looking at the ToS and the past two years of behavior and gleaning that Amazon is fine with bonus books is not the same as participating in stuff that is explicitly against the ToS like buying reviews or botting. I think we all agree that Amazon could easily get rid of bonus books and/or make it explicitly clear they're forbidden if that was what they wanted.


----------



## MmmmmPie (Jun 23, 2015)

Becca Mills said:


> It does seem to me that there are only two possible explanations for the vague language: 1) that Amazon employs no competent writers or 2) that Amazon likes vague because vague = flexible. It could be that they want to be free to take down any stuffed books that customers complain about or that generate negative PR while leaving up any that customers seem to like.
> 
> But as an author, I would not find that flexibility at all reassuring. I want my business environment to be predictable. I want to know that if I don't do X, I'll be safe from Y; that way I can make an informed choice about X. If the true situation is, "X might be totally fine and never cause a problem, or X might get your account banned and land you in arbitration," that's unacceptable. I know some folks are less risk-averse than I am, but I think adhering to the most cautious strategy makes sense when the situation is fundamentally unpredictable, and the most cautious strategy is to follow the strictest interpretation we've seen Amazon apply (no duplicate material).


Agree 100%. And what's sad is that genuine authors, those of us who are in this for the long haul, will naturally be more risk-averse. Because to us, this is more than a get-rich-quick scheme. We're looking to have careers that span decades. As such, we can't afford to risk all those years spent building our readership (not to mention our future livelihoods) on practices that might get us banned.

Meanwhile, others who have no genuine love of reading or writing, and just want to make quick cash, won't be nearly as risk-averse. In a sense, they have nothing to lose, because this is just their current internet marketing gig.

Right now, Amazon is rewarding risk-takers bigtime at the expense of authors with a higher level of commitment to their writing careers. Probably, at some time in the future, those risk-takers will be crying when the rug is pulled out from under them. Until then, they're raking it in at the expense of those of us who don't dare risk it.


----------



## S.R. (May 19, 2016)

[My posts have been deleted in response to the unannounced KBoards TOS change that was made by the new forum owner (VerticalScope) -- I do not agree to the new terms and have requested that my account be deleted as well]


----------



## MmmmmPie (Jun 23, 2015)

Crystal_ said:


> Internet marketers are a small fraction of the "authors" out there. *They just take up a disproportionate size of the earnings.*


But really, isn't this a huge part of the problem? Yes, they might be small in number, percentage-wise, but their impact on genuine authors has been devastating.

Let that sink in.

*They just take up a disproportionate size of the earnings.*

Internet marketers. Not authors.

To me, this seems more evidence that the system is messed up, not less.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

SallyRose said:


> Just to add a 3rd explanation. Having worked for mega-ginormous corporations in communications.... the vagary is often a result of the organizational structure. I'd often have the communication written up...very clear and specific...then the attorney submits edits (guaranteed to make it vague)...then the 2-3 (or more) execs with oversight on the topic would weigh in...with competing opinions. By the time it went through 3 rounds of revisions - accommodating the differences, the text was so watered down it didn't resemble the original language or intent - but it was what the execs could agree on...so it was published.
> 
> Unless or until there's enough backlash (like Amazon is experiencing now), the wording is never given another thought. ::shudder::


Lol. Duly noted.

1) that Amazon employs no does not let its competent writers actually do the writing


----------



## S.R. (May 19, 2016)

[My posts have been deleted in response to the unannounced KBoards TOS change that was made by the new forum owner (VerticalScope) -- I do not agree to the new terms and have requested that my account be deleted as well]


----------



## S.R. (May 19, 2016)

[My posts have been deleted in response to the unannounced KBoards TOS change that was made by the new forum owner (VerticalScope) -- I do not agree to the new terms and have requested that my account be deleted as well]


----------



## Hoop (Nov 22, 2014)

PhoenixS said:


> Except nowhere does Amazon refer to "bonus books." It only refers to "bonus content," for which it gives the examples of "other stories or *previews* of other books."


Are you seriously stretching so far to support your point that you're attempting to declare that books are not stories?
I mean, the semantics game in this thread has been laughable up to this point, but this just thrust it firmly over the line of ridiculous.


----------



## Simon Haynes (Mar 14, 2011)

MaryMcDonald said:


> The problem I have with the argument that nobody is reading the stuffed content over and over is that if that is the case, they WHY are people stuffing at all? It doesn't make sense. It's more work for negligible return? I don't buy it. There's a reason.


I don't know a whole lot about how KU works, but if someone put 3 'bonus novels' at the front of the ebook, and the TOC pointed to the new material which the reader actually paid for, which appeared 3/4 of the way through the huge file, wouldn't KU then pay out page reads for the first 3/4 since it looks like that customer has read it all?

I may be misunderstanding how stuffing is supposed to work. I mean, ideally a kindle device would report back to Amazon a count of how many pages had been viewed in a given book, rather than the highest page number reached, but I don't think that's how it works, is it?


----------



## caitlynlynch (Oct 21, 2016)

PhoenixS said:


> "If you choose to include bonus content (e.g. other stories, or previews of other books), it should be relevant to the customer and should not disrupt the reading experience. To meet these guidelines, we require placing additional content at the end of the book, listing the bonus content in your book's table of contents, and including a note in your book description if a significant portion of your book's content is not from the book listed in the title field."


Where does this come from? It's not in the KDP Terms and Conditions.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Hoop said:


> Are you seriously stretching so far to support your point that you're attempting to declare that books are not stories?
> I mean, the semantics game in this thread has been laughable up to this point, but this just thrust it firmly over the line of ridiculous.


Are you seriously so blind that you don't notice that Amazon uses both the word "stories" and the word "books" in there, and so they clearly mean two different things? Note that they didn't say "other books or previews of other books."


----------



## Hoop (Nov 22, 2014)

caitlynlynch said:


> Where does this come from? It's not in the KDP Terms and Conditions.


It's here:
https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G202018960


----------



## Desert Rose (Jun 2, 2015)

Simon Haynes said:


> I don't know a whole lot about how KU works, but if someone put 3 'bonus novels' at the front of the ebook, and the TOC pointed to the new material which the reader actually paid for, which appeared 3/4 of the way through the huge file, wouldn't KU then pay out page reads for the first 3/4 since it looks like that customer has read it all?
> 
> I may be misunderstanding how stuffing is supposed to work. I mean, ideally a kindle device would report back to Amazon a count of how many pages had been viewed in a given book, rather than the highest page number reached, but I don't think that's how it works, is it?


Amazon supposedly can tell if a page has been read. I know for a very long time they just went by the furthest page read and assumed all earlier pages had also been read. Then, I heard that loophole had been closed in most devices (excluding the cloud reader). However, people in this thread have asserted the furthest page loophole is still alive and well.

However, I believe Amazon's ToS states that bonus content must be placed AFTER the new content, not before. So, if a stuffer is placing three novels ahead of the book readers purchased, then they are violating the ToS entirely independently of the stuffing. Which has been my point. We're very focused on the stuffing itself, arguing back and forth about whether it's a violation, but most of the harm done by stuffing is due to other actions (placing bonus content in the front of the book, click to end links, botted reads) which are clear violations regardless of which side of the stuffing fence you're on.

We're burning so much energy debating one aspect of this, when what will HELP is to push Amazon to close the loopholes and enforce the unambiguous violations that make stuffing so lucrative in the first place.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

It is important to note that the "Bonus Content" section has been updated sometime in the last few months. That means Amazon _has _clarified its position (somewhat).

New bit:

*"...listing the bonus content in your book's table of contents, and including a note in your book description if a significant portion of your book's content is not from the book listed in the title field."*

Dec 8, 2017 Wayback:



> If you choose to include bonus content (e.g. other stories, or previews of other books), it should be relevant to the customer and should not disrupt the reading experience. To meet these guidelines, we recommend placing additional content at the end of the book.
> 
> Content must meet all program guidelines (e.g., bonus content in KDP Select titles must be exclusive). Translated content must be high quality and not machine generated. Disruptive links and promises of gifts or rewards are never allowed.
> 
> For more information, see our content guidelines and Terms and Conditions.


Current:



> If you choose to include bonus content (e.g. other stories, or previews of other books), it should be relevant to the customer and should not disrupt the reading experience. To meet these guidelines, we require placing additional content at the end of the book, listing the bonus content in your book's table of contents, and including a note in your book description if a significant portion of your book's content is not from the book listed in the title field.
> 
> Primary and bonus content must meet all program guidelines (e.g., bonus content in KDP Select titles must be exclusive). Translated content must be high quality and not machine generated. Disruptive links and promises of gifts or rewards are never allowed.
> 
> For more information, see our content guidelines and Terms and Conditions.


----------



## Desert Rose (Jun 2, 2015)

PaulineMRoss said:


> The loophole HAS been closed in most devices. I habitually download my own books as soon as they're released to check that the file is OK. I check the forematter and opening chapter, then skip to the end to check the backmatter. Until the advent of KU3, I got credited with a full read-through for that. Now, only a handful of pages. Other people have verified the same effect on different devices. The loophole is closed.
> 
> Except on the cloud reader. And that interests me, because would it be an insuperable challenge to fix the loophole there, too? Probably not. So maybe the Amazon techies have deliberately left that one loophole open. The scammers and bots presumably flocked there to take advantage, and there all those fake accounts are, scamming and botting away right where they can be watched in real time. It may be that the sweep we're seeing now is a direct result of leaving the loophole open in the cloud reader. Just a thought.


Thanks, Pauline. I thought I'd read that the click-to-end loophole was gone, but since I'm not in KU I admit I don't track the various issues very intently.

I would be delighted if they were using the cloud reader as a way to track scammy/bot reads. Just so long as they don't get rid of it completely; I prefer popping open a book and reading it right in the cloud reader to downloading it and adding it to my already overburdened Kindle for PC app. (I'm not a KU subscriber, either, so I promise I'm not sending questionable page reads anyone's way.)


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Crystal_ said:


> That's a silly false dichotomy. Most people who are using bonus books are legitimate authors trying to make a living. Most of them are doing their best to write books people love (not everyone succeeds, of course, but that's true in any segment of the market). Internet marketers are a small fraction of the "authors" out there. They just take up a disproportionate size of the earnings.


You state that as fact, but offer nothing to back it up ... especially since we've already had one mega thread here in which one of these marketers admited to going through pen names like Tic Tacs.

Nevertheless, assuming for a moment that it's true, you also point out the big issue. While I think many here would still take issue with legit authors playing a game of monkey see / monkey do with potentially black hat tactics, the problem at large are those using these tactics to take more than their fair share of the pie.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

PaulineMRoss said:


> The loophole HAS been closed in most devices.
> 
> Except on the cloud reader.


Many people read on devices that Amazon no longer updates. The most popular reader (other than smartphones) in London is the eInk Wifi thanks to it being pushed at one point in Waterstones (our Barnes and Noble) and Argos (a discount store). eInk Wifis have not been updated since before Page Flip was introduced.


----------



## TinyChickadee (Apr 11, 2018)

caitlynlynch said:


> I'd point out that very few of the reviews are Verified. Which means many of the reviewers have probably received ARCs (a lot of them honestly state they have, which is perfectly legit), which very likely didn't contain the 'bonus material' anyway. So they're only reviewing the 'title' book.


I only sent about 30ish ARCs on my last release, but I have well over 100 reviews, and most are unverified because the reviewer has read my book in KU.

Also I don't know about anyone else, but when I send out my ARC the copy the same as what I'm uploading to Amazon - if I include a few chapters from my next book at the back of my for-sale version, then it's in my ARC as well.


----------



## caitlynlynch (Oct 21, 2016)

TinyChickadee said:


> I only sent about 30ish ARCs on my last release, but I have well over 100 reviews, and most are unverified because the reviewer has read my book in KU.
> 
> Also I don't know about anyone else, but when I send out my ARC the copy the same as what I'm uploading to Amazon - if I include a few chapters from my next book at the back of my for-sale version, then it's in my ARC as well.


I requested an ARC to review from one of the infamous book stuffers (before I had any clue who they were - I just saw all these people going crazy for ARCs and thought, why not). The book was terrible, but it was most definitely only the title story. When the book was published, there were 5 others stuffed in the back.

I can't speak for all 'book stuffing' authors, but this is one of the more prominent ones with 2 books in the Romance Top 100 at the moment, and this was obviously their policy.


----------



## TinyChickadee (Apr 11, 2018)

caitlynlynch said:


> I requested an ARC to review from one of the infamous book stuffers (before I had any clue who they were - I just saw all these people going crazy for ARCs and thought, why not). The book was terrible, but it was most definitely only the title story. When the book was published, there were 5 others stuffed in the back.
> 
> I can't speak for all 'book stuffing' authors, but this is one of the more prominent ones with 2 books in the Romance Top 100 at the moment, and this was obviously their policy.


Oh, I'm not surprised someone including bonus content wouldn't include it in the book they're sending out.

I just wanted to address your assumption that unverified reviewers are mostly ARC reviewers. If a book is charting well, then it's very reasonable to assume that a good portion of unverified reviewers are are simply KU readers. Especially given that some larger authors are abandoning ARCs altogether as they just don't have need of them to get reviews at this point.

For my releases, I'm going to keep my ARC pool small, because I got more than 3x the reviews on my last release. I can see myself eventually only sending out ARCs to my most hardcore, diehard fans who tend to buy a copy of my book anyway to support me.


----------



## Hoop (Nov 22, 2014)

lilywhite said:


> Are you seriously so blind that you don't notice that Amazon uses both the word "stories" and the word "books" in there, and so they clearly mean two different things? Note that they didn't say "other books or previews of other books."


Yes, they say both "stories" and "previews of books".
Because if it said "books, or previews of books", people playing the semantics game would scream "It says BOOKS! Not novellas! Not short stories! People putting novellas in the backs of books are scammers! People putting short stories in the backs of books are scammers!"
So to avoid that whole mess, the word "stories" covers all forms and lengths of stories: books, novels, novellas, short stories.
You know, just like it does in the real world.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

For the record, my _highly specific questions_ worded in a way to be easily answered with a YES or NO, about whether entire books already published and in KU are acceptable as bonus content, whether they're acceptable to be used more than once (and if so, how many times), and what percentage of a title is acceptable as bonus content, have gone unanswered for 48+ hours now.

I guess they're too busy toying with some authors' livelihoods to answer at the moment.


----------



## TinyChickadee (Apr 11, 2018)

Shelley K said:


> For the record, my _highly specific questions_ worded in a way to be easily answered with a YES or NO, about whether entire books already published and in KU are acceptable as bonus content, whether they're acceptable to be used more than once (and if so, how many times), and what percentage of a title is acceptable as bonus content, have gone unanswered for 48+ hours now.
> 
> I guess they're too busy toying with some authors' livelihoods to answer at the moment.


The disappointing thing is... that no matter what answer you get, both sides will argue over the result.

If you hear back that yes, books can be used multiple times (and I doubt they'll give you specifics as to how many!), then the anti-stuffers will scream that it's wrong, or you're lying, or that the Amazon rep doesn't know what they're talking about, or they'll take issue with how you WORDED the email.

If you hear back that no, books can't be used multiple times, the pro-bonus-content group (cause they're not all really pro-stuffers, are they? A lot are pretty neutral, don't stuff books themselves, and don't even like the practice, no matter how much they get smeared by the other camp) will say that it conflicts with Amazon's behavior (which since books reported multiple times for book-stuffing, it's clear Amazon doesn't care all THAT much... they're easily able to toss tons of books into erotica for a shirtless guy on the cover, they could easily cut the stuffers too) of not enforcing the rules, or that you got a rep that doesn't know what they're talking about.

There is no winning here. There is only agendas and biases, and fairly clear ones at that.

I look forward to more nonsense back and forth. I have popcorn at the ready.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

TinyChickadee said:


> The disappointing thing is... that no matter what answer you get, both sides will argue over the result.
> 
> If you hear back that yes, books can be used multiple times (and I doubt they'll give you specifics as to how many!), then the anti-stuffers will scream that it's wrong, or you're lying, or that the Amazon rep doesn't know what they're talking about, or they'll take issue with how you WORDED the email.
> 
> ...


I know you're right, but I feel like I need it for me. Which is interesting, because I don't even use bonus content and have no plans to. I guess it's academic.

People will always believe what they want to, but I want a flipping straight answer for a change.

Save some popcorn for me. No butter, I'm fat enough as it is.


----------



## caitlynlynch (Oct 21, 2016)

The sad part is, Amazon could fix this tomorrow by adding another clause to that bonus content one which says something like "To avoid a disappointing reader experience, bonus content should not comprise more than 20% (I'm being generous... it could be 10%) of your book by page count. Books which include more than 20% bonus content may be removed from the Kindle Unlimited program without notice blah blah blah and we'll probably delete your account if you do it again."


----------



## TinyChickadee (Apr 11, 2018)

Shelley K said:


> I know you're right, but I feel like I need it for me. Which is interesting, because I don't even use bonus content and have no plans to. I guess it's academic.
> 
> People will always believe what they want to, but I want a flipping straight answer for a change.
> 
> Save some popcorn for me. No butter, I'm fat enough as it is.


Ya. I am same as you. No bonus content other than a chapter or two here and there (very rarely). I think behavior of enforcement (or lack thereof) often tells more than what the actual rules are. It's a bit like my hometown, where pot was illegal, but the cops never busted anyone so... was it really illegal? The law books said yes, but the cops said no.

I was speaking to my lawyer regarding this last night actually, and he said the law is not what is written in the book, but what is reality. There are lots of laws, he said, written down, but not enforced, and so they become un-enforceable in a court. Same thing with contracts - if you don't enforce your contracts equally against all contractors, then you're opening yourself to discrimination lawsuits, etc. One could say, actually, that if a certain group is disproportionally punished for having bonus content (through mass reporting or whatever), that actually makes them more able to mount an offense that they were discriminated against.

Okay I will hold the butter. Maybe perhaps some cinnamon-sugar sprinkle instead.



caitlynlynch said:


> The sad part is, Amazon could fix this tomorrow by adding another clause to that bonus content one which says something like "To avoid a disappointing reader experience, bonus content should not comprise more than 20% (I'm being generous... it could be 10%) of your book by page count. Books which include more than 20% bonus content may be removed from the Kindle Unlimited program without notice blah blah blah and we'll probably delete your account if you do it again."


Amazon probably won't do this, because by and large, readers enjoy bonus content. My readers message me all the time about it (cause I don't include it). As a reader, I love bonus content! So easy to read another book from my new fave author. Only a few times were the bonus books not something I cared to read, and then it was not a big deal.

The reason that people use bonus content is that it works. It works. People enjoy reading extra books without needing to go download a new one or take another slot in their KU library. Sure, some percent is botting, but as we can see, Amazon is sweeping for those botters on a regular basis (and may their algos get smarter so they stop snagging my poor friends who are just trying to put out a book or two!!). I could see them not doing anything about bonus books if their algos get smart enough to catch the botters efficiently.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

TinyChickadee said:


> Ya. I am same as you. No bonus content other than a chapter or two here and there (very rarely). I think behavior of enforcement (or lack thereof) often tells more than what the actual rules are. It's a bit like my hometown, where pot was illegal, but the cops never busted anyone so... was it really illegal? The law books said yes, but the cops said no.
> 
> I was speaking to my lawyer regarding this last night actually, and he said the law is not what is written in the book, but what is reality. There are lots of laws, he said, written down, but not enforced, and so they become un-enforceable in a court. Same thing with contracts - if you don't enforce your contracts equally against all contractors, then you're opening yourself to discrimination lawsuits, etc. One could say, actually, that if a certain group is disproportionally punished for having bonus content (through mass reporting or whatever), that actually makes them more able to mount an offense that they were discriminated against.
> 
> Okay I will hold the butter. Maybe perhaps some cinnamon-sugar sprinkle instead.


Yep. If you don't enforce and protect your trademarks, you'll eventually lose them. If a rule is never enforced, does it matter if you call it a rule? I would argue that it doesn't. Others may disagree, which is fine, as long as they can manage to disagree without acting like anyone with a different view is stupid or degenerate. Seems most can't anymore.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

What kind of bonus content is included? I mean I saw 1,000+ page books, so the bonus stuff was like 700 to 1,000 pages long.  It just seems like it would be smarter to put out more books than have bonus content unless that stuff is spun or purchased at a low cost somehow.  It's not like someone is going to finish a 50K to 80K novel and then turn around and say, oh hey I'm going to now crank out 1,000 pages of bonus content. 

I saw a book the other day that was over 1,300 pages long and there were others of similar length.  It had 5 or 6 bonus books, stories, whatever - I have no idea since it didn't specify the length of the novel being advertised or any of the bonus content.  That's the equivalent of 3 or 4 books.  You could have a whole series. I definitely don't understand, lol.  It isn't my genre so doesn't affect me at the moment.  I'm just curious.


----------



## Just Griff (Sep 28, 2017)

Thanks Becca for sticking up for everyone. I have to admit, it was looking rather one-sided there for a minute.



DonovanJeremiah said:


> Yes.
> 
> I'm not Cocker but it's precisely this reaction that had me very wary in interacting on the board at all. I can't prove I'm not a sock puppet until I engage in conversation. I can't engage in conversation if I'm viewed as a sock puppet.
> 
> ...


I feel similarly, and it doesn't even take a different opinion. The brand comes out for a still-forming opinion and (or) just civilly questioning the logic presented by others. Responding at the beginning of this thread and some of the responses that followed, the blanket statements, the disdain... it stressed me out. Had to check myself and remember this is the internet, a place where people are openly rude, dismissive, and presumptive without a second thought. Some of them the same people who I've seen outraged over the years when someone assumes the worst of them. Some of them the same people who defended the rights of anonymous posters when they were speaking up in a hot-button thread about a certain promoter not too long ago. Guess newer and anonymous posters just have to agree with some veteran-posters or the majority to be treated with respect.

And I saw someone point out that some newer posters are articulate, as if that's evidence we're all sock puppets. Couldn't find the post in this maze, but I'll say this: the reason some of us are articulate about indie publishing even though we are newer members is because we are new to registration, not to the writer's cafe. Can't speak for everyone, but thinking we are sock puppets for this reason doesn't carry much weight. I, and maybe others, read these boards for years before I felt knowledgeable enough to contribute and engage. And now I'm having second thoughts.


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

I've thought of a series of questions that may add some insight if you're at least a little bit willing to see a different viewpoint. I'm going to use some all cap words to highlight a key word.

Would you be angry if someone CLICK FARMED a hundred  paged book?

Would you be angry if someone CLICK FARMED a hunded paged book into the top ten of any genre?

Would you be angry if someone CLICK FARMED a hundred page book and received an All-Star bonus?

Would you be angry if someone CLICK FARMED several one hundred paged books into the top ten?

Would you be angry if someone BOTTED a one hundred page book?

Would you be angry if someone BOTTED a hundred page book into the top ten of any genre?

Would you be angry if someone BOTTED a hundred page book and received an All-Star bonus?

Would you be angry if someone BOTTED several one hundred paged books into the top ten?

Would you be angry if people READ a thousand page  book?

If you said YES to the click farms and the botting, but NO to the reads--what does that say about the problem?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

A.R. Williams said:


> If you said YES to the click farms and the botting, but NO to the reads--what does that say about the problem?


That we don't like cheaters or scammers?


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Dragovian said:


> Amazon supposedly can tell if a page has been read. I know for a very long time they just went by the furthest page read and assumed all earlier pages had also been read. Then, I heard that loophole had been closed in most devices (excluding the cloud reader). However, people in this thread have asserted the furthest page loophole is still alive and well.


Just to be clear (since I've been one of the ones harping on this), I have no evidence of the loophole existing anywhere other than Cloud Reader. I haven't been able to replicate it on the apps or devices in my possession, and no one else has made a convincing case of it to me. But I know they're lying to us about Cloud Reader, and when someone lies to me about one thing, I don't trust them in other things.


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> That we don't like cheaters or scammers?


It means STUFFING is not the problem.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

I'll just note again - as it might have been missed by some - that (a) the click-to-the-end loophole is not fully closed, and (b) there are new tricks to get an insta-payout of the full KENPC that are being deployed right now.

Not going to detail them for obvious reasons.


----------



## wilsonharp (Jun 5, 2012)

A.R. Williams said:


> It means STUFFING is not the problem.


Unless you read the legal filing presented by Amazon. But, really, who wants to deal in facts?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

A.R. Williams said:


> It means STUFFING is not the problem.


You said a thousand page book. I took that to mean a full thousand page story, not a short story followed by 50 other undisclosed "bonus" short stories. And yes there is a difference. If you're going to do something like this, you need to be specific, not play word games in an attempt to do some "Gotcha!" moment.

I stand by what I said.


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> You said a thousand page book. I took that to mean a full thousand page story, not a short story followed by 50 other undisclosed "bonus" short stories. And yes there is a difference.


There is no difference. It doesn't matter if it's a thousand page book, 100 short stories at ten pages each, a 25 author 25 novel collection--it's still 1000 pages read.

KU counts by the page (at least it is supposed to) not by the type of story.



> If you're going to do something like this, you need to be specific, not play word games in an attempt to do some "Gotcha!" moment.
> 
> I stand by what I said.


No word games at all. Everytime somone raises a valid point you guys try to change what you're saying. If Amazon stopped Stuffing, and bonus content, and capped every book at 200 pages-- you guys would still be bit chin because you're fighting the wrong battle.

Book stuffing/bonus content when you should be fighting click farming, botting, and Amazon still not being able to count a page ( which they said they could do).


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

A.R. Williams said:


> There is no difference. It doesn't matter if it's a thousand page book, 100 short stories at ten pages each, a 25 author 25 novel collection--it's still 1000 pages read.


It matters if 800 of those pages appear in multiple places in KU.


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

dgaughran said:


> I'll just note again - as it might have been missed by some - that (a) the click-to-the-end loophole is not fully closed, and (b) there are new tricks to get an insta-payout of the full KENPC that are being deployed right now.
> 
> Not going to detail them for obvious reasons.


And yet, you're still here whinging about the size of a book. You should be whinging about Amazon not being able to count a page ( still !!! ).

If you guys were complaining about botting, I'd be with you.

If you guys were complaining about click farms, I'd be with you.

If you guys were complaining about Amazon still not being able to count a page--OMG!--I'd be with you.

But you're not.

You're charging up the wrong hill, you're barking up the wrong tree, you' ve gone way off course.

So, no, I'm not with you.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Well, you are probably not with me and that's fine.  To me, these are collections of books, not a single novel.  The reason they are marketing them as single novels is because that is what sells, not collections.  

To borrow the cereal analogy, if I see a single box of Grape Nuts advertised and what I am really getting is a bunch of small boxes of different cereals instead then that's not the same thing.  And yes to me it matters that we advertise properly, especially with ebooks which are intangible and we have to rely on accurate descriptions and as an author who writes novels I want people to have confidence in what they are getting. 

I also can't imagine how people could possibly have 100's to 1,000s of pages of unique content to give away with each novel they release.


----------



## wilsonharp (Jun 5, 2012)

A.R. Williams said:


> And yet, you're still here whinging about the size of a book. You should be whinging about Amazon not being able to count a page ( still !!! ).
> 
> If you guys were complaining about botting, I'd be with you.
> 
> ...


Let me lay it out as plainly as language can allow.

If you have a 1000 page book that includes nothing that is replicated elsewhere in the Kindle Store, that is not the issue.

Let me repeat, the length of the book is NOT the issue.

If you have a 1000 page book where 800 pages are found elsewhere in the Kindle Store, then that IS the issue.

"Stuffing" is where books include repeated stories, short stories, blog posts, novels, novellas, poems, grocery lists, poorly translated copies of the Magna Carta, etc. which is already found elsewhere in the Kindle Store.

Giving someone 1000 pages of unique material is not what the issue is. Padding your books with repeated material that manipulates page reads is the issue.


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

wilsonharp said:


> Unless you read the legal filing presented by Amazon. But, really, who wants to deal in facts?


What do you really think the company that is breaking its own terms of service is going to say?

What do you think the company who knows indies will challenge them is going to say?

What do think the company who can change the rules, break the rules, bend tbe rules, and ignore the rules is going to say?

That their guilty? Nope.

Amazon can easily call for arbitration. How easily can indies do that?

Everyone knew that Amazon couldn't count pages. What did indies do about it? Nothing. Because they felt they didn't have the power.


----------



## TinyChickadee (Apr 11, 2018)

A.R. Williams said:


> You're charging up the wrong hill, you're barking up the wrong tree, you' ve gone way off course.
> 
> So, no, I'm not with you.


This is sort of what turned my head too. At first I was like "oh... that's not cool at all! Scammers!" and then... it just... kinda devolved into a certain group (mostly women, writing for women) that were being targeted.

And that's when the lightbulb came on. It's not just about people cheating and scamming the system (whether they are or not is up for debate and has been hashed over so many times in this thread with everyone presenting the same evidence 50 million ways to try to "win"), it's also about policing what women like to read.

I was a romance reader before I ever got into writing. I love bonus books as a reader. Love them! As soon as I was done one book, I could dive right into the next one with no extra effort needed, which was amazing for me because finding an author you like is *hard*. None of the conversation here is around what the customers want - which is bonus books. If they didn't work, authors wouldn't use them, so clearly, they work, *because customers want them*. Crystal has made the point, over and over, that her readers love bonus books probably as much as she dislikes them. Customers don't see it, by and large, as an issue, until some author gets on Facebook and cries and makes all their readers feel terrible about something they enjoy. That's a behavior I see as awful customer service, and being awful to your fans.

And you can gnash your teeth all you like, but we all know that Amazon is customer-focused-beyong-anything-else, and why would Amazon take away something that its readers want and love? It's highly unlikely unless they can't get botting and click farming under control.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Hoop said:


> Yes, they say both "stories" and "previews of books".
> Because if it said "books, or previews of books", people playing the semantics game would scream "It says BOOKS! Not novellas! Not short stories! People putting novellas in the backs of books are scammers! People putting short stories in the backs of books are scammers!"
> So to avoid that whole mess, the word "stories" covers all forms and lengths of stories: books, novels, novellas, short stories.
> You know, just like it does in the real world.


I agree with your assessment here.

The link you quoted earlier off Amazon for Bonus Content includes the abbreviation "e.g.", which usually means "for example".


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> You said a thousand page book. I took that to mean a full thousand page story, not a short story followed by 50 other undisclosed "bonus" short stories. And yes there is a difference. If you're going to do something like this, you need to be specific, not play word games in an attempt to do some "Gotcha!" moment.
> 
> I stand by what I said.


Agree.



caitlynlynch said:


> The sad part is, Amazon could fix this tomorrow by adding another clause to that bonus content one which says something like "To avoid a disappointing reader experience, bonus content should not comprise more than 20% (I'm being generous... it could be 10%) of your book by page count. Books which include more than 20% bonus content may be removed from the Kindle Unlimited program without notice blah blah blah and we'll probably delete your account if you do it again."


Agree. Amazon could fix it and start immediately acting on it, and it would be crystal clear to everyone. From the arbitration case, however, it appears Amazon is interpreting the TOS how it wants to interpret it, not how we want to debate it. 


> It really doesn't matter how anyone wants to interpret the TOS at this point. What matters is how Amazon has interpreted it, and how they legally sought and won arbitration in this case...
> ...Amazon has the power to crack down on whatever they want.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## TinyChickadee (Apr 11, 2018)

EB said:


> Agree. Amazon could fix it and start immediately acting on it, and it would be crystal clear to everyone. From the arbitration case, however, it appears Amazon is interpreting the TOS how it wants to interpret it, not how we want to debate it.


This is why I think Amazon went after this gent in particular, because he was using nonsense books that were just... gibberish crap. They've decided that in his case, his books provided a poor customer experience.

If they choose to pursue him, and not Tommy Top 100 with 5 books in the back of his new hot spring book, Bad Daddy's Brat, it's cause it doesn't make for a poor customer experience so they don't care.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

TinyChickadee said:


> This is sort of what turned my head too. At first I was like "oh... that's not cool at all! Scammers!" and then... it just... kinda devolved into a certain group (mostly women, writing for women) that were being targeted.
> 
> And that's when the lightbulb came on. It's not just about people cheating and scamming the system (whether they are or not is up for debate and has been hashed over so many times in this thread with everyone presenting the same evidence 50 million ways to try to "win"), it's also about policing what women like to read.


Oh, freaking PLEASE.

I am a woman, I have been reading romance since way before I was old enough to read romance, and I write it as well. That's not what this is about.

FYI, a good number of the bookstuffers you're defending are dudes in disguise, and I've seen the messages where they joke with each other about whether their readers are masturbating to the sex scenes or not, and insult their intelligence, and say they don't even notice that the books are ghostwritten garbage. Don't even try to make this a sexism issue, because I promise you that is a case you cannot make.


----------



## Randall Wood (Mar 31, 2014)

A.R. Williams said:


> And yet, you're still here whinging about the size of a book. You should be whinging about Amazon not being able to count a page ( still !!! ).
> 
> If you guys were complaining about botting, I'd be with you.
> 
> ...


One, you seem to think that we (the collective we) have to pick one. We can complain about several things at once here at Kboards, trust me, I've seen it. We're not short of resources or anything.

Two, botting and clickfarming happen outside Amazon. Can they take action against this? Some. Can we? No. We lack the leverage to do so. So complaining about something we have no leverage over is a road to nowhere.

Can we complain about stuffing (which is tied to the botting and clickfarms) and get a result? Maybe. But the leverage is not in our author voices, its in our reader voices. If you want Amazons attention then stop complaining as an author and start complaining as an AMAZON CUSTOMER. That is what Amazon cares about. As an author you are just a semi-automatic content producer, but as a customer you are many times that. Start all your letters to them identifying yourself as a reader/customer, and then make your complaints_ in that context_. DO NOT say you are an author, as they obviously don't care. That's your real leverage.

Page read? Too late. The time to complain about that was when it was discovered, and the only way to apply pressure was with the "quit KU" button. Instead, everyone just stayed in and held their breath until the next payout number. That ship has sailed.

What you should be asking is why you give so much power to them over your business. But that's another thread.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Randall Wood said:


> One, you seem to think that we (the collective we) have to pick one. We can complain about several things at once here at Kboards, trust me, I've seen it. We're not short of resources or anything.


If we had an official sport, that would be it, for sure.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

TinyChickadee said:


> This is sort of what turned my head too. At first I was like "oh... that's not cool at all! Scammers!" and then... it just... kinda devolved into a certain group (mostly women, writing for women) that were being targeted.
> 
> And that's when the lightbulb came on. It's not just about people cheating and scamming the system (whether they are or not is up for debate and has been hashed over so many times in this thread with everyone presenting the same evidence 50 million ways to try to "win"), it's also about policing what women like to read.
> 
> ...


This is my issue w/ it as well, & it's why I said earlier thatl I feel that some of this is driven by sexism. Not saying that anyone is sexist. Just that it seems to boggles some peoples' mind that real readers are reading & enjoying steamy indie romance so much. The implication is that these 'bad boy romance books' must be botted or these marketers must be scamming dumb women into buying things they don't like to read. Instead of realizing that many women love this stuff, they eat it up & want more.

Romance has historically been a field for women to enjoy & it has also been historically scoffed at for that very reason. One way it is being scoffed at currently is to act as if these books are so bad that no real person could enjoy them when, if you go to any Facebook group run by one of these authors you can see w/ your own eyes that many women love them. I don't believe that any of the 'bad boy romance' authors that have been targeted are using bots or clickfarms, & no one on these boards has been able to prove those very libelous assertions- they just throw their own opinion out there as if it's obvious.

Well. What's obvious to me is that these bad boy romance authors have figured out what female readers want & they give it to them. Yes they include bonus books to make more money, as do many many other self publishers. To me, that is not the problem. I agree with the previous poster that if bonus books were taken away tomorrow, many on this board would still be complaining about steamy romance books. It has happened before in all kinds of different contexts which is why many romance writers left. Some here would still claim without evidence that top 100 bad boy romance books are being botted & clickfarmed. Some ppl don't like to see the plain truth that these books are up in the charts not only because business people know how to market a book & have money to spend on advertising them but because they sell well. Marketers would not be wasting their money on ads on books they did not think would sell.

This type of book sells very well because many women want it. Look at 50 Shades - the book that seems to have launched steamy romance eBook popularity. It is routinely ridiculed as being awful, cheap drivel. Yet the 50 Shades franchise continues to cash in w/ all their books & movies & women continue to love it. Clearly it gives women what they want or women would not be clamoring for more. In terms of bad boy romance authors who regularly hit top 100 - I don't think the readers care if it's 'internet marketers' hiring ghostwriters to give them what they want, or 'real writers,' whatever that's supposed to mean. As others have pointed out, the reviews are overwhelmingly positive. These authors have large fan followings & ARC teams. Sure, they're accused of buying them [because how could actual women actually like these books?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?, right?], but if you look at the unsolicited comments on these authors' Facebook ad posts you will see lots of regular readers saying they love the book & want more. Also, they're accused of not caring about their readers but they have stuck around & continued to reward their fans w/ new books. I don't see why they would continue to advertise this stuff if it didn't sell & if they hadn't managed to build up quite a fan base of people who love what they produce.

I don't believe it's a scam- I believe they've figured out how to give this segment of female readers what they want, just like movie producers have. When I go to see a romcom I don't care who produced it or wrote it or even who acts in it- to be frank, some of the regular romcom actors annoy the heck out of me and others I do enjoy. But I go because I want the feelz, the humor, a break from reality & to know exactly what I'm getting. If people have made a business out of having ghostwriters write what they have figured out women want to read, more power to them, & I don't care one bit. It's business, like everything else, & one thing that has become quite clear to me in reading that article that to me sounded like sour grapes is that this bad boy romance book publishing business employs a lot of other people: ghostwriters, cover designers, & more. If these people are truly 'internet marketers' who aren't writing their own stuff [although I believe that many of them do write it or at least used to write it & therefore know what sells best- especially considering that some of them are in other trusted author communities & have been there for a long time], then they need someone to produce the content & therefore they hire people to write the content. Imagine that- actual writing jobs that people say don't exist but here's an article in which a former or current [?] ghostwriter is trashing the person who employed them because, Idk, it's not fair that other people who don't have a business aren't able to make as much money writing, or something.

Like others have mentioned, I don't understand the vitriol against ghostwriters or people who use them, either. I'm assuming that if the ghostwriters were capable of marketing their books in a way that made enough money for them to live off then they would not be ghostwriters, so, it must work for them. Or perhaps they just don't like the marketing part of it & would rather write the words & be done for the day- that's cool too, ya'all. I also assume there are lots of other reasons for ghostwriters to ghostwrite, especially since I have friends who do it & are quite happy doing it. They can work from anywhere at any time rather than for The Man. Some of their gigs pay very well. They enjoy what they write & would tell you that they write it quite well thank you very much.

I don't get the vitriol about any of this except that people don't like it when others make a business doing what they like to do for fun or passion etc. To me, then, this isn't about bonus books but is part of a much bigger picture which, in my mind, does involve sexism as well as a blind refusal to recognize that Amazon is a business & that business & writing are two very different things.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

lilywhite said:


> Oh, freaking PLEASE.
> 
> I am a woman, I have been reading romance since way before I was old enough to read romance, and I write it as well. That's not what this is about.
> 
> FYI, a good number of the bookstuffers you're defending are dudes in disguise, and I've seen the messages where they joke with each other about whether their readers are masturbating to the sex scenes or not, and insult their intelligence, and say they don't even notice that the books are ghostwritten garbage. Don't even try to make this a sexism issue, because I promise you that is a case you cannot make.


'FYI,' a good number of bookstuffers are also women. Some are women who have loved reading & writing romance for a long time & who also believe that bonus books are a good business practice- oh, the shame. I'm sure you've seen screenshots of them too. In fact, Crystal_ has posted that she's stuffed her books & if I remember correctly, she herself is a woman & writes her own books. So it's odd to me that you are being selective in your arguments just to fit your own narrative while accusing someone else of doing the same.


----------



## TinyChickadee (Apr 11, 2018)

lilywhite said:


> Oh, freaking PLEASE.
> 
> I am a woman, I have been reading romance since way before I was old enough to read romance, and I write it as well. That's not what this is about.
> 
> FYI, a good number of the bookstuffers you're defending are dudes in disguise, and I've seen the messages where they joke with each other about whether their readers are masturbating to the sex scenes or not, and insult their intelligence, and say they don't even notice that the books are ghostwritten garbage. Don't even try to make this a sexism issue, because I promise you that is a case you cannot make.


Just because you're a woman, doesn't mean you can't be engaged in activities that are anti-woman in nature.

I personally know a lot of top 100 authors, and the vast, vast majority of them are female.

I can make any case I like. You don't have to agree with it but that doesn't make you right. That vast amount of ire is targeted at one subset group of authors writing fiction for women. It's very clear to me what's going on here. That's not the main point though...

As a woman, who reads romance, I like bonus books. I have no problem with them. They make my reading experience more enjoyable. A ghostwritten book vs a book written by the author her or himself isn't necessarily all that different to me, the reader. And that's why, no matter how mad anyone gets about it, Amazon isn't going to care. *Because readers like bonus books, and Amazon cares about its readers more than it does its authors.*

And as authors, we should care about what our customers want. There's a lot of me-me-me-me in this thread, and not a lot of anyone asking "well, what do our customers actually want?"



Puddleduck said:


> It's really not.
> 
> I'm a woman, for the record. I read and write romance. I'm anti-stuffing. So nice try playing the sexism card, but no.


You don't speak for all women, you say it's not sexist. I don't either, I say it's sexist. There's no point in debating this, because we will never sway each other.



writerlygal said:


> I don't get the vitriol about any of this except that people don't like it when others make a business doing what they like to do for fun or passion etc. To me, then, this isn't about bonus books but is part of a much bigger picture which, in my mind, does involve sexism as well as a blind refusal to recognize that Amazon is a business & that business & writing are two very different things.


This. All of this. All of what you said, but this especially. We don't have to like what other people do in business, but when we cross the line into attempting to damage their business, we open ourselves up to litigation at worst, and being called out by others in the community at best.


----------



## MmmmmPie (Jun 23, 2015)

It's funny to think that if Amazon returned a system that paid a flat rate per borrow (as opposed to a payment based on pages read), many of the same people defending the stuffing (because "readers simply adore bonus content!") would suddenly discover that what readers _really _love are quick reads, the shorter the better. Soon, the store would be flooded with 10-page books and longer novels chopped up into tiny pieces.

Here's why. People respond to incentives. Whether we agree with stuffing or not, it's pretty obvious what Amazon is rewarding these days.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

MmmmmPie said:


> It's funny to think that if Amazon returned a system that paid a flat rate per borrow (as opposed to a payment based on pages read), many of the same people defending the stuffing (because "readers simply adore bonus content!") would suddenly discover that what readers _really _love are quick reads, the shorter the better. Soon, the store would be flooded with 10-page books and longer novels chopped up into tiny pieces.


The same way that if KU disappeared tomorrow so probably would all those stuffed books that are only being stuffed for the "benefit of the readers".


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I write steamy indie romance including kink. I don't stuff books. I do just fine. The "jealousy" card is therefore ... interesting, as is the sexism card. 

Plenty of steamy indie romance writers do well without book stuffing. We are talking about one particular group sharing techniques and more. They happen to have been writing so-called "bad boy romance" recently, but they've recently branched out into cozy mystery and Urban Fantasy because of the popularity of those genres. I don't think any of this is about romance per se. 

The answer to why some of us remain in KU is that there's a large real readership in there. If you write long books, or shorter, popular books released more frequently, you can reach them. I'm in Select in general because frankly, it's always been an easy button for me, and I don't like marketing. The plus for what I do vs. the group we're discussing is that I don't have to spend all the time and money boosting my books or coming up with ways to get readers to leave reviews or whatever. Perhaps that answers the question of why people are still in KU. Yes, this junk is aggravating, and yeah, some of it's money right out of my pocket (bonuses/visibility), but it's still good and relatively very easy money, so here I am for now. 

When Amazon ended KU1, the wailing and gnashing of teeth were loud and long. We heard the same stuff about "authors trying to feed their families! Won't anyone think of the children!" The rest of us are trying to feed our families, too, and people must have known that chopping books up and 30-page serials would not be sustainable for Amazon, so my sympathy was and is limited. If you jump on the latest shortcut train, be aware that the track isn't laid as well as on the main line.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

I'm anti-stuffing.  I hate it.  I'm not jealous of anyone's success and I don't read and write in romance.  I have taken a look and appreciated Crystal's dialogue with me.  I don't see a lot of pushback in the reviews.  It does seem that readers like it or don't care, so I have acknowledged that.  There is also the point that we can't have genre-specific TOS.  I think Amazon will pay attention to the customers the most, so nothing will probably change unless there is strong pushback from customers.

I really don't see this as sexist or jealousy myself.  What happens in romance doesn't affect me one way or the other, but how products are advertised does.  Anyway, yes I would say on this one it is up to the readers.  With all that is going on, I'm going wide, which I never considered before this week.  I also lurked Kboards until this week, but this issue I did feel like expressing my opinions, but that's all it is my opinions.  Better for me to concentrate on my own work.  I can only voice my opinion to Amazon by not participating in KU and complaining as a reader if I don't like what I see - which I'm not going to do with romance books since that isn't what I read.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Round and round in circles as usual for this topic.

Anyone being genuine knows why amazon went after the person in that arbitration situation.

Back in the day, there were people doing all kinds of crazy stuff. Mass machine translated copies of their books to pad things out... click to the back enticements... stuff like that. Most of that stuff isn't allowed these days, some of it has been directly fixed by amazon to prevent it from happening in the future, and it was always pretty obviously against the rule and spirit of amazon.

That is what amazon fought in arbitration. Read it for yourself instead of cherry picking a sentence in the middle out of context and pretending that's what drew amazons sword. This wasn't a case against somebody who threw up a bad boy romance last week with some extra bonus books inside the cover. That case was against someone who broke the rules a good while back, before amazon fixed some of these issues.

This person wasn't an author putting out a few novels with some bonus content in them and you know that. Anyone who says any different is misinformed or is deliberately being misleading.

To my knowledge, no author who stays within the bonus content rules and TOS amazon has laid out have ever been so much as questioned about their content. No bans, no lawsuits, no arbitration.

Amazon is pretty clear on their policy here. They are against disruptive links and content that promotes negative customer experiences. They are, and have always been, ok with adding some extra stories to the back of your title, as described here:

https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G202018960
Bonus Content
If you choose to include bonus content (e.g. other stories, or previews of other books), it should be relevant to the customer and should not disrupt the reading experience. To meet these guidelines, we require placing additional content at the end of the book, listing the bonus content in your book's table of contents, and including a note in your book description if a significant portion of your book's content is not from the book listed in the title field.

Primary and bonus content must meet all program guidelines (e.g., bonus content in KDP Select titles must be exclusive). Translated content must be high quality and not machine generated. Disruptive links and promises of gifts or rewards are never allowed.

For more information, see our content guidelines and Terms and Conditions.

--

I get it, some of you don't like bonus content. Let's not sit here and pretend amazon went after this "scammer" over a couple bonus stories in the back of his novel though. C'mon. I don't think this could be any more clear. If amazon wants to change their policies they can do so at any time. If amazon wanted one book per ASIN all they would have to do is SAY THE WORDS. Nobody would put any bonus content in any book if amazon said it wasn't allowed in KU. Easy peasy.

Why haven't they said that? Because that's not their policy.

Trying to pretend this little arbitration situation is some kind of referendum on Jane Doe Author publishing a book with a few extras thrown in is a farce.

As for other things...

No, there is no secret way to get people to trigger full pagereads that people are "just starting to deploy". That's patently ridiculous fearmongering. Even if there was, the right thing to do would be to share that info so amazon can fix it. Ridiculous.

I'm also disappointed in the ancillary discussion where people assume these authors are somehow scammers for publishing frequently, using gender swapped pen names, or for hiring a ghostwriter. We live in a capitalistic society. If someone can outcompete your lovingly produced artesian romance with some mass produced ghostwritten work, that is the market at work. I've published hundreds of romance novels over the years, some written by me, some ghostwritten (and heavily edited and improved for market impact). I've been proud of the majority of the work I've published (I think we all have written a book we hated at one point or another, but I digress). My business acumen and ability to read the market and succeed within it doesn't make me any less of an author. My work stands on its own two feet, and my readers love it.

And they loved it when I used bonus books too.

I'm not using bonus books these days, not because it's against the TOS, but rather because I don't need a bunch of witch hunters attacking my successful catalog of books and trying to tear my hard-earned reputation down all over Facebook and their blogs. I've got a book flying high on the charts right now, and I'm in here reading about people reporting "22 of the top 100" to Jeff Bezos hoping to tear those authors down. How disgusting. This kind of mentality does real damage to real authors who are following the rules. I don't need a bunch of phony amazon police running around attacking my books because of their flawed interpretation of imaginary rules.

Some of you should take a hard objective look at your own stance on this issue. Ask yourself a question: Am I really against bonus books, or am I using this as the latest convenient proxy (in a long line of convenient proxies) to attack authors who I feel shouldn't be successful? Am I letting myself fall into anger and resentment against authors who may, in fact, be completely legitimate rule following writers who just want to keep plying their craft?

And for the people beating the drum and trying to get fellow authors and readers marching against successful competing authors over this farce, whether to fulfill a personal true believer crusade, or as part of a deliberate strategy (or some mix of both)... I'm deeply disappointed.

The facts don't line up with this negative narrative. You're promoting crab mentality.

_Edited, pursuant to this. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## MmmmmPie (Jun 23, 2015)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> The same way that if KU disappeared tomorrow so probably would all those stuffed books that are only being stuffed for the "benefit of the readers".


Quite true!


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Usedtoposthere said:


> When Amazon ended KU1, the wailing and gnashing of teeth were loud and long. We heard the same stuff about "authors trying to feed their families! Won't anyone think of the children!" The rest of us are trying to feed our families, too, and people must have known that chopping books up and 30-page serials would not be sustainable for Amazon, so my sympathy was and is limited. If you jump on the latest shortcut train, be aware that the track isn't laid as well as on the main line.


Beautifully said.


----------



## TinyChickadee (Apr 11, 2018)

bobfrost said:


> And for the people beating the drum and trying to get fellow authors and readers marching against successful competing authors over this farce, whether to fulfill a personal true believer crusade, or as part of a deliberate strategy (or some mix of both)... I'm deeply disappointed.
> 
> _Edited, pursuant to this. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


Starting an "us versus them" war is a very good way to turn strangers into sycophants. Hmm. Maybe I'll use that in my next werewolf book marketing plan.



Puddleduck said:


> Ahh, so it is a "you don't agree with me, so your perspective as a woman is invalid" thing. Good to know.


That's not what I said at all.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

Usedtoposthere said:


> I write steamy indie romance including kink. I don't stuff books. I do just fine. The "jealousy" card is therefore ... interesting, as is the sexism card.
> 
> Plenty of steamy indie romance writers do well without book stuffing. We are talking about one particular group sharing techniques and more. They happen to have been writing so-called "bad boy romance" recently, but they've recently branched out into cozy mystery and Urban Fantasy because of the popularity of those genres. I don't think any of this is about romance per se.


When people start going after them in those other genres then I'll perhaps believe it's not about sexism. I hadn't heard anything about that although it does make sense to me that business opportunists would go to wherever there is opportunity for business. [To me this isn't a bad thing but just the nature of capitalism & business.] But the tone of bad boy parody articles certainly suggests that women couldn't possibly like this stuff, when they clearly do. Yes, it's mass marketed & caters to a different audience than your books do but it works so well because women like it. [As do your books since you know how to give your audience what they like- & good for you for doing that.]

As far as jealousy goes, well, all these recent posts seem to admit that what people have a problem with are these publishers making money off their books by doing tactics they don't agree with or by being business marketers rather than 'real writers' so I don't see how jealousy wouldn't play a role. Every time I hear people fling accusations or declare by mob rule that something gray is actually black or white, I do examine their motivations.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

The day you decide to come back to Kboards... and have to whisper "WTF" out loud a dozen or more times before you can get through a single thread... 

Book stuffing-> bad
What is book stuffing-> c'mon.  It's all the stuff that wouldn't be in the file if you weren't getting paid for page reads.  Simple. 

The rest of this weird stuff is just well, weird.  Book stuffing isn't about sexism.  Stopping book stuffing isn't about sexism.  It's about closing a loophole they've left open for some time.  The gender of the book stuffers is really not an issue.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

MmmmmPie said:


> It's funny to think that if Amazon returned a system that paid a flat rate per borrow (as opposed to a payment based on pages read), many of the same people defending the stuffing (because "readers simply adore bonus content!") would suddenly discover that what readers _really _love are quick reads, the shorter the better. Soon, the store would be flooded with 10-page books and longer novels chopped up into tiny pieces.
> 
> Here's why. People respond to incentives. Whether we agree with stuffing or not, it's pretty obvious what Amazon is rewarding these days.


I know the old system of flat-rate-per-borrow was flawed, but heck, the replacement has turned into something much worse. Of interesting note to me is that when Kindle Worlds books were put into KU (Our KW books were not in KU until a few months ago), they decided to pay us by the old way-- per read _after 10%.
(from the Kindle Worlds publishing agreement)_


> As an author, what will I be paid?
> Each time a unique Kindle Unlimited customer in the US reads more than 10% of your Kindle Worlds story, we'll pay you 70% Price (ASP) of your book during that month.


And with Kindle Worlds, Amazon sets the price (ASP) according to word count. Interesting, but so far I'm not seeing any crazy schemes in KW.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

EB said:


> I know the old system of flat-rate-per-borrow was flawed, but heck, the replacement has turned into something much worse. Of interesting note to me is that when Kindle Worlds books were put into KU (Our KW books were not in KU until a few months ago), they decided to pay us by the old way-- per read _after 10%.
> (from the Kindle Worlds publishing agreement)_And with Kindle Worlds, Amazon sets the price (ASP) according to word count. Interesting, but so far I'm not seeing any crazy schemes in KW.


There's an idea. Set up two pots, or maybe three. One for shorts up to 35 or 40K, one for 40k-80 or 100K, and one for the door stops. Pay them at different rates based on 50% or something. Naw, probably wouldn't work. People would stuff a short to 41K and sic their bots on it.

Whoever figures out a subscription model that works for both Amazon and authors will probably win the first annual KBoards Prize for Contributions to Literature.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

If amazon wants to change this, they can.

Tell us "We only allow one title per ASIN for all content enrolled in Kindle Unlimited. Box sets are not eligible for KU but may be sold through KDP."

If that was the rule, people would follow it and nobody could question what amazon wants and allows. I'd absolutely support that rule. There's no reason for bonus books or box sets to exist in KU, because a reader can read all of those books separately if they desire, for free.

But let's be real about this. That is not currently the rule at amazon. If you want to argue it _should_ be the rule, fine. If you want to attack and report books and authors because they're breaking some imaginary rule you made up, that's not fine.

https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G202018960


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

brkingsolver said:


> Whoever figures out a subscription model that works for both Amazon and authors will probably win the first annual KBoards Prize for Contributions to Literature.


right??!! love it!


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

MmmmmPie said:


> It's funny to think that if Amazon returned a system that paid a flat rate per borrow (as opposed to a payment based on pages read), many of the same people defending the stuffing (because "readers simply adore bonus content!") would suddenly discover that what readers _really _love are quick reads, the shorter the better. Soon, the store would be flooded with 10-page books and longer novels chopped up into tiny pieces.
> 
> Here's why. People respond to incentives. Whether we agree with stuffing or not, it's pretty obvious what Amazon is rewarding these days.


Right. People & businesses respond to incentives. Adapting to different market environments & incentives is all part of business decisions. Writing and/or selling what pays the best, in the way in which it pays the most, is to me not unethical or a bad thing. Writers have been doing that since pulp fiction days, or since Dickens broke up his novels into short stories to sell as newspaper or magazine segments because that's what the publishers of the day paid for. [Or maybe it was Mark Twain or someone else. Anyway.] Throughout history those artists that have been able to make a good living off of it have also often been good business people who adapt to changing demand & market conditions. Or they were sponsored or commissioned by very rich people to paint their portraits or their chapel ceilings, etc. Why people think that self publishing on Amazon could be or stay any different is naive thinking, to me.

Without paying attention to the business end of things, it's hard to make consistently good money as an artist/author, no matter the time period or the platform. Early self publishing was a gold rush & still is in many ways but it seems to me that those who got in early are wanting to close the gates for those who come in later or adapt better etc. Yes, there will also be people who hear of a business opportunity & set up shop as a fiction factory to meet the demand & capitalize. But such is life- this is just the way things work & I don't even get villifying those people, except out of fear or jealousy [which I do understand but that doesn't make that side or cause any more 'right' than the businesses they think are so bad for setting up shop.]

It's for these reasons that I can see arguments that bonus books devalue your brand by setting up reader expectations for too much for free. I can see a legitimate question & discussion as to what constitutes 'non-differentiated' content & I can see warning authors that if they think Amazon might crack down on bonus books then it isn't a good idea to use them. But what I don't get is equating what to many writers & self publishers is a good business decision w/ declaring them scams & becoming interpreters & enforcers of Amazon's own TOS & going after 'stuffers' because of some diehard belief that it is or should be wrong. That really does reek of what Bobfrost calls crab buck mentality, or just attempts at gatekeeping & good ole fashioned internet vigilante justice, to me.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

MyraScott said:


> The day you decide to come back to Kboards... and have to whisper "WTF" out loud a dozen or more times before you can get through a single thread...


Are you the voice in my head? You sound strangely familiar...


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

MyraScott said:


> The day you decide to come back to Kboards... and have to whisper "WTF" out loud a dozen or more times before you can get through a single thread...
> 
> Book stuffing-> bad
> What is book stuffing-> c'mon. It's all the stuff that wouldn't be in the file if you weren't getting paid for page reads. Simple.
> ...


I don't see it as being a loophole but rather part of the design. Amazon wants to give readers lots of content for $9.99. Bonus books give them more content. They want them to continue reading on their Kindles for as long as possible & bonus books do that. Readers like free things/bonus books/more content to read without having to do anything to get that additional content, & that's what bonus books provide them- & Amazon likes doing things that make readers happy. If Amazon wanted to close this supposed loophole, they have had plenty of time to do it. Instead, it seems that bonus books are working just fine for both Amazon & for readers. [As we all know, sadly no one cares about authors.] So... maybe it's not a loophole?


----------



## FelissaEly (Jan 15, 2017)

bobfrost said:


> If amazon wants to change this, they can.
> 
> Tell us "We only allow one title per ASIN for all content enrolled in Kindle Unlimited. Box sets are not eligible for KU but may be sold through KDP."
> 
> If that was the rule, people would follow it and nobody could question what amazon wants and allows. I'd absolutely support that rule. There's no reason for bonus books or box sets to exist in KU, because a reader can read all of those books separately if they desire, for free.


I don't understand why bonus books and boxed sets keep getting lumped together.

Most stuffed books that I've come across _do not indicate there are bonus books inside_ whereas a boxed set is clearly defined in the title and description of the book.

I also don't see why boxed sets shouldn't be allowed in KU, aren't there readers out there who specifically look for boxed sets vs singles? And it seems pretty handy for someone wanting to read a whole series through without having to stop and pick up the other singles. I don't know, this is all my opinion so it's probably wrong but I really dislike seeing the two lumped together as if they're the same practice.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

brkingsolver said:


> Whoever figures out a subscription model that works for both Amazon and authors will probably win the first annual KBoards Prize for Contributions to Literature.


That's easy. You just have to screw the readers.

Any subscription model takes in X amount of money from subscribers and distributes it between the subscription service and the content providers. One of those three has to get screwed: either readers over-pay for content (i.e. they get less for their money than they would if they just bought the stuff), or the subscription service makes little or no money, or content providers make less money than they would from sales.

Remove the pricing mechanism from an economy and that economy rapidly breaks. And that's exactly what KU does.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

FelissaEly said:


> I also don't see why boxed sets shouldn't be allowed in KU, aren't there readers out there who specifically look for boxed sets vs singles? And it seems pretty handy for someone wanting to read a whole series through without having to stop and pick up the other singles. I don't know, this is all my opinion so it's probably wrong but I really dislike seeing the two lumped together as if they're the same practice.


Yes and no. Yes, boxed sets have their place and are considered a legit sales tactic. However, functionally, allowing them in KU technically doesn't make a ton of sense since the individual books could be gotten instead.

I see your point about not having to stop and pick up other titles, but Amazon probably could remedy this via the same tech they use to create series pages. Get to the end of 1 in a KU book, then have Amazon give you a big friendly "Care to read the next book in the series?" link to move it along.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

FelissaEly said:


> I don't understand why bonus books and boxed sets keep getting lumped together.
> 
> Most stuffed books that I've come across _do not indicate there are bonus books inside_ whereas a boxed set is clearly defined in the title and description of the book.
> 
> I also don't see why boxed sets shouldn't be allowed in KU, aren't there readers out there who specifically look for boxed sets vs singles? And it seems pretty handy for someone wanting to read a whole series through without having to stop and pick up the other singles. I don't know, this is all my opinion so it's probably wrong but I really dislike seeing the two lumped together as if they're the same practice.


I'm lumping it together for simplification. It's easier to say "One title per ASIN - no box sets in KU" than it would be to police the issue. Right now bonus content is specifically allowed. If they wanted to stop that within the confines of KU, it'd just be easier to make a blanket ONE TITLE = ONE ASIN rule than it would be to sit there checking every book to make sure it's not a box set.

And it makes sense in the grand scheme of KU as well. Amazon specifically allows 10 titles to be borrowed at a time under KU. Box sets somewhat go against this concept and it's easy enough to say a reader can read ALL of the books in a box set within KU without paying a dime, and if they want to own the box set itself, they can buy it in the kindle store (for money).

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Makes things easy, allows box sets to still exist, takes care of anyones worries about "bonus content", and we all move forward in a productive way.

Beats the hell out of people attacking legitimate authors over imaginary rules they just made up in their head as they play Amazon Cop.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

writerlygal said:


> When people start going after them in those other genres then I'll perhaps believe it's not about sexism. I hadn't heard anything about that although it does make sense to me that business opportunists would go to wherever there is opportunity for business. [To me this isn't a bad thing but just the nature of capitalism & business.] But the tone of bad boy parody articles certainly suggests that women couldn't possibly like this stuff, when they clearly do. Yes, it's mass marketed & caters to a different audience than your books do but it works so well because women like it. [As do your books since you know how to give your audience what they like- & good for you for doing that.]
> 
> As far as jealousy goes, well, all these recent posts seem to admit that what people have a problem with are these publishers making money off their books by doing tactics they don't agree with or by being business marketers rather than 'real writers' so I don't see how jealousy wouldn't play a role. Every time I hear people fling accusations or declare by mob rule that something gray is actually black or white, I do examine their motivations.


You are right that personally, I don't tend to see shades of gray. (Ha, so to speak.) I personally see things as much more black and white. It is right or it is wrong. If it's cutting a corner, even if that cutting is currently being ignored by Amazon and even, to some eyes, is encouraged--to me, it's still wrong. Others can obviously differ.

Do I think Amazon will eventually crack down on this? Yes. I think the court cases are a pointer in that direction. Does it p*ss me off? Yes. Will I be happy if it is ended? Yes. But mostly I just ignore it and do my thing. Gray hats don't change their hats. Neither do black hats or white hats. I have long observed that there are four groups of people:

(a) a small group that will break into your garage and steal your power tools; (the botters and incentivizers--black hat)

(b) a larger group that will take your power tools if you leave your garage unopened by accident, and then will blame you for it; (this is where I'd put stuffing, personally, if the person isn't doing any of the botting, incentivizing, review-incentivizing, swaps, etc.)

(c) a large group that will think, "huh," and possibly buy your power tools from somebody selling them out of the back of his truck); (where some folks would put stuffing, I'm sure)

(d) a small group that will ring your doorbell to tell you your garage is open, and will even chase down the guy they see stealing your stuff, because it makes them mad and it's wrong and they're willing to go out of their way to fix it. They will return the wallet they found to the police department, even if the ID is stolen out of it, because there's still $200 in there and it ISN'T THEIRS.

I know which group I want to be in. I know what kind of friends I want to have. Do I make it all the time? I surely don't. Is it the best bet monetarily? Maybe yes and maybe no. I do OK.

I don't report individual authors. I have written to Amazon a couple times, and have had some conversations with reps, where I've expressed my disappointment that they don't enforce what to me, and from what they've told me, are pretty clear rules. I know that Audible, for example, screened for this kind of thing when they set up the new romance subscription package (which is a whole other topic, hoo boy), so they're certainly aware of it an have certainly said that they don't like it. What that means--dunno.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

To me the difference is that the box sets are clearly labeled as such.  I know I am getting Book 1 through 3 in series X.  Not at all sure what I get with a novel that is being marketed as a single book and there is some vague disclosure at the very bottom of the description that there is "bonus content."

I'm not sure that it would solve the problem but yeah as a KU reader I could still borrow all of the books separately in a series if I wanted to.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Puddleduck said:


> I agree; I think the pro-stuffing camp keeps doing it to muddy the issue, either intentionally or through ignorance. They keep arguing that boxed sets (and all "bonus content") are okay, and the rest of us keep reminding them that no one's saying boxed sets (and "bonus content" like short stories and previews) are not (or shouldn't be) okay and are not the same as stuffed books. Then they ignore that point and carry on as if the clarification was never made.


I made my stance completely crystal clear. I think book stuffing is unnecessary in KU. I think the easiest way to get rid of book stuffing in KU is to just implement a blanket "one title per ASIN" rule for KU books. That wouldn't be a difficult regulation to deal with, and it would still allow box sets to exist without any issues (they just can't be in KU - simple). I'm not conflating bonus books with box sets, I'm saying that it'd be easier to deal with bonus content as a whole if we didn't TRY to draw a distinction. KU doesn't need bonus books and it doesn't need box sets. If you just get rid of bonus books without getting rid of box sets, we're just going to have a top-chart full of box sets, and then everybody will be in here complaining about that.

I also know that bonus books in the back of a title are allowed at Amazon under the current rule. I'm not "pro stuffing", I'm "pro not attacking legitimate authors over imaginary rules we just made up". There is nothing "ignorant" about that stance.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

You might be right Bob that it might largely solve the problem, but then don't forget there is there is the sample for the next books, author note to the reader, etc.  I am sure people can get creative if they want to, lol.  But it wouldn't be to the same degree as now.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Get to the end of 1 in a KU book, then have Amazon give you a big friendly "Care to read the next book in the series?" link to move it along.


It does that, actually. You have to return a book if you have 10 borrowed, but otherwise it pretty seamlessly gets you to the next in series. And even though it represents an extra step, the "oops, you need to return something" message is built into the process.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

JulesWright said:


> To me the difference is that the box sets are clearly labeled as such. I know I am getting Book 1 through 3 in series X. Not at all sure what I get with a novel that is being marketed as a single book and there is some vague disclosure at the very bottom of the description that there is "bonus content."
> 
> I'm not sure that it would solve the problem but yeah as a KU reader I could still borrow all of the books separately in a series if I wanted to.


Many books with bonus content have some language in the blurb mentioning that the content is there. The specific requirements of what you have to do to inform a reader of that fact is ill defined by Amazon, and they haven't (to my knowledge) ever pulled down a single solitary book because of lack of disclosure of bonus content.

That said, even if every single person using bonus content put a big fat warning at the bottom of their blurb listing the bonus content in its entirety, there would still be people attacking those authors and calling them "scammers" and "book stuffers".

This huge thread isn't railing on authors failure to inform readers about bonus content.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Becca Mills said:


> It does that, actually. You have to return a book if you have 10 borrowed, but otherwise it pretty seamlessly gets you to the next in series. And even though it represents an extra step, the "oops, you need to return something" message is built into the process.


Yes, if I'm reading a series book I usually get prompted if I want to read the next one. So, yeah, just takes one click to get the next book. I'm really not inconvenienced to have to go hunt it down.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> It does that, actually. You have to return a book if you have 10 borrowed, but otherwise it pretty seamlessly gets you to the next in series. And even though it represents an extra step, the "oops, you need to return something" message is built into the process.


Cool to know, thanks. Thus making box sets even less of a necessity to have in KU.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

bobfrost said:


> Many books with bonus content have some language in the blurb mentioning that the content is there. The specific requirements of what you have to do to inform a reader of that fact is ill defined by Amazon, and they haven't (to my knowledge) ever pulled down a single solitary book because of lack of disclosure of bonus content.
> 
> That said, even if every single person using bonus content put a big fat warning at the bottom of their blurb listing the bonus content in its entirety, there would still be people attacking those authors and calling them "scammers" and "book stuffers".
> 
> This huge thread isn't railing on authors failure to inform readers about bonus content.


Well my issue is that it is a collection of books and not a single book and that is deceptive advertising, but that seems to be my issue. And yes, I saw vague disclosures of the bonus content.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

JulesWright said:


> You might be right Bob that it might largely solve the problem, but then don't forget there is there is the sample for the next books, author note to the reader, etc. I am sure people can get creative if they want to, lol. But it wouldn't be to the same degree as now.


I see all of that as regular content expected in ONE TITLE PER ASIN though. None of that content is egregious, and if a reader flips through it, I see no reason why the author shouldn't be paid for those pages read.

One title per ASIN solves the issue. Full stop. If Amazon wanted to implement that, they could do it tomorrow. They could tell everyone "one title per ASIN in KU" and this whole silly conversation would be over.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

JulesWright said:


> Yes, if I'm reading a series book I usually get prompted if I want to read the next one. So, yeah, just takes one click to get the next book. I'm really not inconvenienced to have to go hunt it down.


Unless you're stuck in a place without wifi. My kids' after school activity takes place in a no wifi zone.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

It would be fine with me Bob.  But the boxed sets are clearly labeled so I don't have a problem with them.  But yes, if they tried to implement only a certain percentage can be bonus material or something like that it would be too hard to monitor.  So that is probably the best solution and people could still put out their box sets just not in KU.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Puddleduck said:


> This probably would be the easiest/clearest way to do it, even if it would also catch up legitimate boxed sets from non-stuffing authors as well as anyone who includes a short story at the end. But between that and what's happening now, it might be worth it. The down side is that the boxed set (if an author's already created one) would still be unable to be wide, according to KU rules, which would kinda suck, since it would then only be useful for buying through Amazon, which might not make them worth the cost/time of setting up.


How would that be any different than now?

Right now people put their box set in KU and it is exclusive to Amazon. It sells to non-KU shoppers, and gets borrowed by KU readers.

Presumably, those KU readers would just borrow the individual books of the series/set if the box set wasn't available (thus spreading those box set pagereads across your catalog instead of piling them on one box set) while the KU shoppers would still buy the box set as normal if it wasn't in KU.

You can't put a current KU box set wide, so I don't see how that would be an issue if you changed the rule and didn't allow box sets in KU in the first place.

It WOULD reduce the amount of box sets that climb the charts thanks to KU+sales, and reduce the likelihood that those box sets would be dominating top lists... but I don't really see that as a big problem.

Again, if you just tried to limit bonus content with a new rule at Amazon WITHOUT also limiting box sets in KU, people could simply switch to pushing box sets in KU and we'd be right back here in this thread with people complaining about how 22 out of the top 100 are BOX SET STUFFERS!

And if you tried to come up with some kind of silly rule about box sets where they need certain percentages of new content to differentiate them from other box sets... that just overcomplicates EVERYTHING and we'd have a 29 page post complaining about all these "box set stuffers" cluttering up the store with their books that are only 59% differentiated instead of the 55% required by Amazon (with screenshot evidence and a big blog post shouting about it) ;p.

It's easier just to say ONE TITLE PER ASIN IN KU and be done with it. Simple, clean, effective, and there's no room for interpretation.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

JulesWright said:


> Yes, if I'm reading a series book I usually get prompted if I want to read the next one. So, yeah, just takes one click to get the next book. I'm really not inconvenienced to have to go hunt it down.





Rick Gualtieri said:


> Cool to know, thanks. Thus making box sets even less of a necessity to have in KU.


Right. I feel like it's a fairly new feature, at least for the phone app, so *maybe* Amazon is preparing for a no-sets-in-KU move? Trying to think when I noticed it ... six months to a year, maybe? But I could be way wrong about the timing. I "feel" like my kids should still be in preschool, after all.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

JulesWright said:


> Yes, if I'm reading a series book I usually get prompted if I want to read the next one. So, yeah, just takes one click to get the next book. I'm really not inconvenienced to have to go hunt it down.


Darn it, my kindle doesn't do that. Perhaps I need an updated one? Mine's like 4 years old haha


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

EB said:


> Darn it, my kindle doesn't do that. Perhaps I need an updated one? Mine's like 4 years old haha


I'm not sure if my Kindles would do it, actually (mine are old too). I only use the phone app, these days.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

EB said:


> Darn it, my kindle doesn't do that. Perhaps I need an updated one? Mine's like 4 years old haha


I have a Kindle White but I usually read on my iPhone even though the Kindle White is so much better. But yeah, I don't find it hard to swap out books or get the next in series. Sometimes I do like to get the boxed sets because it saves on my 10 slots. I promise I don't mean to be a horrible ghost borrower, but I tend to have a few books at least that I have sitting there forever. I don't know why I do that, lol.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Ok, so with all of that said, why don't we all move forward in a productive way here?

Instead of attacking authors, reporting books, and shouting all over the internet about "SCAMMY BOOK STUFFERS", lets go about this in a better way.

Lets all accept that as of this moment, Amazon seems to allow bonus books. The language is written right there on KDP stating as such, and Amazon has done absolutely nothing to police or ban bonus content that stays within the confines of that language. If you can't meet me that far on this side of the fence, at least admit that although you personally interpret the rules as being against bonus books, Amazon has not taken action against the vast majority of bonus book using authors, and is unlikely to do so anytime soon. Admit that it's possible your interpretation of the rules related to bonus books MAY be wrong. I'm not saying they are, but I'm saying they might be.

Based upon that understanding, should we be attacking the our fellow authors directly? Should we be reporting their catalogs, their books, and attempting to destroy their career and their reputation because they've decided to include bonus content in their title? Regardless of how you feel about that author, I don't think attacking them is the right way to go.

So how do you get what you want (no bonus books)?

I suggest the answer is to simply lobby Amazon for the change you want.

Rather than sending them emails listing off the 22 out of the top 100 books that all have bonus content, or spending precious time and energy trying to figure out all the "stuffers" so you can call Jeff Bezos and tattle on them for an act that they almost certainly won't be punished for, how about we try to put together a push for a "ONE BOOK PER ASIN" rule in KU.

The old saying goes that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Put together a little campaign asking Amazon to level the KU playing field with a one-book-per-ASIN rule. Instead of using your platform to attack authors and bash people on facebook, use it to get signatures on a petition to change this. Get the big names who have an established platform and a relationship with Amazon to back you up on it and post about it. My guess is some of those big authors would be happy to sign on to that kind of thing.

Most people don't want to be associated [an effort] where people are listing off authors that deserve to be banned/ruined... but I think most authors WOULD be in support of a one title per ASIN rule if it were presented in a calm and clear and friendly way.

It's easy to make the case that box sets don't belong in KU. I've made it in the above posts. It's easy to make the case that bonus books don't need to be in KU either. KU is about borrowing 1 book at a time, 10 in total. Bonus books are an unnecessary addition to that because someone can always go borrow the other book if they want it. Getting rid of bonus books entirely would probably increase churn on the KU store, which would improve Amazon's bottom line and spread the KU reads around in a more "fair" way. Very few authors are going to argue with you about that. It is a completely reasonable idea and it avoids any of this unnecessary conflict.

We get into these big knock down drag out fights where people try to pretend like someone using bonus books is basically a criminal, and that's just disgusting. That's not going to change things in a positive way, and it's absolutely possible that you're attacking someone who's operating within the rules Amazon has set forth.

If you genuinely want to change this, start the wave in a positive way. Get the big voices talking about it, get thousands of authors to sign on about it, and put all of this in front of Amazon with an open heart, asking them to make the change. There are a lot of people right here on kboards who would support such a petition, and going about things in this way would avoid throwing around slanderous, harmful, and disgusting attacks against authors who are, as far as I can see it, usually NOT in violation of the rules set forth by Amazon.

I'd support one title per ASIN. If someone wanted to start an email writing campaign pushing for it (in a POSITIVE way), I'd add my voice to that email blast.

I'm not going to coordinate this. I'm busy. I've got books to publish and money to make, and frankly, I don't CARE if authors use bonus content or not.

But if people here genuinely think it needs to be addressed... I'd be so much happier if you were going about it in a positive way, instead of blanket-reporting hundreds of books and authors or sitting around shouting about "scammers" and "book stuffers" and "bad boy authors pretending to be girls".

KU 1.0 didn't end because of a pitchfork wielding mob (although one certainly existed at the time). It ended because of large groups of successful novelists talking about leveling the playing field and Amazon hearing those rational calls for action.

If you want bonus books to go away, approach this with a rational voice. Instead of trying to tear people down, discuss how we can change the system to improve things going forward. Don't focus on the potential imaginary crime someone might have committed, focus on leveling the playing field for our next set of books.

We're all crabs in this bucket, and if we worked together we could all get out of it.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## TinyChickadee (Apr 11, 2018)

Thiiiiiiis. Let's start the petition. I can get behind it. I don't care if people use bonus books or not (even though, CUSTOMERS LOVE THEM but fuck those guys, amirite?) but if we all want to get together and make some change, let's do it in a positive way.

That hurts nobody.

Except the customers. Who pay our bills.

(I am quite split on this actually, but whatever.)


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

I haven't seen people in this thread saying they are reporting authors, etc.  That doesn't seem to be the focus at all.  Funny how things are seen differently.  I have no plans to report anyone myself.

There are some people who seem awfully nervous that the issue is being brought up and if they aren't doing anything wrong then why would they even care if other authors might not like book stuffing or even if Amazon were to review their catalog or books anyway?  If you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about and don't need to worry about those "jealous" types.  

I don't think a petition would be effective but I guess there is no harm in it.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

TinyChickadee said:


> Thiiiiiiis. Let's start the petition. I can get behind it. I don't care if people use bonus books or not (even though, CUSTOMERS LOVE THEM but [expletive] those guys, amirite?) but if we all want to get together and make some change, let's do it in a positive way.
> 
> That hurts nobody.
> 
> ...


One of the things that we're all guilty of occasionally is assuming that our own attitudes are universally shared.

You love bonus books. Does that mean everyone does? No. Do we have any reliable data on the preferences of readers in general? No. Are there readers in this very thread who've explained why they don't like bonus books? Yes.

I will echo the statements made by others that it's relatively easy to move to the next book in a series with just a click, at least on the more recent devices and apps.

I'm sure there are a lot of authors who use content exactly as you suggest. Others abuse the system. Amazon is not good at policing the system. Creating a clear, unequivocal line would likely reduce abuse, over time if not right away.

Right now, the system is set up not to give credit for multiple readings of the same ASIN. By packaging the same title in multiple ASINs as bonus content, the work of bots is made more efficient and harder to detect, as I've explained earlier. Unscrupulous people have taken advantage. Honest authors may be making themselves more vulnerable to having their books used as bot camouflage. If a reader has to click once or twice more to put an end to these problems, that seems a worthwhile trade-off to me--both as a reader and as an author.


----------



## TinyChickadee (Apr 11, 2018)

Bill Hiatt said:


> One of the things that we're all guilty of occasionally is assuming that our own attitudes are universally shared.
> 
> You love bonus books. Does that mean everyone does? No. Do we have any reliable data on the preferences of readers in general? No. Are there readers in this very thread who've explained why they don't like bonus books? Yes.


I tend to believe patterns of behavior over reported opinions. Teenagers say they don't use Facebook and they're on Insta, (were) on Snapchat, and other more, um, nefarious social media services. Except they're lying. They use Facebook a LOT. And we can take away, based on polls that authors have done (like Crystal has polled her readers, which she points out in this thread) that her readers like bonus books. We can also extract, due to the successful use of bonus books by authors, that readers are just fine with them.

What I've seen, time and time again, is an author wailing on Facebook "oh scummy scammers are ruining my life with bonus books!" and then readers perk up their ears, eager to console their favorite author they say, "that's awful, bonus books are terrible! Tell me who so I can report them!!!". Except those readers are probably reading them anyway. I've had more than one discussion with my readers about this, were they told me privately they loved bonus books but didn't want to say anything out loud for fear of their fave author hating them. And that's just what I've seen. Most readers aren't on Facebook, aren't participating in any social media. They're out there, reading by themselves on their Kindles, consuming bonus books without complaining.

My most recent release is going to break 10,000 individual sales and reads. I have under 200 reviews. This tells me that most people just don't speak up or say their opinions about things.

The majority is silent, but they are silently giving the thumbs up to bonus books.

That being said, let's start our petition for one book per ASIN. Limit additional bonus content to 10% or less of the file. Whatever. Let's put it to bed, ask Amazon to make the change, and see if they'll do it.


----------



## 98368 (Sep 4, 2017)

bobfrost said:


> If amazon wants to change this, they can.
> 
> Tell us "We only allow one title per ASIN for all content enrolled in Kindle Unlimited. Box sets are not eligible for KU but may be sold through KDP."
> 
> ...


I wish I'd thought of this before I put my box set in KU. But thank you for saying it. I'm going to unclick the auto renewal.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Puddleduck said:


> Considering this thread was started to point out evidence that they _don't_, I doubt that's going to happen.
> 
> Haha...
> 
> ...


First up, you're cutting off the other half of my statement which gives that line context:

Lets all accept that as of this moment, Amazon seems to allow bonus books. The language is written right there on KDP stating as such, and Amazon has done absolutely nothing to police or ban bonus content that stays within the confines of that language. If you can't meet me that far on this side of the fence, at least admit that although you personally interpret the rules as being against bonus books, Amazon has not taken action against the vast majority of bonus book using authors, and is unlikely to do so anytime soon. Admit that it's possible your interpretation of the rules related to bonus books MAY be wrong. I'm not saying they are, but I'm saying they might be.

I'm saying that if you can't accept that Amazon seems to allow bonus books despite the preponderance of evidence that they do (going as far as ignoring what Amazon themselves are saying about the subject, and trying to conflate an arbitration issue to make it look like Amazon is attacking someone for simple bonus books while ignoring all the evidence that Amazon is going after this guy because he is being accused of doing a RAFT of scammy things), I'm fine with that. Go nuts. Believe what you want to believe.

But you should seriously take a second and consider the possibility that you COULD be wrong.

If I'm wrong, how many careers are ruined by my refusal to attack my fellow authors and attempt to get their books and accounts banned?

None? Zero? NOT A SINGLE ONE. That's right. I'm not attacking authors, I'm not encouraging readers and fellow authors to report books. I'm not engaging in crab mentality. Nobody is suffering because I read the Amazon TOS and made the determination that it says in plain english that bonus content in books (including stories) is allowed. Explicitly. And I didn't even have to go this far, because I've had conversations with people at KDP that told me the titles I was publishing with bonus content were fine. I even had one instance where they were asking me to prove ownership/copyright of one of the bonus books inside one of my titles, and I went through that whole process to appease them with no issues whatsoever. (I just want to point out once again that I do not use bonus books these days, and haven't put a bonus book in a title in the better part of a year now, largely because I don't feel like having my account and books attacked by people who have decided to invent some imaginary KDP rules and spend their day pretending to be Amazon Compliance Police instead of doing something more productive)

I looked at the "evidence" put up at the beginning of this thread. You can too. It's pretty clear the person involved in that arbitration issue was doing something more than just putting a couple extra bonus books inside his bad boy romance. To sit here and pretend like he got taken into arbitration over BONUS BOOKS is disingenuous. If you want to talk about the real reasons he got dragged in there, lets go ahead and do that.

Now lets consider the other side of this equation.

If the "book stuffing is illegal scammy behavior that amazon will take you to court over" people are wrong... how many people will they have wrongfully harmed in the course of this ridiculous attack? If they're wrong, and people with bonus content in their regular books on Amazon are acting completely within the TOS of Amazon, how much damage are these people doing?

I've had pennames attacked before. I know how much it hurts to be wrongfully accused and drug through the court of public opinion based on a lie or a misunderstanding.

As for your "vote with your dollars" plan...

I make my living off Amazon. My beautiful home, my car, the diamond on my wife's finger, the incredible vacation I'm about to take... it all comes from Amazon. I'm not going to cut my nose off to spite my face.

Lastly... I didn't shift this conversation to "what to do about the wind". I gave a solution. Some authors here don't like bonus books. I myself think the KU store would actually be better without them. I think there's a valuable conversation to be had in petitioning Amazon in a productive and kind way (that doesn't attempt to DESTROY FELLOW AUTHOR'S CAREERS) to change their policy on KU to get rid of bonus books, and I'd love to sign my name on the dotted line if someone wants to spearhead that.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Romance writers in certain sub-genres who don't stuff are going up against people putting up seriously stuffed books of 1,000+ pages and charging 99 cents for them.  We are screwing you over royally but please don't be mean to us on Facebook.  

(Yeah I know, no we're not because they could do exactly what we are doing.  Stuff or die).

In KU you can read as many books as you want so the "convenience" of having it in one book is a very weak argument to me.  I may not read romance but I am an active KU subscriber and use it heavily.  It is ridiculously easy to switch out books.  I have a Scribd subscription too.  As a reader, I love these subscriptions, but not as a writer.  Anyway, if I had 1,300 pages worth of content that could be 4 books in a series. If I can't get them to click through then I must not be that good. 

Bottom line is stuffers are training their readers to expect 1,000+ page books for .99 cents.  In KU if your readers can't make one or two clicks, not sure what that says.  If they do change the rules for bonus content and/or the KU program, those who stuff will still have the same readers expecting these long books for basically nothing.  Time to start all over with a new pen name and get new readers unless you want to just give them a boatload of content for nothing.  It might work.  Make money while you can on it.  Pay down the mortgage, get the kids college educations funded, etc. and then start over with a new business model if you have to.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Puddleduck said:


> You can beg and ask all you want, but if the mega-corporation you've hung your entire livelihood on isn't receptive, you can't make them listen. If they know you'll stay and do what they want no matter how badly they treat you, they don't have any incentive to change. That's just the truth. Don't shoot the messenger. (And I'm not sure, "But my business is 100% dependent on Amazon and I'm not willing to change that so I have absolutely no leverage with them," is really making the point you think it's making.)


My business income in 100% dependent on Amazon. For now.

That's not because it has to be. I used to be published wide. I'm confident I could go wide again and do quite well if I needed to, but I've made the determination that Amazon pays me more than wide publishers do, so I've made the business decision that is best for me.

If Amazon went away tomorrow, it would be 100% dependent on whatever other sales portals were available, and if they couldn't support a living wage, my income would be 100% dependent on the investments I've made and the day job I'd be forced to return to after all these long years.

Amazon treats me incredibly well. I've damn near made more money at Amazon in the last few years than I expected to make in my entire 20 year career in my old line of work. I'm not going to sit around boycotting the people who gave me a chance to make my dreams come true. I love Amazon, and I absolutely don't care if people use bonus books (although I'd support a change that disallows them for KU titles). I certainly don't feel strongly enough about this issue to start a big "don't buy from Amazon" campaign. That's silly. Amazon changed my life.

And Amazon has listened. KU 1.0 didn't end for lack of short stories. Amazon specifically referenced the discussions they'd had with novelists when they made the change to KU 2.0.

If people wanted bonus books to go away and pushed for it in a positive way, I think Amazon would listen.

And if they don't, and Bonus books are allowed to continue... I think you've got your answer as to whether or not they're allowed ;p.

Either way, it beats the hell out of attacking fellow authors or staging some kind of weird Amazon boycott.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

JulesWright said:


> Romance writers in certain sub-genres who don't stuff are going up against people putting up seriously stuffed books of 1,000+ pages and charging 99 cents for them. We are screwing you over royally but please don't be mean to us on Facebook.
> 
> (Yeah I know, no we're not because they could do exactly what we are doing. Stuff or die).
> 
> ...


If Amazon said "no more bonus books", the authors who use them would stop using them, and life would go on as normal.

Readers aren't going to get into a mass uproar because their books don't have extras in them anymore. If that's the state of the entire marketplace, they'll adapt almost immediately. It's KU, so it's not like they can't just borrow another book for free. And the regular shoppers will move forward as normal. Sure, they had some good times with 99 cents buying them a stack of books... but things change. Nobody will remember "bonus" books six months later.

And you don't have to use bonus books to make a living. There are authors (myself included) who make a staggeringly good living without bonus books. My main penname is one-title-per-ASIN and I'm doing great. There was a time when bonus books made a significant and visible impact on your income, but they make a far lesser impact today because of changes Amazon has made to their page-read system. The last "stuffed" book I published made less than my average non-stuffed book does today. If you think you need to stuff to compete, you're mistaken.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

bobfrost said:


> Ok, so with all of that said, why don't we all move forward in a productive way here?
> 
> Instead of attacking authors, reporting books, and shouting all over the internet about "SCAMMY BOOK STUFFERS", lets go about this in a better way
> ...
> Based upon that understanding, should we be attacking the our fellow authors directly? Should we be reporting their catalogs, their books, and attempting to destroy their career and their reputation because they've decided to include bonus content in their title? Regardless of how you feel about that author, I don't think attacking them is the right way to go.


I don't see anyone doing any of that. David has certainly said some snarky things, including things directed at me, but no one has attacked other authors. No one has encouraged reporting other authors (even though, according to the updated ToS, many, many romance books are breaking the rules for bonus books--not listing clearly in blurb and/or ToC).

Don't make this into something it's not.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

I don't write in a genre or sub-genre that stuffs. If people can write Bad Boy romances or other sub-genres where there are lots of stuffed books and compete without stuffing then that's awesome.

Yes, exactly all people have to do is click over to a new book. But yes, I think they are training their readers to expect massive books for nothing - especially their buyers.

If people don't care about the bonus content one way or the other then why is it there in the first place, lol.

Shrug.



bobfrost said:


> If Amazon said "no more bonus books", the authors who use them would stop using them, and life would go on as normal.
> 
> Readers aren't going to get into a mass uproar because their books don't have extras in them anymore. If that's the state of the entire marketplace, they'll adapt almost immediately. It's KU, so it's not like they can't just borrow another book for free.
> 
> And you don't have to use bonus books to make a living. There are authors (myself included) who make a staggeringly good living without bonus books. There was a time when bonus books made a significant and visible impact on your income, but they make a far lesser impact today because of changes Amazon has made to their page-read system. The last "stuffed" book I published made less than my average non-stuffed book does today. If you think you need to stuff to compete, you're mistaken.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

I'm not, Crystal.

In the last 24 hours I've read the posts here, on the blogs, and on the FB pages. I've seen, repeatedly, people talking about reporting books... taking screenshots/gathering evidence about "scammers who stuff"... and a raft of discussion that is directly attacking the authors who do it.

Have you not seen this?

I don't have the time to go digging through all these threads and linking to all of it, but it's there. Hell, last time we had a thread like this someone posted up a video of themselves trolling through the top 100 list opening books up at random and boldly proclaiming "this is a scam book" over and over before discussing how many times they've already reported those books. Every time we talk about this stuff, people are out there playing Amazon Cop. I'm just trying to introduce a bit of levity and suggest that there might be a better, more positive way to approach this kind of situation if we really want to enact change.


----------



## TinyChickadee (Apr 11, 2018)

Crystal_ said:


> I don't see anyone doing any of that. David has certainly said some snarky things, including things directed at me, but no one has attacked other authors. No one has encouraged reporting other authors (even though, according to the updated ToS, many, many romance books are breaking the rules for bonus books--not listing clearly in blurb and/or ToC).
> 
> Don't make this into something it's not.


I would (slightly) disagree. Without trawling through the entire thread to dig up exact quotes, DG has encouraged reporting other authors.


----------



## DaniO (Oct 22, 2012)

bobfrost said:


> How would that be any different than now?
> 
> Right now people put their box set in KU and it is exclusive to Amazon. It sells to non-KU shoppers, and gets borrowed by KU readers.
> 
> ...


"Again, if you just tried to limit bonus content with a new rule at Amazon WITHOUT also limiting box sets in KU, people could simply switch to pushing box sets in KU and we'd be right back here in this thread with people complaining about how 22 out of the top 100 are BOX SET STUFFERS!"

Then why isn't the top 100 full of box sets if that's really giving readers what they want?

Why aren't these books labelled as box sets? Maybe I'm cynical but I can't help thinking these authors are doing this for a reason that benefits them. Is it to trick readers into buying a set of books rather than a single title? Box sets sell well so why not advertise them for what they are? Why are they trying to make them look like single titles?


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

carrie 123 said:


> "Again, if you just tried to limit bonus content with a new rule at Amazon WITHOUT also limiting box sets in KU, people could simply switch to pushing box sets in KU and we'd be right back here in this thread with people complaining about how 22 out of the top 100 are BOX SET STUFFERS!"
> 
> Then why isn't the top 100 full of box sets if that's really giving readers what they want?
> 
> Why aren't these books labelled as box sets? Maybe I'm cynical but I can't help thinking these authors are doing this for a reason that benefits them. Is it to trick readers into buying a set of books rather than a single title? Box sets sell well so why not advertise them for what they are? *Why are they trying to make them look like single titles?*


Carrie, that's my big beef right there. Just label it for what it is. They are box sets or a collection of books.

No one gets upset or wonders what's up with boxed sets. They are clearly labeled. You know they are multiple works. All is clear.


----------



## MmmmmPie (Jun 23, 2015)

carrie 123 said:


> Why aren't these books labelled as box sets? Maybe I'm cynical but I can't help thinking these authors are doing this for a reason that benefits them. Is it to trick readers into buying a set of books rather than a single title? Box sets sell well so why not advertise them for what they are? Why are they trying to make them look like single titles?


I agree. And here's another reason they're probably doing it. Let's say an author has ten books in their arsenal. If their primary goal is to reduce friction and give their readers a heck of a deal, they'd compile these into a single box set and clearly promote it as such. However, by taking these ten books and rearranging them in ten different ways, they can "rent" this same content ten times, potentially gaining duplicate reads as people skim or jump around using the TOC. Plus, they can claim ten spots on the charts.

It seems to me the stuffers want it both ways. They want to claim it's all about offering a great deal, even as they cleverly advertise these as single novels in their FB and AMS ads.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

carrie 123 said:


> "Again, if you just tried to limit bonus content with a new rule at Amazon WITHOUT also limiting box sets in KU, people could simply switch to pushing box sets in KU and we'd be right back here in this thread with people complaining about how 22 out of the top 100 are BOX SET STUFFERS!"
> 
> Then why isn't the top 100 full of box sets if that's really giving readers what they want?
> 
> Why aren't these books labelled as box sets? Maybe I'm cynical but I can't help thinking these authors are doing this for a reason that benefits them. Is it to trick readers into buying a set of books rather than a single title? Box sets sell well so why not advertise them for what they are? Why are they trying to make them look like single titles?


Imagine a venn diagram with box sets on one side and single releases on the other. There are people who want (and seek out) box sets. There are people who want (and seek out) single releases.

There is some overlap, but it's typically better to release books that satisfy both edge cases to maximize profitability. Many authors you see doing bonus books in their singles will also have box sets for this reason. Go check their catalog. You'll see singles AND box sets, typically.

I'm not saying box sets are better or should dominate the toplists... what I'm saying is if bonus books were gone but box sets were still allowed in KU, there are authors who would take advantage of that fact, and we'd end up with another huge thread about it ;p.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

Crystal_ said:


> I don't see anyone doing any of that. David has certainly said some snarky things, including things directed at me, but no one has attacked other authors. No one has encouraged reporting other authors (even though, according to the updated ToS, many, many romance books are breaking the rules for bonus books--not listing clearly in blurb and/or ToC).
> 
> Don't make this into something it's not.


On Twitter just recently he has certainly called for the reporting of stuffed books. https://twitter.com/DavidGaughran/status/982957591587381248

And this is not the first time there have been calls to report other authors by people who think bonus books are wrong. There was a video made & linked to in David's blog the last time this issue came up, in which the person who made the video said they reported the stuffed book to Amazon 11 times & Amazon did nothing. Perhaps the answer is that Amazon does not think it's wrong.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

I've been trying to put my finger on why the argument about stuffing seems especially persistent, repetitive, and hard to solve.

Tentatively ... I think some people treat it as a stand-alone behavior, while for others, it's a tip-of-the-iceberg behavior.

I mean, there's a whole body of clearly nefarious behavior, right? That's the part of the iceberg that lurks under the water: botted page-reads, links to the end of the book, tempting epilogues, books filled with random-generated/-translated text, fake reviews, possible ways to evade the page-read fix, etc. There's no question this stuff would be unethical and/or against Amazon's rules. No one tries (or very few, anyway) to argue it's okay.

But stuffing isn't like those behaviors, its defenders would say. It's not part of the iceberg. It's more of a pleasant little floe. With penguins. You can choose to hang out on the floe or stick to the mainland. Either's okay.

In contrast, I think many (not all, of course) in the anti- camp see bonus books as part of the iceberg. For them, stuffing is just the small chunk of the mass that happens to stick up above the water -- that happens to attract argument because it's visible and because it's more ambiguous than the other behaviors, so one actually _can _make arguments about it. But for most anti- folks, it's really not a separate thing. It's just the most visible a whole bunch of linked behaviors. They suspect it goes along with other more clearly black-hat behaviors somewhere on a spectrum between "often" and "almost always." They might see it as integral to those other behaviors' success.

People in the former camp, those who defend stuffing, talk about it as a floe. That is, they formulate arguments about it as an isolated behavior.

In contrast, people in the latter camp are probably often _thinking of it _as part of the iceberg, even when they talk about it as though it's a floe. The rest of the iceberg is harder to see, harder to prove, and far more damaging to an author's reputation, so they're more reluctant to assert it. But the iceberg is still there, in their minds, informing the way they see stuffing.

People in the former camp who admit to stuffing of course deny participating in the other behaviors, but people in the latter camp may not believe them, or may struggle to believe some of them.

TLR: In these arguments, people might be using the same term yet implicitly talking about different things, and the difference is hard to overcome because it hinges on mistrust and other stuff that doesn't change easily.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Becca Mills said:


> I've been trying to put my finger on why the argument about stuffing seems especially persistent, repetitive, and hard to solve.
> 
> Tentatively ... I think some people treat it as a stand-alone behavior, while for others, it's a tip-of-the-iceberg behavior.
> 
> ...


Give the lady a kewpie doll!!!

What the stuffing does is help to maximize the profit from the nefarious stuff. If I'm using stolen credit cards to set up 30 day free KU accounts, I can only use that account to "read" a book once. I can use the account to read a hundred books, though, and with a hundred accounts I can make a lot of money. I make a whole lot more money if the bots are "reading" 3000 page books than 300 page books. So the stuffing is the first-step enabler.

If an author is putting their own quality work between the covers and pricing 2000 pages for 99 cents... Well, I guess that's their choice, but they are providing camouflage for the scammers who are stuffing the middle of the books with garbage. And I still think it's crystal clear that duplication of content for sale elsewhere is against the ToS.

On the other hand, and I've checked this with a number of people who agree with me, I get a lot more buys at 99 cents rather than page reads. At $3.99, the sales drop and the page reads go up. A lot of people will buy at 99 cents rather than sacrifice one of their 10 slots, especially if they don't intend to read the book right away. So, it would seem people would tend to buy a 2000 page book at 99 cents rather than borrow it. If that is true, then the argument of "my readers like it and I'm not doing it to game the system" might actually be hurting those authors, assuming their motives are angelic.

YMMV


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

I've received a reply from KDP. When I'm on my desktop where I can more easily screenshot I'll share that for those who think copy/paste might be made up. I give blanket permission for anyone to copy and share pasted text and/or the screenshot, by the way. Don't care.

I'm sending a couple of follow-up questions, mostly because of the answer to question two. The answers were about what I expected. Anyone should feel free to copy a question(s) exactly and ask it to compare answers if desired. I actually resent my entire email earlier today because I hadn't gotten a reply in over 2 days. This might be the reply to the first one. If I get a reply to the second, I'll share it, too.

Bolding is mine to make the questions and answers stand out, but I'll present it without further comment

Subject: Questions about offering bonus content

Hello. I'd like some clarification about what kind of bonus content is acceptable to include in a single title. Please assume all of the scenarios I'm asking about involve books in Kindle Unlimited (KU), and that all bonus content is clearly stated in the book description and the Table of Contents, as is required by your Terms of Service (TOS).

First, a simple yes or no question. *Can a book that I have already published (in KU, as I said) be used in its entirety as bonus content for another book published in KU?* For instance, if I have already published Book A, when I publish Book B, which is a unique title, can I add the previously published Book A as bonus content at the end of Book B?

If this is acceptable, let me ask another question please. *Can I use that book A as bonus content in more than one publication?* For instance, if I then publish a unique Book C, can I add Book A as bonus content again? Is there any limit to the number of times I can use an entire book as bonus content?

Also, I have a question about the amount of allowed bonus content. *If I choose to include bonus content at the end of a book, is there a limit to how much I can include? *Is there a certain percentage of the whole, for instance, that my bonus content shouldn't exceed?

If my new release book makes up half the content in a title and the other 50% is bonus content of some kind (books, stories, or a mix of the two) is that acceptable? If not, is 25% bonus content acceptable? Please clarify how much bonus content I can offer at the end of a KU book, and whether entire novels or only shorter content are acceptable.

Thank you very much!

Hello,

I hope this email finds you well. *Your first question isn't really a yes or no.* Because, you may not include content that disrupts the reading experience. If the material you are planning to use does not, then yes. The final decision will be up to the review department. Content published through Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) is held to the same high standards that customers have come to expect from Amazon. The addition of distracting bonus content can result in a poor customer experience and suppression of your book.

This includes frontloading bonus material at the beginning of a book and/or using a disruptive link to direct readers to the main content or end of a book. If the formatting of a book results in a poor experience or genuine reader confusion, or is designed to unnaturally inflate sales or pages read, we will remove the book and can take account-level actions.

*The answer to your follow up question, is yes.* I think of it like this, when authors offer snippets of previously published books, they often reference the same title multiple times. It seems like you are contemplating doing the same thing.

In addition, if content is included in a book's metadata, it must appear in the book's interior, and a book's metadata should accurately describe the book's primary content.

*The overall questions of using bonus material is will it disrupt the reader's experience. KDP doesn't really have percentage measure for this. *If you are publishing a title that is 50% new and 50% old, is this the best reader experience? Is the reader aware that they are getting previously published material? If a reader thinks they are getting a new title, new content, and they purchase it and it's mostly old content, will they be pleased with their experience? These are questions that you want to ask yourself when including any bonus material. *I know you wanted clear, concise yes or no answers, but the issue of bonus material is a gray area that really depends on the specific quality and quantity of the text.*

Finally, if your book is enrolled in KDP Select, all content within the book must adhere to the KDP Select terms and conditions: https://kdp.amazon.com/help?topicId=APILE934L348N#Select

See our Help page for more details on our linking and TOC guidelines:
https://kdp.amazon.com/help?topicId=A1MMQ0JHRBEINX#links

Also check Help for more information on bonus content:
https://kdp.amazon.com/help?topicId=A3CFOBV9O6PLD7

Thanks for using Amazon KDP.

...............................................................
Were you satisfied with the support provided?

If yes, please click here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/survey?p=A10A89TO9BYPC0&k=hy

If no, please click here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/survey?p=A10A89TO9BYPC0&k=hn
...............................................................

Regards,

Dayon W. 
Kindle Direct Publishing
http://kdp.amazon.com
=============================
Connect with KDP and other Authors and Publishers:
Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/KindleDirectPublishing
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/AmazonKDP 
Community: https://kdp.amazon.com/community/forum.jspa?forumID=9
Resources: https://kdp.amazon.com/help

Visit Amazon Author Insights for guidance from other authors and experts on writing, publishing and marketing: http://amazonauthorinsights.com/?ref=aai_kdp_help

:edited to bold questions/answers for ease of reading and remove stupid characters


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

As to the problem of amazon listening to author complaints, I think it depends how it's done. A lot of authors got together on the last AMS survey to complain about bad boy romance books not staying in their lane and advertising in genres that they didn't belong in, and I've noticed a better alignment of ads showing up. 

Maybe the next author survey should target stuffed books and scammers as the top priority and as KU1 was morphed into KU2 under novelist pressure, so KU1000 might get somewhere.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Shelley K said:


> I've received a reply from KDP.
> 
> First, a simple yes or no question. *Can a book that I have already published (in KU, as I said) be used in its entirety as bonus content for another book published in KU?* For instance, if I have already published Book A, when I publish Book B, which is a unique title, can I add the previously published Book A as bonus content at the end of Book B?
> 
> ...


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Thank you Shelley K.  So in other words, at least according to this one customer service rep it's a gray area and it depends, which isn't very helpful but it sounds like the person was trying to give you the best answer they could.

As to the duplicate content, the person was referencing having an excerpt to the next book and that could be duplicate over more than one book.  I seriously doubt the reps have any idea people are actually stuffing 5 or 6 stories, books, etc in the back.  That's just my interpretation.  That's how I interpret the guidelines too.  They are thinking of an excerpt to the next book, possibly a short story.  Yes, I know the stuffers don't think that's what it means, lol.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Shelley K said:


> Hello,
> 
> I hope this email finds you well. *Your first question isn't really a yes or no.* Because, you may not include content that disrupts the reading experience. If the material you are planning to use does not, then yes. The final decision will be up to the review department. Content published through Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) is held to the same high standards that customers have come to expect from Amazon. The addition of distracting bonus content can result in a poor customer experience and suppression of your book.
> 
> ...


Er ... wow.

So the answer literally, truly is, "There are no hard-and-fast rules. Do what you think your readers will like, and we'll let you know if we disagree."


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

Becca Mills said:


> Er ... wow.
> 
> So the answer literally, truly is, "There are no hard-and-fast rules. Do what you think your readers will like, and we'll let you know if we disagree."


Now, I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing the bit that says if we think it's designed to inflate page reads then we can bring the ban hammer down.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Atlantisatheart said:


> Now, I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing the bit that says if we think it's designed to inflate page reads then we can bring the ban hammer down.


Right, I see that too. But I'd really like to know _what exactly_ will make them think that, and what will not make them think that.


----------



## Hoop (Nov 22, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> Er ... wow.
> 
> So the answer literally, truly is, "There are no hard-and-fast rules. Do what you think your readers will like, and we'll let you know if we disagree."


No, that's not what the answer "literally, truly" is.

The question was:
Can a book that I have already published (in KU, as I said) be used* in its entirety* as bonus content for another book published in KU?

And the answer *literally* was:
you may not include content that disrupts the reading experience. If the material you are planning to use does not,* then yes*.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Here was the answer- referring to* snippets* of previously published books. I think it's a classic case of give an inch and people take a very long mile. But hey people can interpret however they wish.



Shelley K said:


> *The answer to your follow up question, is yes.* I think of it like this, when authors offer snippets of previously published books, they often reference the same title multiple times. It seems like you are contemplating doing the same thing.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

I'll tell you EXACTLY what will make Amazon drop the hammer:

THE ICEBURG STUFF!

That's why Amazon went after the guy on page 1 of this thread. The iceberg stuff. That person had LOTS of iceberg stuff. They weren't just some author putting a few bonus books in the back of their latest bad boy romance. For them, bonus books WAS the tip of an iceberg.

The top 100 list is not full of botnetters and page-read frauds. Amazon polices that stuff. They can, have, and will ban people who engage in TOS violating things. It's easy to look at "Bad Boy Romance #22" and think it doesn't deserve to be there. It's easy to assume there might be something shady going on to PUT it there.

But the truth is, most of those books got to their spot on the chart the old fashioned way. They've got a big following, a big ARC list, a nice mailing list (and perhaps some friends to swap list blasts with) and a bunch of money being spent on ads to push them into visibility.

It's not rocket science, and it's not a scam. You could do it too if you had the money to dump into marketing, a decent book, a fantastic cover that meets customer demand, and a mailing list or two that helps you push it.

Do scams exist on the charts? Sure. Not long ago there was a person using a botnet to shove massive cut and pasted recipe books into the top 100, and it was clear that botnet was also connected to other books (because other books were popping unexpectedly into the top 100 and had nothing but also-bought/also-vieweds full of those recipe books). You don't see that today because Amazon banned the person behind it, as they usually do. Nobody is going to defend that kind of scammy action, because it's an obvious scam!

Bonus books used properly within the guidelines Amazon lays out at KDP are not in violation of the TOS, and they are not the tip of a big evil iceberg of dishonesty. They are not a scam. I'd still argue Amazon shouldn't allow them in KU (and that making it one-title-per-ASIN would be a beneficial rule for everyone who publishes at Amazon), but it's not my tent and it's not my circus. If they want to allow bonus titles, they have every right to do so... and we shouldn't be sitting here trying to destroy other authors simply because they are using bonus content.

If Amazon decides to change their policy, authors will adapt accordingly... but we don't need to fabricate imaginary rules and laws when Amazon is being (for amazon) relatively clear about this.

I've had a similar conversation with Amazon to the one that was posted above. Amazon told me in no uncertain terms that the books I was publishing back then (and their bonus content) was absolutely allowed. I don't do it anymore out of fear of authors dragging my name through the mud and deliberately attacking (and inciting mobs to attack) my catalog and my success. I am not afraid of Amazon in this. Amazon has not, to my knowledge, EVER banned or even reprimanded someone about bonus content in their book (except in cases where there was lots of ICEBURG STUFF). 

Anyway, there you have it.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

This line stood out to me:

--

AmazonKDP: 
I know you wanted clear, concise yes or no answers, but the issue of bonus material is a gray area that really depends on the specific quality and quantity of the text.

--

It's a gray area. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

I can definitely see Amazon potentially seeing stuffing 5 or 6 books in the back that take up more content than the original book as an attempt to manipulate page reads, but hey if people think they are fine then they don't have anything to worry about.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Hoop said:


> No, that's not what the answer "literally, truly" is.
> 
> The question was:
> Can a book that I have already published (in KU, as I said) be used* in its entirety* as bonus content for another book published in KU?
> ...


Oh come on! _Literally_ has a well established figurative meaning nowadays. 

I should've said, The fundamental answer is, "There are no hard-and-fast rules. Do what you think your readers will like, and we'll let you know if we disagree."


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

A related question here towards those in the know:

Do the readers of these 'stuffed' books _actually expect such_ in their books, to the point that elimination of the extra titles in such books would cut on sales?

When I see the bad boy romances, for example, and I look at the way some of them are promoted on FB pages and the like, it seems that the primary story, with the title on the glossy cover, is what is driving the 'sale' (or whatever you call it when a book is 'purchased' via KU -- a "borrow"?).

I wonder how many of the readers of these stuffed books have a more-or-less passive view of the stuffed material.

I.e., if it's there, they may page through it, sometimes they may read a few of the extra novelettes, but if it wasn't there it would not keep them from buying the new title in question.

So -- leaving aside the controversy for a moment -- how truly important is 'stuffing' to the readers of the 'stuffed' books?


----------



## Desert Rose (Jun 2, 2015)

Atlantisatheart said:


> Now, I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing the bit that says if we think it's designed to inflate page reads then we can bring the ban hammer down.


I would think that refers to "if it's a bunch of google translate gibberish and text scraped from wikipedia"; an actual novel already in KU would, one assumes, fit the " same high standards" as the new content.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

JulesWright said:


> I can definitely see Amazon potentially seeing stuffing 5 or 6 books in the back that take up more content than the original book as an attempt to manipulate page reads, but hey if people think they are fine then they don't have anything to worry about.


If they're legit books that the author owns, they're not an attempt to manipulate page reads.

A customer reading legitimate pages of content from an author = how KU works. If those pages were full of bullshit or machine translated garbage, or if there was some attempt to manipulate them to push readers to flip through the book or page to the back, that's manipulation.

But I'm sure if an author got egregious enough that customers complained (due to a poor reading experience), Amazon would side with the customers and tell the author to tone it down.

That said, Amazon already set a KENPC limit for books. I assume they are fine with any book that falls beneath that limit. I base that on experience and on the fact that despite knowing lots of authors who used bonus books, I can't point to a single example of someone who was reprimanded or had a book removed because they had "too much" bonus content (at least not since they added the KENPC limit - I do remember a few people bragging about single books that earned $100 per full-read getting those books banned, but those people were obviously doing ICEBURG STUFF).


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Hoop said:


> No, that's not what the answer "literally, truly" is.
> 
> The question was:
> Can a book that I have already published (in KU, as I said) be used* in its entirety* as bonus content for another book published in KU?
> ...


No, the answer was, "... when authors offer snippets of previously published books, they often reference the same title multiple times. It seems like you are contemplating doing the same thing."

"Snippets" by anyone's definition does not include a whole book.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Ok Bob, I guess KU books are just free for all 3,000-KENPC limit collections then. You already answered my question earlier. When they are targeting novel readers they market their stuff as a novel, when they are targeting box set readers they call it a box set. I think it's deceptive, but life goes on.



bobfrost said:


> If they're legit books that the author owns, they're not an attempt to manipulate page reads.
> 
> A customer reading legitimate pages of content from an author = how KU works. If those pages were full of [bullcrap] or machine translated garbage, or if there was some attempt to manipulate them to push readers to flip through the book or page to the back, that's manipulation.
> 
> ...


----------



## TinyChickadee (Apr 11, 2018)

Shelley K said:


> I've received a reply from KDP. When I'm on my desktop where I can more easily screenshot I'll share that for those who think copy/paste might be made up. I give blanket permission for anyone to copy and share pasted text and/or the screenshot, by the way. Don't care.


I feel like this is the clearest answer on this topic that I've ever seen. Thank you.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

If we look at the first letter of each line of the KDP rep letter, we can see a very clear secret message.

Hi. Oetttds. Taogp. Twrc. Itb. Trftptttciq. Fmh. Shah. T.

I don't see how anyone can argue with that.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

JulesWright said:


> Ok Bob, I guess KU books are just free for all 3,000-KENPC limit collections then. You already answered my question earlier. When they are targeting novel readers they market their stuff as a novel, when they are targeting box set readers they call it a box set. I think it's deceptive, but life goes on.


If they were, I'd think that would lead to a negative customer experience, and eventually to an Amazon crackdown on it. I don't support people going out and throwing up tons of 3000 page tomes any more than you do. It seems excessive.

Most people using bonus content aren't throwing out 3,000 page stuffed to the gills books, and they're not dumping hundreds of barely differentiated box sets into the market or anything like that either.

Again, it's all about how far someone pushes the envelope. If an author is being egregious, they are putting themselves in a position that might end with a smackdown by Amazon... although in instances such as these, it's usually more of a polite request that you remove an offending book and fix it.

This whole thing reminds me of their policies on just what kind of erotica is allowed and what kind is bannable. The answer is... it depends.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Who knows Bob.  I saw ones 1300 and 2000 pages with 5 or 6  bonuses and a few said the main book ended at 30%.  Blew me away but I have obviously lived a sheltered KU book life, lol.  I've never seen a bonus book or even a short story and I check out tons of KU books - mostly fantasy and mystery and also nonfiction. 

It is true that I am not the target audience, but I believe the "tin" should be advertised as what it actually is - for any product.  Seems like a clear way to pad books to up page count.  Readers can ignore it if it's not to their taste I suppose.  I don't know how people have 1,000's of pages of bonus stuff to give away for all their novels.  They must have it all down to a science. 

Rep B's secret message is different than Rep A's, lol.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Atlantisatheart said:


> Now, I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing the bit that says if we think it's designed to inflate page reads then we can bring the ban hammer down.


It does say "unnaturally" inflate sales and page reads. Actual readers reading actual words that interest them surely doesn't qualify. If they have to skip over thousands of words of gibberish that get counted or something, or using clickfarms to rack up page reads, that's unnatural. Inflating sales by using bots and clickfarms is unnatural, definitely. I think if it had said unnaturally lengthen the number of pages, there'd be a case against adding bonus material, but as written, I don't think so.

It's part of my follow-up, though, to specify what unnaturally inflate sales and page reads means. I'm satisfied by the answer, personally, and pretty sure I know what they'll say.

My first question specifies entire books, and the answer seems clear enough. My second question about repeating content led the CSR to talk about previews of books, snippets, which is disappointing, so I'm following up on that and again making it crystal clear I'm talking about repeating entire books. Certainly leads me to think maybe using a book as bonus material is ok (per the first question) but using it repeatedly might not be (and that wouldn't surprise me, because of Phoenix' answer about repeated content some time ago).

I have to say, though, it seems apparent that they do this on a case by case basis based on whether or not they think a specific title is delivering a poor customer experience. This probably helps explain why some people repeatedly report authors and books and nothing gets done. If the readers aren't complaining, and they're not seeing evidence of clickfarming, botting, linking, stuffing with content that disrupts the reader experience, that likely explains why those books and authors don't get pulled.

The rep even uses my example of 50% new and 50% previously published material, and simply asks if it's a good customer experience without saying it's probably not a good idea. If the reader hits the bonus books and hasn't read them and enjoys reading them, it's a different situation than if the reader doesn't like the extra material or has read it before (or it's crap meant to get them to click past or something, I suppose).

The two things I feel confident in taking away from the reply so far (YMMV) are one, they don't seem to care if an entire book that has been published is used as bonus material as long as it doesn't disrupt the reading experience. If they did, they could have said no, an entire published book cannot be used. Disrupting the reading experience is trickier, but I feel safe in assuming that an author including one or more of their books in the back probably doesn't _automatically_ qualify as that or they'd simply say so, but it _could_ qualify--if they decide it does.

And two, if bonus material is reused over and over as some people do, you're more at risk of providing a poor reader experience, and that's what you don't want to do. This is common sense, but I think given the reply Phoenix got about repeated content with the example of the same books being reordered and used as bonus content, combined with the things this CSR said, I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable basing my business model around stuffing the same bonus books into every title like some authors do.

Even if they're not doing anything about multiple repeated books in each title now the more it's done, the more readers get tired of it (and fatigue sets in with everything new people do to market), the more Amazon will look at those on a case by case basis and maybe change their thinking about it. I remain a little shocked at not even a gentle "the title content should be the largest percentage of the book file" or some such. I may follow up with another percentage question, but I think the last line about how there aren't concise answers because bonus content is a gray area makes it clear that I'm not likely to get hard numbers or percentages no matter how specific I get and how many times I try.

It's the most cogent and helpful reply I've ever gotten from KDP in 7 years of publishing. Maybe that's why it took so long. I hope the follow-up goes as well.

Though I think the actual rules don't say you can't use bonus books, I personally wouldn't want to base my business model on something that's happening now and doesn't seem to bother Amazon, but might be the target of a sudden purge later on. We've all seen Amazon change it's mind and shoot before yelling freeze.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

JulesWright said:


> Who knows Bob. I saw ones 1300 and 2000 pages with 5 or 6 bonuses and a few said the main book ended at 30%. Blew me away but I have obviously lived a sheltered KU book life, lol. I've never seen a bonus book or even a short story and I check out tons of KU books - mostly fantasy and mystery and also nonfiction.
> 
> It is true that I am not the target audience, but I believe the "tin" should be advertised as what it actually is - for any product. Seems like a clear way to pad books to up page count. Readers can ignore it if it's not to their taste I suppose. I don't know how people have 1,000's of pages of bonus stuff to give away for all their novels. They must have it all down to a science.
> 
> Rep B's secret message is different than Rep A's, lol.


Yeah, they obviously have it down to a science. They aren't stuffing books because it does not work to their benefit, either monetarily, or otherwise.

It's marketing and maximizing product.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

I'm still confused, ha ha.

From Guide To Kindle Content Quality

Disappointing content

We do not allow content that disappoints our customers, including but not limited to:

Content that is either marketed as a subscription or redirects readers to an external source to obtain the full content
Content that is freely available on the web (unless you are the copyright owner of that content or the content is in the public domain). For more information, you can refer to the sections titled Illegal and Infringing Content and Public Domain and Other Non-Exclusive Content in the Content Guidelines.
Content whose primary purpose is to solicit or advertise
*Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store*
Content that is too short
Content that is poorly translated
Content that does not provide an enjoyable reading experience
Bonus content that appears before a book's primary content

https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200952510


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Significant differentiation means the book can't be identical to another title. Or, at least, that has been my personal experience with this.

For example, I once published two box sets that were identical by accident (I'd published a box set with books 1 2 and 3, and a month later when I was thinking about putting up a box set I'd forgotten I'd published one with those specific books in it, and put another box set out with those books in a different order - so a box set with books 3 2 1 for example).

Amazon sent me an email telling me that my content wasn't significantly differentiated and asked that I either change one of the books, or they would remove the copy that was selling less in 72 hours.

I modified the book (swapped out one of the titles) and Amazon was happy with it. 

There's probably some percentage of the book that needs to be different or else you'll trigger that auto response. This is to prevent people from flooding Amazon with duplicate copies of a single book under different names and in different genres. It's not an anti-bonus book rule.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Screenshots for those who want them. One's the whole message (it's big, because I wanted it all in one image) and the other shows the header.

https://imgur.com/sDKIEXw
https://imgur.com/Eu7nTfZ


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Okay, seems strange but I guess it's to prevent the same book being published under a different title? But you can publish it as bonuses multiple times- just make sure to not piss off reader? Obviously, the box sets have the same books as the solo versions but at least they are clearly marked.

What about the second one - what do they mean by non-differentiated version?



bobfrost said:


> Significant differentiation means the book can't be identical to another title. Or, at least, that has been my personal experience with this.
> 
> For example, I once published two box sets that were identical by accident (I'd published a box set with books 1 2 and 3, and a month later when I was thinking about putting up a box set I'd forgotten I'd published one with those specific books in it, and put another box set out with those books in a different order - so a box set with books 3 2 1 for example).
> 
> ...


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Shelley K said:


> It's the most cogent and helpful reply I've ever gotten from KDP in 7 years of publishing. Maybe that's why it took so long. I hope the follow-up goes as well.


I agree that it was unusually personalized, thoughtful, and clear.

But honestly, looking at the reply you got and the ones David and Phoenix have gotten, I get the sense that these Nuggets of Language about bonus content -- "not significantly differentiated," "disrupt the reading experience," "high quality," "disappoints our customers," "an enjoyable reading experience," "relevant to the customer" -- have come down from the misty heights of Amazon's legal affairs department, and both authors and KDP reps can only sit there poring over the phrases, trying to figure out exactly what they mean, with no recourse to anyone who actually knows for sure ... probably because, intentionally, no one does.

I guess it's a temperament thing, but for me it's just not reassuring. I mean, textual ambiguity is cool and all, but not in situations like this.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

I agree Becca.  If someone's book or account was to be reviewed it would be so subjective.  If I am Reader A and I'm all upset because I got a stuffed book and complained about it, but Reader B loved them, one reader's experience was disrupted and one wasn't. (Don't worry anyone I'm not reporting!)

One person reviewing someone's account might think it was fine and one might not.

To me, it does seem very risky, but I'm not doing it anyway.  

Well, this has been quite an education for me, for sure.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> I agree that it was unusually personalized, thoughtful, and clear.
> 
> But honestly, looking at the reply you got and the ones David and Phoenix have gotten, I get the sense that these Nuggets of Language about bonus content -- "not significantly differentiated," "disrupt the reading experience," "high quality," "disappoints our customers," "an enjoyable reading experience," "relevant to the customer" -- have come down from the misty heights of Amazon's legal affairs department, and both authors and KDP reps can only sit there poring over the phrases, trying to figure out exactly what they mean, with no recourse to anyone who actually knows for sure ... probably because, intentionally, no one does.


Yeah, I think that's where the gray area statement comes in. It's like when is pornography obscenity--the court won't define it, but they know it when they see it. I do think the fact that bonus content is a gray area and they look at everything on a case by case basis according to whether it disrupts the reading experience was forthright and honest. Of course, as those of us who've published erotica know, when it's up to an individual reviewer's idea of what's right and wrong with no clear guideline, you never know what'll happen. Carlos, for instance, was a much harsher reviewer than some others, so much so he gained a reputation--don't get Carlos! I'm sure there are reps who have a much dimmer view of multiple bonus books than others in the same way.

I haven't heard of a book or author being pulled merely for bonus content when it was actual books without linking or gimmicks. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened or it won't, though. KU1 died because shorts were being rewarded over longer books and Amazon didn't like the short content flooding KU. When they get tired of books that contain thousands of pages they'll change the rules again.

I don't do it, but I feel like if I wanted to throw three books on the back of a new one, I could do it without worrying. I wouldn't feel comfortable putting those same books in another title, though. I think that's where the differentiated content might burn some authors eventually. And I genuinely wouldn't want someone reading through my books to become annoyed at seeing 60% of the file contain the same bonus books every time. I want to keep that reader, not cheese 'em off.

To each his own.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

JulesWright said:


> If I am Reader A and I'm all upset because I got a stuffed book and complained about it, but Reader B loved them, one reader's experience was disrupted and one wasn't. (Don't worry anyone I'm not reporting!)
> 
> One person reviewing someone's account might think it was fine and one might not.
> 
> ...


I doubt many readers complain. They either click through the extra material if they don't have it already, or they ignore it. That's my guess.

Hence my question earlier: do readers of these 'stuffed' books in question really care?

I mean, they're not paying extra for the extra material if it's in KU, and undoubtedly they are not paying extra if these massive, stuffed tomes are 99 cents. It's nothing out of their pocket. And extra material is easy enough to ignore.

The only people who appear to be complaining about most of these stuffed books are other authors.

I've purchased ebooks that had maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of them filled with excerpts of the author's other offerings -- or what was basically adverts for other books -- and as soon as I was done with the main story, I was done with the book. If the book seemed appropriately priced, I didn't care. Why would it be any different with readers of these stuffed books?


----------



## DaniO (Oct 22, 2012)

I think some readers do care for a number of reasons. Most like to be able to identify and find books easily in their virtual book space if they don't start to read straightaway. It's impossible to search for the bonus book within kindle or an app. It's also easy to "buy" books twice. You can argue they didn't buy the bonus book, but if it's in their Kindle library already they might be annoyed if they find out they already purchased the book.

Again, it comes back to misleading readers. If all this bonus material was as popular as some authors insist it is, then the top 100 would consist of boxsets.

Asking your readers via newsletters is not a good way to gauge average readers feelings on bonus books. They have signed up to get updates on your books, they love your stuff, they are a tiny percentage of _your_ readers, and a minuscule percentage of the romance market. So the readers on your list, your super fans, will probably tell you they want more of it. They'd probably want anything you've ever written.

Other readers love long romances, which are getting harder to find these days. The file size used to be a tip off that the book was a long one. Now it just means it's probably a number of bonus books.

It comes down to the fact the cover and title are advertising a single title. Why do that if collections of books really are more popular?

I understand Bob Frost suggesting authors do this to attract readers of single titles _and_ readers of boxsets. But I think this goes beyond savvy marketing. I think it's devious. It's attempting to hide what the product really is from consumers.

Some pro-stuffers on this thread say it's only other authors who complain about this but this isn't true. Ignoring the fact this is the Writer's Cafe and is made up of authors, which is why they are the ones complaining here, a number of longtime romance readers who are members of Kboards have said they don't like it. They've said they feel tricked into buying what they think is a long book only to find it's a number of shorter books. One person said they aren't going to buy any more indie romances because of this.

Becca made a great point. To me, it does feel like the tip of the iceberg.

Sure, advertising your collection of books as a single title, repeatedly rejigging the same content to hit the HNR lists isn't the worst thing people are doing. Botting is far worse in my opinion. But if authors are prepared to trick readers into thinking they are buying something different, that does make me wonder what else they would be prepared to do to gain extra page reads.

As David G said, there are tricks around the page reads system that gains people full reads. I can't help thinking this is the real reason some authors are cramming other books into what is advertised to be a single title.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Some readers do care.  For example, it can feel rather jarring if a mystery novel ends before you are expecting it to as you try to solve the crime as you read along.  Any book with an element of suspense can, really.

And yes, as Carrie says if bonus content was so wildly popular collections would be Queen instead of novels.

It certainly seemed fairer to get paid by the page instead of borrow so that 10 page short stories didn't earn as much as a 400-page novel, but it's been one thing after another.

Anyway, people will find new creative ways no matter what.  KU is feeling less and less appealing to me as both a reader and writer.  I'm just one person so it really doesn't matter.  I can just avoid any books that say they have bonus content.  I haven't run across any yet in genres I read.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

The debate about 'Would anyone care about getting free books?' is hilarious to me. It's like 'Do people in general like free things? Check yes or no.'

Many are going at this from a traditional standpoint, talking about cereal boxes, forgetting that this is a new & specific thing; subscription services.

When Spotify starts playing me more songs than I picked out for my playlist, do I get mad & complain? No. I listen if I like the song or I click to some other song. Sometimes I like finding the new music & think THANKS SPOTIFY.

When Netflix starts playing a new show after the series I binged watched ended, do I get mad & complain to Netflix? No. In fact I'm glad I don't have to find the remote & find a new show & I think THANKS NETFLIX.

Likewise, when reading lots of books in KU & presented w/ more bonus books in the same series, world or by the same author w/ the same theme etc., many readers really do say THANKS AMAZON.

KU is a subscription service in which Amazon wants there to be tons of content available to readers for $10/month. They want to keep readers reading their Kindles so they can advertise to them & keep them on the Amazon platform rather than going elsewhere to do other things. It capilizes on a segment of society that doesn't have a lot of money for books but likes to read a lot. Smart authors in KU capitalize by knowing this & giving more content to readers in KU who find their books.

The one complaint I've heard raised is being deceptive to the reader who thinks the book is longer than it is. Amazon has solved this issue ya'all. Now the book blurb must let readers know the book has bonus content. The TOC must list it.

The other complaint is that readers can't categorize their libraries. I doubt many KU readers do this since they're only borrowing the book, not buying & keeping it. This is another way the subscription model is different than an old school book. For people who buy the book, bonus content is just that. It's not the main content. I would categorize it by the main book name. Also, some readers say they buy the main book after reading the bonus book either in a book they bought or in KU so they can have the cover version. Readers who like to collect books do that. I have some box sets that include all the books in a series & readers will still write me & tell me they bought them all individually. Also some of my ARC team buy the books they love so that they have the published version with the cover.

So since we are comparing w/ old school books, right now on my real life bookshelf I have a collection of Shakespeare's work & I have several individual books that are also in the collection. Same with some books by other authors. Did I get mad when I had already had 3 books & then while I was browsing a bookstore I saw a set? No, I either bought it or I didn't. If I were borrowing it, I would care even less. But again the KU model is different & there are even. Or reasons to give bundled content to readers than there already were/are w/ trad pub books.

Thanks Shelley for sharing your email. Many of the authors who use bonus content have been told the same thing by Amazon because they are in frequent contact w/ Amazon both due to making a lot of money in KU & also being frequently reported by other authors who brag about reporting them or complain about reporting them to no avail. This is because like you they talk straight to Amazon & ensure it's okay. While others incite or participate in angry Internet mobs & attack other authors over something that is allowed. They don't post their findings here because they are ridiculed & chased away for being the devil so they have no desire to help or share. Also that would put a target on their back because some people refuse to see the truth in favor of their own version of vigilante justice.

When there is a practice [using bonus books in KU] that makes sense in the subscription model & an author's business model, which clearly also works for Amazon, who has condoned the practice both to authors & in practice, yet authors would still rather villify other authors & grab at any ole reason they can find as to why it is not allowed or shouldn't be allowed, to justify the attacks on authors who are merely doing what is allowed, it makes me sad for the state of humanity.

It is also a real crab bucket mentality because it tries to scare or shame people away from doing what could make them more money. I'm not a marketing guru but I can tell ya'all that in this business you must adapt or not expect to make it. I don't mean you have to use bonus books or should but you must be aware of new innovations & methods & try to think like the vendor on which you are selling books & try to think like your readers. Think independently & with forward looking rather than backwards looking vision. Think like a business person or yes an Internet marketer if that term means producing & marketing books people want to read & how to get it into their hands, rather than only as a writer or artist. Love it or hate it, this industry is just one more example of capitalism & nothing can change that.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

writerlygal said:


> The debate about 'Would anyone care about getting free books?' is hilarious to me.
> 
> Many are going at this from a traditional standpoint, talking about cereal boxes, forgetting that this is a new & specific thing; subscription services.
> 
> ...


I don't use Spotify, and I no longer have Netflix. But if I did have Netflix, and I sat down to watch something that I presume (based on length info provided) to be 2.5 hours long, and then suddenly the show ended after 45 minutes... I would not be happy when another random show begins. Especially if it was only the first of three or four random shows that I didn't ask for.

I would feel cheated.

And the example of the Shakespeare and other physical books/collections doesn't hold water, as you can hold them and see them before purchasing.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Novels sell the best. That is why they are advertised as a "novel" and not a collection.

If somehow collections were to be awarded a higher pay rate than novels, all of a sudden the novel with bonus content would become collections.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

This thread is about the actual arbitration case that Amazon won against those who they considered violated TOS. Not sure how it's become an essential reboot of previous threads, but, whatever.

It really doesn't matter how many different ways you want to interpret the TOS, if you think it's unfair, if you think anyone who discusses it is just jealous/unsuccessful/mean, or if you want to go on and on and on about how your opinion is not being heard. *The fact remains that Amazon won the arbitration suit based upon how AMAZON interpreted their own TOS*. The legal documents of the case (linked to earlier in the thread when it was still on topic) state specifically what actions Amazon took issue with. Endless arguments about what the TOS does or doesn't mean have no bearing on the very real arbitration case that Amazon just won.

As an author, you can choose to take heed of that fact and be aware of the sort of things that Amazon is taking legal action against, or you can ignore the legal action that Amazon took (and won) and continue doing what you want to do. Be informed, read the court documents, and _understand why and under what terms_ Amazon won the case. I think we're all in agreement the TOS is not clear. The court case, however, gives plenty of detail on what Amazon considers legally actionable.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

JulesWright said:


> Novels sell the best. That is why they are advertised as a "novel" and not a collection.
> 
> If somehow collections were to be awarded a higher pay rate than novels, all of a sudden the novel with bonus content would become collections.


See...yes! I'm not certain why there are some posters here stating that readers don't complain over extra content aka stuffed books. Did anyone see Atunah's post? I feel the same way she does. I've said it over and over again that when I buy a book and expect a full story, if I don't get that full story and instead have X # of shorts on my hand, I get annoyed. It's dishonest. I've seen it so so many times in historical romance especially the westerns. It's been happening for ages in that specific subgenre, too. I no longer read/browse through new authors in western romance because of this. The only books I'll read are ones from authors who I know are legit and don't stuff their books. I can't tell you guys how many times I've bought books with ONE blurb for ONE story and it ended up being MANY stories in the file. Not all readers appreciate that so it'd be nice if some folks stopped saying the other.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

writerlygal said:


> The debate about 'Would anyone care about getting free books?' is hilarious to me. It's like 'Do people in general like free things? Check yes or no.'


I like free things, but only if I know I'm getting them and have the chance to say no thanks. If I'm walking through the station with my hands full of heavy luggage and someone at the kiosk offers me a free coffee I'll say no, because it's not convenient to me to take it and I don't want it. There are many situations in which a person might NOT want a free thing. It's not going to be a blanket yes, so it's politer and more conducive to a good customer experience to ask first.


----------



## DaniO (Oct 22, 2012)

writerlygal said:


> The debate about 'Would anyone care about getting free books?' is hilarious to me. It's like 'Do people in general like free things? Check yes or no.'
> 
> Many are going at this from a traditional standpoint, talking about cereal boxes, forgetting that this is a new & specific thing; subscription services.
> 
> ...


What about the other readers who are _buying_ these books not reading them in KU? I guess the KU readers matter more to you because they are earning you more money. KU is huge but there are lots of other readers who still buy their books. _They_ still matter.

Most people like getting free things when they know what they are getting. I had an episode of another show shoved into a series I downloaded from Amazon or Netflix (I've forgotten which one it was). It really annoyed me because I just wanted to watch the series I'd purchased. I had to skip it. Took just seconds, but it did irritate me.

I don't like getting junk mail added to the parcels I get delivered. They are free offers, the chance to try stuff for free but I don't want to get that through the mail. Is it hysterical that I don't like that? I can just dump them in the bin so why do I care? Everyone likes free stuff, right?

There are thousands of free ebooks on Amazon. Would I like Amazon to automatically download them all to my Kindle? No. I subscribe to Bookbub so I can pick and choose which free books I download. They are all free, sure, but that doesn't mean I want them all.

Even if it's free, the readers are still Amazon's customers and stuffing is not great for the customer experience. Amazon have always maintained the customer experience is what they care about. If these books are collections or boxsets, that's how they should be marketed.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

writerlygal said:


> The debate about 'Would anyone care about getting free books?' is hilarious to me. It's like 'Do people in general like free things? Check yes or no.'
> 
> Many are going at this from a traditional standpoint, talking about cereal boxes, forgetting that this is a new & specific thing; subscription services.
> 
> ...


I think several things are being confused here.

Yes, KU and other subscription models are definitely different. However, it's impossible to make a book available through KU without making it available for sale. When we consider the reader experience, we have to consider the possible experience of buyers as well as borrowers.

If I bought a DVD and got two bonus DVDs in the same package, would I be happy? That depends entirely on whether the bonuses were movies I actually wanted to see. It depends even more heavily on whether the movie I was buying turned out to be much shorter than I thought. Divulging that a title contains bonus content in the description doesn't tell me what percentage of the whole the bonus content is. Nor does listing it in the TOC. Potentially, it could still be problematic.

On the other hand, on the KU side, if I'm loving a book, sure, I'd like to read the next one or more by the same author. Since on most readers, I could do that with one or two clicks, anyway, do I really need to have that the next book in the same file? At best, it seems like a relatively small advantage when compared to the potential downsides I've mentioned in earlier posts.

All of that said, I don't really care if people put in bonus content, even a lot of it, as long as the original title and the bonuses are all quality content. However, I would advise a newbie author to stay away from that approach, mostly because the situation is unstable. In a normal company, getting responses from a corporate rep that something was OK would be all the reassurance one would need--but this is Amazon we're talking about. I've read enough threads here to know that reps often reassure people that what they're doing is fine. Then suddenly it isn't fine. People have been smacked down before over things reps assured them were fine. It's also worth noting that a great deal depends on how a question is asked.

In the past, Amazon has often let things go until they mushroomed into a major, public scandal. Then they did something about them, usually in a way that punished innocent authors. People gamed page likes, and they disappeared. People gamed tags, and they disappeared. While I don't think KU will just disappear, I wouldn't consider that an impossible outcome. More likely, Amazon will end up restricting the same title to one entry in KU, a likely outcome if it keeps getting hit by bots and click farms, an even more likely outcome if these shenanigans become the subject of national headlines. That is the reason Amazon moved against purchased reviews originally five or six years ago. Every time a major convulsion like this occurs, some innocent authors get caught in the crossfire.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

EB said:


> This thread is about the actual arbitration case that Amazon won against those who they considered violated TOS. Not sure how it's become an essential reboot of previous threads, but, whatever.
> 
> It really doesn't matter how many different ways you want to interpret the TOS, if you think it's unfair, if you think anyone who discusses it is just jealous/unsuccessful/mean, or if you want to go on and on and on about how your opinion is not being heard. *The fact remains that Amazon won the arbitration suit based upon how AMAZON interpreted their own TOS*. The legal documents of the case (linked to earlier in the thread when it was still on topic) state specifically what actions Amazon took issue with. Endless arguments about what the TOS does or doesn't mean have no bearing on the very real arbitration case that Amazon just won.
> 
> As an author, you can choose to take heed of that fact and be aware of the sort of things that Amazon is taking legal action against, or you can ignore the legal action that Amazon took (and won) and continue doing what you want to do. Be informed, read the court documents, and _understand why and under what terms_ Amazon won the case. I think we're all in agreement the TOS is not clear. The court case, however, gives plenty of detail on what Amazon considers legally actionable.


Speaking personally, the openness of the TOS makes me want to be more cautious, not less so. This is an entity that holds my writing career in its hands, and it wants to be able to go after publishers at will. That's alarming. The case

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981941113576738816 David tweeted indicate that duplication of content was the stuffing-related transgression Amazon chose to focus on. Maybe they wouldn't have gone after Dryan if he hadn't committed other transgressions as well, but I wouldn't want to take chances on that front.


----------



## Shane McRory (Oct 9, 2016)

But isn't it possible to construe those original documents as meaning Dryan produced books with only duplicated content? Not that he had new books with bonus books but that he had five ASINS with only duplicated and undifferentiated content.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Shane McRory said:


> But isn't it possible to construe those original documents as meaning Dryan produced books with only duplicated content? Not that he had new books with bonus books but that he had five ASINS with only duplicated and undifferentiated content.


Good point. I have no idea what his books looked like.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

Speaking of staying on topic with this thread, well, the title of this thread is 'Amazon files suit against book stuffers.' That is incredibly misleading. Amazon merely asked the court to certify an arbitration award in which it settled with someone who did a whole bunch of things, including things that are outright against known & enforced TOS. There is no lawsuit. And it's certainly not against 'book stuffers' in the sense that some are wanting us to believe it is- authors who use bonus books in accordance with Amazon's TOS.

Words matter, ya'all. We're writers. Another thing that matters for topics involving arbitration & 'lawsuits' is contract law, so that's why Amazon's TOS on bonus books are very relevant to this arbitration. As someone else mentioned, Amazon must apply its contract fairly w/ all their vendors. They can't start suing people for things that aren't even in the TOS, & they can't start randomly applying some things against some vendors & not others. There's a whole lot of focus on top 100 stuffed books but no one is commenting about the many books hanging out in the 1,000s rankings that have bonus books, & the many many authors who do it. If Amazon wants to crack down on this or change things, they certainly can, but it will require system-wide notice & change- it can't be discriminately applied against some authors & not others.

The TOS does not say not to use previously published books as bonus content & instead leaves it wide open to interpretation. The rep himself told Shelley it's a 'gray area' although many here like to insist it's black & white. To argue about the interpretation of the TOS is therefore perfectly relevant. But to act as if Amazon has & will sue authors for using previously published bonus books without amending their TOS or giving notice to those authors that what they are doing is construed as now being against the TOS when it never has been before is just a bunch of fearmongering. Sure, Amazon does willy nilly stuff all the time & it's certainly worth keeping this in mind when deciding whether or not to use bonus books. But if Amazon were to do that then they would arguably lose those cases if they try to bring them or if an author brings a case/arbitration against Amazon, because every contract has a duty of good faith & fair dealing that runs with it according to contract law. Yeah, it's Amazon's playground, Amazon's rules, but they have a duty to make those rules known & explain them & enforce them or they will get in a lot of legal trouble [especially in this current anti-Amazon environment] if they try to punish a vendor without doing that. I know there is a lot of anti-Amazon sentiment here & I understand why but there is also a lot of misplaced or indiscriminately applied fear of what Amazon can do to authors. Under the law Amazon is still bound to make & enforce clear rules for its vendors. This is why I'm saying to use your noggin & don't fall prey to a bunch of fearmongering because people can twist things how they want but words & contract law really do matter when it comes to legal issues. A lot of this stems from peoples' agendas to take down big name authors/publishers & doesn't do any good because these authors & businesses know what they are doing & are not, like some would have you think, recklessly risking their pen names & Amazon accounts for a quick buck. Rather they have implemented business practices that work for them & have worked hard to get to the very top & stay there despite lots of other authors gleefully admitting to wanting to take them down.

So. This thread IMO is about some peoples' agenda & desire to twist things into what they want them to be. What we can take from this arbitration is that Amazon doesn't want us uploading tons of duplicative garbage that we then use to clickfarm & bot. None of the many authors who regularly use bonus books have been shown to be doing that or are even accused of having done that by anyone except people throwing around wild accusations they really can't back up because it's most likely not happening. Some of ya'all can try to conflate people legitimately using bonus books in accordance with/ Amazon TOS & practice with the guy who settled this arbitration w/ Amazon all you want, but it doesn't make you right. In fact, to some of us including myself, it seems quite illogical & driven by bias & wishful thinking rather than by reason.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

Ya'all are still completely ignoring my point that your complaint about being hoodwinked by getting free books you didn't know you were getting [the horror] has been addressed & resolved by Amazon. Its TOS now require authors to diclose that there are bonus books included. Therefore readers can decide if they want those books that come with/ free bonus books or not. I am not sure why ppl are ignoring this important point except that ya'all still don't want there to be bonus books. Everyone saying they don't like free stuff that they're not aware is in there is arguing something irrelevant & obsolete.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

jb1111 said:


> The only people who appear to be complaining about most of these stuffed books are other authors.
> 
> I've purchased ebooks that had maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of them filled with excerpts of the author's other offerings -- or what was basically adverts for other books -- and as soon as I was done with the main story, I was done with the book. If the book seemed appropriately priced, I didn't care. Why would it be any different with readers of these stuffed books?


Because readers aren't losing money to other readers when this happens, obviously.

Authors are.

KU is an artificial system, with no basis in a natural market. The incentives are skewed.

The core of the problem is that the system is badly designed to incentivize manipulation, whether innocent, or merely against TOS, or outright fraud. This creates an enforcement problem, and that's what we tend to focus on, but really, the system needs fixing at a fundamental level. I think we all think that to some degree.

I'm sure I'm wasting my pixels, but there are a few simple fixes that would wipe out most of the problems:

1. A much lower cap, say, 1000. Legit authors with box sets might have to break them up. Legit authors with looong books might get a little bit shaved, but there are always outliers, and they could also break up books or focus on retail. Probably fewer than 1/10 of 1% of legit material would be affected.

2. No more than 10% of a KU book could be repeated/duplicate material, period. Combined with a 1000 cap, this would allow for bonus stories or teasers with no problem, but would eliminate most of the other abuses around stuffing.

3. A cap on customer accounts--say, 30,000 page reads per month (one loooong book per day). This would cut down on botted accounts reading millions pf pages per month. Very few customers would ever be affected. If they were, they could always write customer service and ask for more, case by case. 30-day free trial period customer accounts could be capped lower, say at 20K.

4. Closing any remaining loopholes to ensure pages read actually appear to be being read, i.e., each page was displayed for, say, at least one full clock second on the Kindle in question.

I'm not saying these are perfect measures, and I'm sure there will be objections, but if all of these were implemented, the net result would be hugely positive, with very few negatives.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

writerlygal said:


> Everyone saying they don't like free stuff that they're not aware is in there is arguing something irrelevant & obsolete.


You asked the question "do people in general like free things?" I answered that exact question.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

Shane McRory said:


> But isn't it possible to construe those original documents as meaning Dryan produced books with only duplicated content? Not that he had new books with bonus books but that he had five ASINS with only duplicated and undifferentiated content.


It's possible, but I think Becca's point is that we can't be sure of the exact boundaries. Do you want to wander into a location in which there may or may not be quicksand?

Personally, I think Amazon keeps some of its language vague in an effort to get people to err on the side of caution. Obviously, that strategy isn't working, but it could also be aimed at giving Amazon latitude to strike in the event someone comes up with a new way to exploit the system. Drafting really specific rules would be desirable in some ways, but it does also leave open what could prove to be new territory for scammers.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

writerlygal said:


> The debate about 'Would anyone care about getting free books?' is hilarious to me. It's like 'Do people in general like free things? Check yes or no.'


And yet, when I had a permafree novel that had a short story and a novella in the back as bonus content, I got reviews complaining about it. For a free book, with free bonus content.

So I took it out. No more complaints.

Sometimes it's not about free, it's about meeting expectations, and one "aw crap" wipes out ten "attaboys."


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

writerlygal said:


> Ya'all are still completely ignoring my point that your complaint about being hoodwinked by getting free books you didn't know you were getting [the horror] has been addressed & resolved by Amazon. Its TOS now require authors to diclose that there are bonus books included. Therefore readers can decide if they want those books that come with/ free bonus books or not. I am not sure why ppl are ignoring this important point except that ya'all still don't want there to be bonus books. Everyone saying they don't like free stuff that they're not aware is in there is arguing something irrelevant & obsolete.


Our posts may have crossed, but I explained why I don't think that solution entirely solves the problem.


----------



## DaniO (Oct 22, 2012)

Not really, Writerlygal. Amazon made that amendment for a reason. Quite possibly because people were complaining about misleading product descriptions. Surely you can understand why people might not want a product filled with stuff they didn't order. I can understand that some reader might like getting extra books for free. It's not irrelevant or obsolete if it is still catching people unawares. The books don't open on the TOC, do they? And a single mention in the blurb is easily missed.

The thing I don't understand is why pretend it is something it isn't? Amazon have changed there TOS to say specifically it has to be in the TOC. They are making changes. I think there will be more to come.


----------



## DaniO (Oct 22, 2012)

Lydniz said:


> You asked the question "do people in general like free things?" I answered that exact question.


Yes, but it wasn't the right answer, Lydniz


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

David VanDyke said:


> Because readers aren't losing money to other readers when this happens, obviously.
> 
> Authors are.
> 
> ...


Any change in the system would probably result in inconvenience for some, but there has to be some change to make the system work better.

If I were a writer of epic fantasy, I might find 1000 too low, but it might be better to lose a little page credit than to continue operating in a situation in which payouts are artificially lowered by scammers.

Box sets are a nice convenience, but if Amazon gave authors a way to offer a discount to readers who bought a whole series at once, that would probably solve the problem. Of course, under your proposal, writers could have a box set to sell. They just might not want to put it in KU. KU readers could still borrow the individual books. That doesn't seem like the end of the world, either.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

carrie 123 said:


> Yes, but it wasn't the right answer, Lydniz


So I gathered.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

So do only some people have agendas?  Writerlygal, you are working very hard to sell your position here- which you do have a right to do but isn't that an agenda too?

Call me crazy, but no I don't want most free stuff.  Sometimes I just want a novel and not fries too.

I think all products should be described and advertised in as clear a manner as possible - whether it's an ebook or a chainsaw.  I really think as a consumer I have a right to expect that.  And no it isn't clear the way it is done now - marketed as a novel of a certain number of pages that is actually many books or stories and I have to scroll all the way down to the end of the blurb and I'm still not sure what I'm getting.  It is an improvement though.


----------



## SaraBourgeois (Aug 17, 2016)

The rate's been released. Despite the fact that they stripped a bunch of page reads from people, the rate is still abysmal. Guess that wasn't it after all... So, what next?


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

SaraBourgeois said:


> The rate's been released. Despite the fact that they stripped a bunch of page reads from people, the rate is still abysmal. Guess that wasn't it after all... So, what next?


What is the rate? EDIT: NM, just found it: 0.0049.


----------



## SaraBourgeois (Aug 17, 2016)

$0.00449269


----------



## Phxsundog (Jul 19, 2017)

Well, there it is. The sinking rate is another reminder how bad this stuffing free for all and bad  formatting hurts all of us. I get the argument that Amazon determines the rate every month. However, there's an obvious correlation between the rate going up and down and the pages being gamed in mass by one group of shady stuffers. Recall how the rate kept crashing last year and bonus thresholds were pushed to absurd levels by huge books and click to the end tricks. Over 90% of it coming from the Mastermind romance cabal as usual. Things improved for awhile with KU 3. Then the formatting tricks began: triple spacing lines, giant fonts, exclusive books stuffed behind several old ones. And here we are. Again.

The biggest stuffers in romance are also the group using the worst formatting. It's been happening for months. It's safe to assume their deliberately bad formatting skims extra pages they otherwise wouldn't get. Thereby giving them the bonuses and dragging down the rate for everyone.

Forget the bonus book debate for a second. The formatting loopholes used only by this group are costing us all a higher rate by manufacturing extra pages for them. This is what Amazon should be investigating and aggressively attacking. Books intentionally formatted to look like crap purely for gaming reads. You can look at the top 100 any day and find their books to see what I mean about formatting. Same big blue Table of Contents with the bonus books hidden (never listed by chapters and sometimes full books disguised as "sneak peaks"), giant fonts, triple spacing between lines. Oh, and their older books are often normally formatted with Vellum so there's no ignorance argument here. This group is very consciously formatting every new release stuffed up to 3000 pages horribly to game pages. No other reason.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Another thing.  Words do indeed matter.

Example: we have 6 works of fiction.  One is a new novel.  The other 5 pieces of fiction are older stuff from our catalog.

We could either bundle this together and call it a box set - The Bad Boy Romance Collection - and list the 6 titles.  1,300 pages. 

or

We could call it the Brand New Bad Boy Romance Novel and list at the bottom of the description that bonus content is included (FREE books!). 1,300 pages


Which one accurately describes the product and which one is marketing language?


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

JulesWright said:


> Another thing. Words do indeed matter.
> 
> Example: we have 6 works of fiction. One is a new novel. The other 5 pieces of fiction are older stuff from our catalog.
> 
> ...


Both of those examples accurately describe the product.

One might describe the product more completely, but both examples listed are accurate.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> Speaking personally, the openness of the TOS makes me want to be more cautious, not less so. This is an entity that holds my writing career in its hands, and it wants to be able to go after publishers at will. That's alarming. The case
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981941113576738816 David tweeted indicate that duplication of content was the stuffing-related transgression Amazon chose to focus on. Maybe they wouldn't have gone after Dryan if he hadn't committed other transgressions as well, but I wouldn't want to take chances on that front.


Absolutely. The vague TOS also makes me want to make sure I'm doing everything I can to stay compliant. Reading the arbitration case and hearing what Amazon considers a TOS violation and subsequently took action against is eye-opening.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

Okay, well, it's clear that no one is addressing what I said about Amazon's TOS resolving the issue of having to disclose to the reader that what they are borrowing or buying includes bonus books. The only agenda I was trying to push is that it's wrong to use one's own definitions & interpretations of Amazon's vague TOS to attack fellow authors, especially when Amazon's TOS & practice to date have allowed for it. Ya'all are intent on destroying each other w/ these back & forth fights & these misleading statements that don't have a shred of evidence or reasoning behind them. Have fun w/ that. I believe I stated my opinion & gave my advice to others who are reading this. If it helps anyone you're welcome. And if you hate me as someone who/ a differing perspective & just want poke fun at my posts, so be it. I'm out of this thread as it is just redundant at this point. Take care, ya'all.


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> Because readers aren't losing money to other readers when this happens, obviously.
> 
> Authors are.
> 
> ...


I'm on my phone, which makes responding difficult. But I'll give it a try.

1. Lowering the cap didn't work the first time. Doing it a second time won't help either. And authors who are not guilty will be hurt.

2. If length and bonus content are the culprits, why be so generous?

The rule should be--no duplicate content. Make a choice. The three single books in the trilogy can go in--or the box set can. Not both.

3. This would make things horrible worse.

A. It's not the customer's problem. They paid their 9.99 for all they can read. And they want all they can read.

B. This does not limit scammers. Let's say every honest customer only reads honest publishers. That means the reads are capped.

But...

The scammers aren't. They can still make bogus accounts and acquire unlimited reads. Even with a 1 K cap--they will eat your lunch and steal your Amazon bonus.

Hey look! Scammers have all the spots in the top 100.

4. Yes! Yes! Yes! And Yes.


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> KU is an artificial system, with no basis in a natural market. The incentives are skewed.
> 
> The core of the problem is that the system is badly designed to incentivize manipulation, whether innocent, or merely against TOS, or outright fraud. This creates an enforcement problem, and that's what we tend to focus on, but really, the system needs fixing at a fundamental level. I think we all think that to some degree.


Just wanted to add--I strongly agree with that statement.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

writerlygal said:


> Okay, well, it's clear that no one is addressing what I said about Amazon's TOS resolving the issue of having to disclose to the reader that what they are borrowing or buying includes bonus books. The only agenda I was trying to push is that it's wrong to use one's own definitions & interpretations of Amazon's vague TOS to attack fellow authors, especially when Amazon's TOS & practice to date have allowed for it. Ya'all are intent on destroying each other w/ these back & forth fights & these misleading statements that don't have a shred of evidence or reasoning behind them. Have fun w/ that. I believe I stated my opinion & gave my advice to others who are reading this. If it helps anyone you're welcome. And if you hate me as someone who/ a differing perspective & just want poke fun at my posts, so be it. I'm out of this thread as it is just redundant at this point. Take care, ya'all.


I think that the evidence backs you up.

It's apparent that Amazon has a lot of latitude in what they are allowing in their marketplace.


----------



## MClayton (Nov 10, 2010)

I came into this thread thinking I had a clear idea of what "bonus content" meant, but I'm leaving it realizing it's a very gray area. 

In my mind I'd always thought of bonus content as a free short story or preview of the next book, included at the end of the purchased book, clearly listed in the TOC/description, and meant to be an "extra" for the reader. I have a book or two with a short story included in the back - stories I don't sell anywhere else, but include every so often as a "gift" to the reader. I do this because I have readers who've become very invested in the small town setting for one of my series, and they seem to enjoy getting an extra little glimpse (very short, usually 1500 words or so) into the lives of one or more of the characters.

Book stuffing, I'd always assumed, was filling the book up with irrelevant, nonsensical garbage the reader has to wade through or skip over, the purpose of which is to falsely inflate page reads in KU.

But I see from this thread there are many more situations, definitions, and circumstances. FWIW, I don't see boxed sets as "book stuffing" at all, assuming it's a boxed set structured the way a boxed set has historically been structured, with a cover, TOC, and description that tells the reader what they're getting. I tend to see boxed sets as a good deal for readers, because they (historically, anyway), have been a way for readers to buy a whole series at once for less money than buying each book individually. 

I guess all this comes back to the situation being a good experience for the reader, which will probably never be clearly defined because each reader is different. 

I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I don't like extra content that's unrelated to the story I'm reading and takes up considerable space in the book - not even if it's quality content. For example, if I buy a 500 page Jodi Picoult paperback (I still love paperbacks) thinking I can spend a rainy weekend reading it, then find she's filled the last 50 pages with a preview of the next unrelated book (her books are standalones), I'm disappointed. I've become invested in the story I was reading, didn't want it to end, thought I had more to go, and then turn the page to see I've been shoved into a brand new story with brand new people I don't care about. I don't like it, but other readers no doubt do. 

Until Amazon comes up with something concrete, I'll just stick to the rules as I've defined them in my own mind (which, I'm realizing, tends to align pretty closely with what the representative told someone earlier in this thread - ensuring it's a good reading experience for customers who want to buy my books. Edit to add: To the extent that's possible. I can certainly, at least, do everything I can to try to make it an enjoyable experience, while avoiding things that would obviously annoy people.)


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

David VanDyke said:


> And yet, when I had a permafree novel that had a short story and a novella in the back as bonus content, I got reviews complaining about it. For a free book, with free bonus content.
> 
> So I took it out. No more complaints.
> 
> Sometimes it's not about free, it's about meeting expectations, and one "aw crap" wipes out ten "attaboys."


I had something similar. In a 2000w study guide that I gave away for free I had about 200 w of blurbs for other guides. Someone complained that the back matter was way too long. Some folk will complain about anything.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

I have a question for people who know the guide to kindle content inside and out;

Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store

Has that always been there? And what's the difference?


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

MClayton said:


> ...
> I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I don't like extra content that's unrelated to the story I'm reading and takes up considerable space in the book - not even if it's quality content. For example, if I buy a 500 page Jodi Picoult paperback (I still love paperbacks) thinking I can spend a rainy weekend reading it, then find she's filled the last 50 pages with a preview of the next unrelated book (her books are standalones), I'm disappointed. I've become invested in the story I was reading, didn't want it to end, thought I had more to go, and then turn the page to see I've been shoved into a brand new story with brand new people I don't care about. I don't like it, but other readers no doubt do.
> ...


Far from alone. I hate it. Unlike what Writerly Gal says, everybody is not happy to get 'free books'. I can get as many free books as I want, even without being in KU. But they're free only if I value my time at zero. I'm far too old for that. At my age I resent every moment of my time wasted on something I don't specifically CHOOSE to waste it on. I've pretty much stopped reading free anyway- and getting MORE free books foisted on me that I didn't even ask for would just be super annoying.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Sarah Shaw said:


> Far from alone. I hate it. Unlike what Writerly Gal says, everybody is not happy to get 'free books'. I can get as many free books as I want, even without being in KU. But they're free only if I value my time at zero. I'm far too old for that. At my age I resent every moment of my time wasted on something I don't specifically CHOOSE to waste it on. I've pretty much stopped reading free anyway- and getting MORE free books foisted on me that I didn't even ask for would just be super annoying.


I agree.

Free books are everywhere. You can get tons of them right on Amazon. I also read many free classics at Gutenberg, which is awesome. Then there are all the newsletters, facebook groups, etc. that advertise free books.

Also, in KU you can read as much as you want for the monthly fee, so no book you are getting in KU is free. You can read as many of them as you want.

I just want books to be labeled clearly, they are either one or multiple books. If it's one with bonus content then no I don't exactly know what I am getting, or how much of the file is really the main book that is being advertised. If it's a clearly marked boxset and I get 6 novels to read, that's awesome.

If you want to give readers multiple books, to give them more books to show appreciation for your readers and/or as a marketing tool to expose them to more of your work, instead of bonus content you can:

- Link to your other books that are in KU in the back of your book
- Bundle books into a clearly labeled box set
- Give away a starter library of books as an incentive to join your mailing list

In all 3 cases above you know what you are getting

And I did note that having to disclose there was bonus content was an improvement over what there was without the disclosure.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Atlantisatheart said:


> I have a question for people who know the guide to kindle content inside and out;
> 
> Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
> Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store
> ...


Because we had the same arguments around whether it was OK to split novels up in KU1 -- before Amazon responded clearly to the practice and the proliferation of scamlets by dropping KU2 on the community -- that section of the guidelines was copy/pasted in this thread by EAW on Jan 3, 2015. So the wording has been around a while.
http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,205837.msg2866736.html#msg2866736

Still, when the hammer finally came down on another practice (around box sets) that had been in the TOS for a couple of years, those caught were all yelling foul and pointing at the "new rule" as being the cause of all their woes -- only it wasn't new. Just the concerted enforcement of it was. And perhaps the way authors/publishers were forced to interpret it at last.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

PhoenixS said:


> that section of the guidelines was copy/pasted in this thread by EAW on Jan 3, 2015. So the wording has been around a while.


I found it quoted here in October 2013. So the language predates KU stuffing by a good bit.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

FWIW, as a reader, I don't like there to be much of anything 'extra' at the back of a book. If there is, 19 times out of 20 I don't read it. The 20th time, I might skim it if it's something useful like a historical note. 

If it's an 'extra book' or 'sample chapter' I absolutely do NOT read it. Especially sample chapters!  Might just be me, but stuff sticks in my head. If I read that sample chapter and then later am looking at the actual book and check the 'look inside' I might think I've already read it. And then I won't buy it. 

See: for me, I don't 'binge read' series. I prefer to read other things in between. So I'm not interested in reading the next book right after having finished this one.

All that said, I'm not subscribed to KU. I was for a while, but wasn't finding enough books of the quality and type I wanted to read for me to justify the costs. If I think about it I'll get books through KOLL or Prime reading but most of what I've read lately are moderately priced books I purchase, or things I borrow from the library.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

i think there is an actual discomfort/discontent with getting to the end of the novel and seeing the Kindle % has only reached 19% or whatever. The idea that there's that much more left of the story must (I imagine) lead to a lot of annoyance, if not complaints to Amazon and/or bad reviews. I know I get annoyed when I think I have a % left and it turns out the last 10% of what I thought was story was the bibliography, or an interview with the author or something.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Ann in Arlington said:


> See: for me, I don't 'binge read' series. I prefer to read other things in between. So I'm not interested in reading the next book right after having finished this one.


I think you're the anomaly in genre fiction, which in this day and age is based around binge reading.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> FWIW, as a reader, I don't like there to be much of anything 'extra' at the back of a book. If there is, 19 times out of 20 I don't read it. The 20th time, I might skim it if it's something useful like a historical note.
> 
> If it's an 'extra book' or 'sample chapter' I absolutely do NOT read it. Especially sample chapters!  Might just be me, but stuff sticks in my head. If I read that sample chapter and then later am looking at the actual book and check the 'look inside' I might think I've already read it. And then I won't buy it.
> 
> ...


This is me. ^^^



David VanDyke said:


> I think you're the anomaly in genre fiction, which in this day and age is based around binge reading.


Since I'm with Ann, I'm part of the 'anomaly' too. Maybe many people _are_ used to the binge thing (tv, reading, etc.), but there definitely those of us who are NOT part of that group.


----------



## loonlover (Jul 4, 2009)

David VanDyke said:


> I think you're the anomaly in genre fiction, which in this day and age is based around binge reading.


Count me as an anomaly also, then as I agree with Ann and Jena H on not binge reading or reading sample chapters. I also am not happy when I get to say the 85% mark and the book is finished when I thought I had much longer to enjoy the characters in that particular story.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

loonlover said:


> Count me as an anomaly also, then as I agree with Ann and Jena H on not binge reading or reading sample chapters. I also am not happy when I get to say the 85% mark and the book is finished when I thought I had much longer to enjoy the characters in that particular story.


This happened to me just yesterday, with a physical book. Based on where my bookmark was, I knew there should be another 15-20 pages left for me to enjoy. I expected an exciting denouement in which the killer raged, ran amok, threatened the MCs when cornered, etc. But the book ended weakly in three pages, and the remaining 12-15 pages were full of stuff that didn't interest me, including a chapter from another book from the same author. It was disappointing.

ETA: In another post on this thread I responded to someone likening the "bonus material" to more songs on Spotify or shows on Netflix. Regarding Netflix I said that if I sit down expecting a 2.5 hour movie, I would _not_ be pleased if the main attraction ended after 45 minutes, and the remainder of the time is just stuff that I didn't ask for or want.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2018)

GeneDoucette said:


> i think there is an actual discomfort/discontent with getting to the end of the novel and seeing the Kindle % has only reached 19% or whatever. The idea that there's that much more left of the story must (I imagine) lead to a lot of annoyance, if not complaints to Amazon and/or bad reviews. I know I get annoyed when I think I have a % left and it turns out the last 10% of what I thought was story was the bibliography, or an interview with the author or something.


&#128070;&#127995;Yep, me too.
As a reader, the only bonus content that doesn't feel like gratuitous padding to me is a chapter or two of the next book or a book in a new series by the same author as teaser content. At the very least, the book actually being bought/ku-borrowed ought to be 80%+ of the content or it feels like a bait and switch. Yeah, that's an arbitrary number based on personal preference but Zon could/should stipulate that the book being sold under the title at least constitute an overwhelming majority of the content.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Here's the real question though:

Would you have even considered putting a free extra book at the back of your book if there wasn't a nonsense pay-per-page system in place instead of just selling your book?

Not even questioning the ethicality of the thing, but are you really that generous as to give away a whole extra book? Permafree makes sense because loss leaders are a thing, but what benefit is there in giving away a book after the reader is invested in the series already?


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

Puddleduck said:


> Just as a sort of aside, this might be a problem. If you advertise a preorder with the bonus book and someone buys it partly because of that, then if they don't download the book for those few days, so they don't get the book, they could be annoyed and even return it. Also, I don't know about you, but when I see there's an "update" to a book I've purchased, I usually download it, assuming that the author has made typo corrections or in some other way has improved the book, so if I haven't read it yet, I want to read the best, most updated version I can. If I updated a book I'd purchased only to discover that all the "update" was was the removal of part of the book that had made me purchase it in the first place, I'd be very miffed. It's a bit of a bait-and-switch, from the reader's perspective.


Yeah, it's one of those things Amazon really doesn't have a good mechanism for. One could avoid that problem by starting with one edition, unpublishing it (readers who'd already bought could still download) and then publishing without the bonus book under a different ASIN. (That has the potential to split the reviews, though if reviewers of the first product are influenced by the bonus book, maybe the reviews should be split.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

We recently had a thread where a content wholesaler disclosed some details of their business in http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,262612.msg3653213.html#msg3653213 
and a followup post a couple of comments down from that.

Now, I do not know this particular poster or any of the details around their particular transactions or the use to which they put their purchases. I am simply looking at the tactic laid out and extrapolating from there...

So, if I were going to stuff and wanted new and exclusive content to pop into my new titles, but didn't want to pay even $100 per 10,000 words (a penny per word), I could simply buy a catalog of stories/books for $20-30 each, stuff 10 or 15 into 6-8 new books I've had freshly ghostwritten at a penny a word (paying, in essence, less than $600 total per new stuffed title for exclusive 'used' and new content), then market (and incentivize and/or bot) them heavily for 60 days. After 60 days, I'd pull the bonus content from the books, and then reuse it in newly ghostwritten books. I would, of course, be sure that the ghostwritten material had a minimal HEA so I could pass the title off as romance in the lists, but I wouldn't worry too much about whether the bonus stuffing was erotica or erom, especially since erotica can be purchased cheap.

Or maybe I'm a broker of such catalogs, purchasing words at 20% on the penny, and selling to other publishers who don't have the time or inclination to find catalogs of content to buy. I could double or triple my ROI per transaction. And while the content could be sold multiple times, the original author would only ever see that initial one-fifth of a cent per word payment. It would, of course, be in my best interest to encourage/recruit more pennames and more authors needing content into the buy/sell scheme.

Putting aside for now the KDP TOS as well as all the other possible manipulative behavior used to drive sales, borrows and reads, is it just good business treating content purely as commodity? Or is it smart production and marketing -- after all, the content cost is cheap, not gibberish and exclusive to the title it's stuffed in? Or would it do harm to customers or authors?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

PhoenixS said:


> Putting aside for now the KDP TOS as well as all the other possible manipulative behavior used to drive sales, borrows and reads, is it just good business treating content purely as commodity? Or is it smart production and marketing -- after all, the content cost is cheap, not gibberish and exclusive to the title it's stuffed in? Or would it do harm to customers or authors?


My mind is circling around these questions and not really coming up with a clear answer. I think I'm having trouble considering them apart from the question of manipulation. I mean, if there were truly no shady activities going on, and if Amazon's systems always counted page-reads accurately, then readers would pass judgment on content like the stuff levolal buys, just like they do on my books. Either it'd find a reasonable audience, or it wouldn't. That is to say, commodification, in and of itself, doesn't particularly bother me; it's become a cultural constant for us. Commodified content probably isn't going to appeal to me, but if it appeals to someone else, who am I to judge? Buuut I'm getting the sense that we'll never be confident manipulation isn't happening. Similarly, we may never have full confidence in the competence of Amazon's systems. Not sure where that leaves us, other than in not a good situation.


----------



## Roman (Jun 16, 2015)

I published my last children's ebooks when everyone was trying to figure out if Amazon killed of the whole children's book indie market. And yes, they did. 

They used KU to force authors to drop the price of their children's ebooks to 1$ in order to compete with everyone who was only trying to profit from borrows. It became too difficult to sell children's ebooks for 3$ and I had to lower my prices as well. Not participating in KU also meant lower visibility which made it harder to compete as well.

My books still reach #1 spots in the picture book categories on the international Amazon websites but the earnings are so meagre that I won't produce kindle books again and if I check the charts it seems that pretty much everyone thinks like me because there has barely been anything new since the amazing KU2 was launched.

At that time people were trying to figure out how to get a few more cents from their books and one of the "tricks" was to add some advertisements for other books at the end. Not entire books, just ads. Another idea was to sell collections which contain three or four books.

I wonder if Amazon would consider the ads as book stuffing but they are free to stuff their own pockets with the entire 12 cents I get when someone borrows a book which was in production for 8 months and took more than 600 emails to get published.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Jena H said:


> This is me. ^^^
> 
> Since I'm with Ann, I'm part of the 'anomaly' too. Maybe many people _are_ used to the binge thing (tv, reading, etc.), but there definitely those of us who are NOT part of that group.


Sure, but if you want to sell, catering to the binge is a statistically better bet. Series are all the rage right now.

I'd argue they always have been, but the traditional world always under-recognized and under-credited the trend. Many of the top writers of all time built their careers on series--Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie, Rowling. Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys spawned innumerable imitators in children's genre fiction. Not that there are not blockbuster standalones, but the surer bet is on series.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Here's the real question though:
> 
> Would you have even considered putting a free extra book at the back of your book if there wasn't a nonsense pay-per-page system in place instead of just selling your book?
> 
> Not even questioning the ethicality of the thing, but are you really that generous as to give away a whole extra book? Permafree makes sense because loss leaders are a thing, but what benefit is there in giving away a book after the reader is invested in the series already?


Exactly. KU skews the natural marketplace effect, encouraging stuffing any sort of padding into a book in hopes of getting those pages "read."


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

TwistedTales said:


> The problem with commodification is it pushes down prices. Now, you might say so what, if that's what the market are prepared to pay, then what's the issue? There isn't one providing it doesn't kill off the non commodity product, which unfortunately it often does. If commodity takes up 90% of the customers/revenue/margin, that doesn't leave a lot of room for the rest.


In a natural market, this balances itself out. No, not everyone is happy but at least the cheap product sold in volume only makes a small amount per sale, i.e. cheap products tend to have thin margins.

But KU skews that by providing huge, artificially inflated margins on a cheap product. Nowhere else can the list price be 99c but the payout be almost $15. It's very hard to enforce limits on tactics that provide payouts 30x higher than retail, as long as you're willing to use shady tactics or outright scam.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

TT and David, I agree with you both about KU's warping of the indie book market. Good points. Without KU, or with a different form of KU, non-commodified books would be more visible and could attract the readers who prefer them, allowing both types of book to coexist viably, but the current system makes visibility difficult, especially for newer authors who can't get the ball rolling with their mailing lists or social media presence. I'm sure it does drive prices down and push people out of the business. Perhaps just in romance/erotica, at this point, but it could spread. As I recall, one of levolal's more piquant comments (which I edited) claimed it wasn't nearly as easy to move purchased content in several other genres, but I wonder if that's just because he/she is less practiced at identifying workable content for those markets. I do think most genres have their formulas.

On the question of manipulation, it seems to me the smartest way for a doesn't-give-a-fig-about-books publisher to take advantage of KU would be to purchase the cheapest product that's just good enough to induce a good chunk of people to read the full 3,000 pages and then to work more or less within the rules of the system, so that page-reads, books, and accounts aren't lost to Amazon's enforcement machine. I wonder if we're seeing a move toward that model, at this point. It's not something that'd be easy to resist because there might not be TOS breakage that rises to the level of prompting action from Amazon (some level of duplication in stuffing, for instance). What manipulation occurs might be outside Amazon's purview -- it's not Amazon's job to enforce CAN-SPAM, for instance, or to see to it that ghostwriters are decently compensated.

As authors, we wouldn't be in a good position to do anything about such a situation. If everyone who wasn't commodifying left KU at once, that might force changes, but any non-commodity producers who chose to stay in while their peers left would reap the benefits of being the only ones offering non-commodity books within KU. That'd be a huge inducement to stay in, so some would; others would see that happening and return. All that's to say, solutions that depend on people choosing not to do the things people always do just are not workable. People seize advantages over others; people fight tooth and nail to defend their interests. Not every person, but enough people to sink any movement that depends on everyone just opting not to do X, Y, or Z out of the goodness of their hearts.

So ... dunno. We may be dependent on Amazon's seeing an advantage in keeping a diverse array of books -- including books by new indie authors -- visible in KU and thus taking steps to limit commodification within the program.


----------



## Seneca42 (Dec 11, 2016)

Edward M. Grant said:


> KU doesn't exist to make a profit. It exists to get readers to come to Amazon for free books, so they'll buy toilet paper while they're there.


I'd love to know where this truth came from. Everyone accepts this as fact when there's no evidence that's the intent of KU.

If KU is anything it's:

1) a legacy division of the business (ie. books) that they are sentimental about
2) is one plank in their 360-degree media content strategy (books, movies, tv, music)
3) A commodification vehicle to attempt to apply pressure to the TP industry and their competitors (ie. a monopolization play)

But I've never ever seen any evidence that KU is designed to drive broader .com buying patterns. I'd be shocked if even 1% of KU users were non-amazon customers prior to getting a kindle who subsequently became prime members because KU introduced them into the amazon ecosystem.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Seneca42 said:


> I'd love to know where this truth came from. Everyone accepts this as fact when there's no evidence that's the intent of KU.
> 
> If KU is anything it's:
> 
> ...


If we're gonna talk about needing proof of our assertions...


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Seneca42 said:


> I'd love to know where this truth came from. Everyone accepts this as fact when there's no evidence that's the intent of KU.


I suspect it's based on the belief (which may be incorrect) that the vast majority of KU members read more than then the 2,000some pages their $10/month covers. If Amazon is subsidizing KU because the fees don't cover the program's cost, then it must have a reason for doing so. The candidate reasons are limited. Making the amoebalike Amazon ecosystem a more pervasive part of people's lives doesn't seem like a bad candidate to me. I know that I now routinely think of buying things via Amazon that I used to put on my supermarket or drugstore shopping lists. I can't pin that specifically on KU, of course, but it's also hard to separate out the influences of all the various ways Amazon has put itself front and center in my buying habits. It's gotten to the point where "Amazon" is the first thing that pops to mind whenever I think, "I need ...," and I have a feeling that is exactly how Jeff Bezos would like all of us to operate.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

It was completely obvious from the very behinning of the original KU that it was insane for a 10 page short story to be paid the same as a full length novel but it still took forever for Amazon to respond.  If the cheap produced stuff does take over too much I do think romance readers who are KU subscribers will start complaining because most of them are not going to like that stuff but who knows how long that will take.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

TwistedTales said:


> I'm so tired of hearing that argument. Prime offers free shipping and that's close to all the inducement anyone needs, but believe what you will. It's not worth arguing about.


Prime is a lot more expensive than KU. In fact, an awful lot of KU subscriptions were given away for free.

Amazon keep saying they're adding more money to the KU pot to pay out to authors. While we have no idea whether that bears any resemblance to the truth, if it does, that means they're losing money on it. So they're doing it for a reason other than making money on that service. It's a loss-leader of some kind, not a way to make a profit. Which is why they can continue to offer terms that would be unaffordable to a company trying to make a business in the subscription market (e.g. the other services that have shut down or limited the amount that readers are allowed to read each month).

In fact, as I understand it, Amazon loses money on pretty much all of its business other than 'The Cloud'. Their 'cloud' services fund the losses they make elsewhere.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Becca Mills said:


> I suspect it's based on the belief (which may be incorrect) that the vast majority of KU members read more than then the 2,000some pages their $10/month covers. If Amazon is subsidizing KU because the fees don't cover the program's cost, then it must have a reason for doing so.


There's interesting though speculative data on Written Word Media. Some quick takeaways (data from February 2017):

In February 2017 there were an estimated 3,360,000,000 KENP pages read, equal to 12,440,000 full novels (avg. 250 pages).

The *average* KU subscriber reads five books a month.

There are about 2,488,000 *active* KU subscribers, or 3,000,000 total including non-active, earning the KU pot nearly $30,000,000 per month.

Based on these estimates (which don't match KDP numbers from their monthly fund newsletter--I'm never sure what those numbers mean exactly), KU is probably self-sustaining revenue-wise.

In any subscription scheme, there will always be a sizeable portion of subscribers that seldom or never partake of their memberships. They sign-up and forget. I read about thirty percent of Netflix subscribers fail to login in monthly. Witten Media's estimate of half a million non-active KU subscribers is probably accurate. They don't earn authors anything, so for Amazon, it's like a $5,000,000 bonus.

https://www.writtenwordmedia.com/2017/04/13/kindle-unlimited-subscribers/


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Dpock said:


> There's interesting though speculative data on Written Word Media. Some quick takeaways (data from February 2017):
> 
> In February 2017 there were an estimated 3,360,000,000 KENP pages read, equal to 12,440,000 full novels (avg. 250 pages).
> 
> ...


Thought-provoking, Dpock, thanks. I found this particular bit interesting:



> On the day that we checked (3/28/17), 60% of the best selling titles on the Amazon paid charts were enrolled in KU. With 88% of the romances, 76% of the fantasy, and 58% of the Mystery/Thriller titles being available through KU.


The percentage of the fantasy list in KU is the same today, a year later.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

TwistedTales said:


> Their assumptions are guesses like everyone else's. Until Amazon publish the data, and even then I'm not sure they wouldn't spin the truth, no one will ever know. It all comes down to what you want to believe and that's usually whatever serves your world view.


"Educated" guesses, based on a transparent methodology rooted in hard but slim data. It's nothing to be dismissive about, really. Just toss it on the broader pile of speculations unraveling in these threads.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

The biggest book stuffers are still stuffing their books and making all star bonuses in KU. The lawsuit was likely about botting vs. stuffing. If Amazon were serious about stopping stuffers, the romance bestsellers wouldn't be filled with them and their stuffed books -- many of which have #1 bestseller tags and boasts about being All Stars. 

I give up. 

It's obvious only authors care about this issue. Not readers and not Amazon. Amazon wants to keep the whale readers -- aka romance readers -- in the store and KU with its stuffed romance novels is a way to do that. Those whale reader romance readers get all they can eat in romance for $10 and can spend the rest of their disposable income in the Anything Store (tm). Before, they had to buy books or pick up free books, which might mean they could only buy 10 99c books a month. Now, they can read 30 if they want. 

Clearly, Amazon sees romance as a whole different kettle of fish from the other genres. Where Scribd balked at romance subscribers, Amazon said, "Hell yes. Let them in. We'll give them access to all the books they can read for $10 and then they can buy toilet paper and toasters from the Amazon store."

*grumble*


----------



## Hoop (Nov 22, 2014)

sela said:


> The lawsuit was likely about botting vs. stuffing.


This was painfully obvious from day one to anyone who uses logic. 
The problem wasn't that people are creating products with lots of pages to read, the problem was that people were automating the page turns to make a profit. Amazon will pay money for readers to be pleased with their reading experience and therefore, with Amazon itself. That was the entire point of starting KU to begin with. What Amazon won't pay for is someone automating the process. That's fraud.

But the Righteous Crusaders Against Bonus Content don't operate on logic.

It's pure and simple crab bucket mentality, weaponized.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Hoop said:


> This was painfully obvious from day one to anyone who uses logic.
> The problem wasn't that people are creating products with lots of pages to read, the problem was that people were automating the page turns to make a profit. Amazon will pay money for readers to be pleased with their reading experience and therefore, with Amazon itself. That was the entire point of starting KU to begin with. What Amazon won't pay for is someone automating the process. That's fraud.
> 
> But the Righteous Crusaders Against Bonus Content don't operate on logic.
> ...


I don't think that's fair. I agree that bonus content is clearly allowed but it's also horribly unfair to authors who don't use bonus content, which is most genres that aren't sexy romance, as well as most romance authors who charge more than .99, and plenty of .99 romance authors who just don't like it.

It's not about being jealous. The system is straight up bad. People are desperate for it to change so they're seeing else they want to see.

TBH, anytime someone starts accusing their opponents of jealously I roll my eyes. You don't have to be jealous to take issue with things and even if your are jealous, so what? You can be jealous and still see that something is an issue.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

I don't see how it's jealousy.  Anyone can stuff a book if they want to. It's not like those who aren't doing it are incapable.  It doesn't take any skill.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Crystal_ said:


> I don't think that's fair. I agree that bonus content is clearly allowed but it's also horribly unfair to authors who don't use bonus content, which is most genres that aren't sexy romance, as well as most romance authors who charge more than .99, and plenty of .99 romance authors who just don't like it.


There's a chance the bonus stuffers are screwing themselves. If they're using their older titles for stuffing, the reader may have already read them, so they only read the new book, earning the author just the short read or $0.35 if purchased. If they haven't read the stuffed books, they no longer have the need to download them, losing the author rank-boosts on older titles. I have noticed a steep fall off in rank on book stuffers back catalogs. Unless they've got huge ad budgets, authors who stuff are losing visibility for their entire shelf each time they publish.


----------



## MmmmmPie (Jun 23, 2015)

Hoop said:


> But the Righteous Crusaders Against Bonus Content don't operate on logic.
> 
> It's pure and simple crab bucket mentality, weaponized.
> 
> _Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


Uh-huh. That must be it. It certainly can't be due to the realization that if a romance fan reads only four of these stuffed books a month, the stuffer earns nearly 60 bucks from a 10-dollar customer. Even worse, let's say the romance fan skims, bounces around through the TOC, or skips to the end of this stuffed book in order to check out the "new exclusive" story, that means the reader might consume two of these stuffed "books" a week, or much more. Even at only two a week, this increases the total "consumed" to $120 a month. Reminder: This is from ONE reader who's paying just under ten bucks.

Who makes up that lost money? Amazon? Maybe a little, especially as they earn replacement money through their ads. But the brunt of this loss is born by other authors. Some will say, "Nah, it's borne by people who have the subscriptions, but underconsume." No doubt, there are plenty of readers like this, but it would take five of them to make up for a single reader as outlined above.

How on Earth is this sustainable?

Math. It's funny how those with an agenda choose to ignore it.


----------



## 98368 (Sep 4, 2017)

I'm missing something here. I thought Amazon paid only for actual pages read. And there was that whole page-flip thing a few months ago, with many people saying that they weren't getting paid for page reads since page-flip had somehow screwed it up. How are these book-stuffers (btw, a term I was unfamiliar with until this thread) getting paid for all these pages if they're not being read?


----------



## eroticatorium (May 6, 2016)

RTW said:


> I'm missing something here. I thought Amazon paid only for actual pages read. And there was that whole page-flip thing a few months ago, with many people saying that they weren't getting paid for page reads since page-flip had somehow screwed it up. How are these book-stuffers (btw, a term I was unfamiliar with until this thread) getting paid for all these pages if they're not being read?


Not everyone reads in PageFlip. And the author can't "read" his own books anymore, not even in CloudReader (or at least I can't). But other readers do read it, or maybe the scammer's compatriots, but either way, there are non-author people reading the ebook without PageFlip.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Hoop said:


> This was painfully obvious from day one to anyone who uses logic.
> The problem wasn't that people are creating products with lots of pages to read, the problem was that people were automating the page turns to make a profit. Amazon will pay money for readers to be pleased with their reading experience and therefore, with Amazon itself. That was the entire point of starting KU to begin with. What Amazon won't pay for is someone automating the process. That's fraud.
> 
> But the Righteous Crusaders Against Bonus Content don't operate on logic.
> ...


It's not envy - it's about Amazon changing the playing field in a way that some of us think harms romance authors in particular and KU authors overall because it shifts the playing field in a way that -- I believe -- devalues books and makes it harder to earn a living.

In no other genre are KU authors stuffing their books. Only romance authors are, from what I can see. Why is that? What is it about the romance genre that makes stuffing so much more appealing to the stuffer authors than to authors in other genres? It's the whale readers that dominate in romance.

Before KU, romance books were treated like any other book in the store. They were sold as individual units for a price and the author got that price for that title, based on the pricing scheme Amazon developed. The subscription model screwed everything up and largely it's the creator who pays the price - most particularly for romance authors since our readers are more likely to be whale readers who read several books a week -- some of them a book a day. Before KU, those whale readers fed their habit by buying cheap books, but after, they probably spend a lot less on books and spend more in the Amazon store in general.

The solution as seen by the stuffers, whose business model is to find every possible loophole in order to make as much money as possible, was to stuff each new title with all the old titles in the hopes of getting unearned page reads.

ETA: Now, the biggest stuffers are stuffing several old books, mixing in new (or retired) titles and sneak previews at the end. They are also noting that they include bonus content, so they are complying more with the TOS. However, I am not convinced that they are still not double dipping and getting added page reads because of online reading where people slide to the back to get sneak previews, thus yielding a full page read through. Whatever the case, they are capitalizing on loopholes in the TOS (or lax policing of TOS by Amazon) to get extra KU payout via double dipping and the online reader loophole.

I don't stuff, not because I'm stupid and envious, but because the way I read the TOS, stuffing is not permitted (and I've had a rep tell me as much) and I'm the kind of person who tries to obey the rules because doing so is a good thing in and of itself. I was raised by a military father who took following rules seriously and I guess it must have warped me because I just can't cheat, even if that makes me a sucker for not capitalizing on my big backlist. I can't help but think that Amazon is going to bring the hammer down at some point and I don't want to get caught. This isn't a side hustle for me. It's my livelihood. I don't want to risk it by trying a grey-hat technique that breaks the TOS even if Amazon isn't policing the TOS effectively.

If Amazon came out and said that stuffing an entire backlist into each new release was kosher, I might be inclined to try it out because if you don't adapt, you're usually toast in the business world, but I am not convinced it is kosher.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

I'm always amazed with the people who claim "envy" or "jealousy" motivate others... it says a lot about the accuser.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Hoop. To repeat,



Becca Mills said:


> Folks ...
> 
> *1) The motivations of David G. and other authors who have been pursuing the stuffing issue should not be impugned.*
> 
> 2) The choice to join KB anonymously solely for the point of articulating a pro-stuffing position in this thread should not be used as a point of attack.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Myles (Apr 17, 2018)

Better late than never - although some of us were already betting on the "never" possibility.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

RPatton said:


> Despite what the thread subject says, Amazon did _not_ file a suit. Arbitration is not the same as filing a lawsuit. It is an alternate dispute resolution and has different standards than a lawsuit. Amazon filed a claim to validate an arbitration award. The judge doesn't look at the merit of the arguments, the judge basically looks at the impartiality of the arbiter and that's it. In this filing, the details of the claim don't say anything about bonus content or the amount of content, it says duplicate content and it doesn't even define what Amazon considers duplicate content. If Amazon didn't file a claim to validate the award, the award would not be enforceable.


Exactly. This is a well reasoned post.

The reason I question the motivations of people equating stuffing w/ scamming is that they seem to be seeing what they want to see, while accusing stuffers of doing the same. Ppl on both sides of the issue are seeing what they want & Amazon has remained purposefully gray about it, even up until the last response that Shelley received & posted in which I believe the rep used the words 'it's a gray area' or something to that effect.

In the era of 'fake news,' when ppl post & share something claiming that it is what it isn't, I think it's important to clarify these things. You're right that Amazon did not file a lawsuit against stuffers. Amazon filed a request to certify an arbitration award that was obtained via settlement w/ a guy who had done all sorts of crazy stuff including uploading 'duplicate content' for the purpose of artificially inflating page reads through botting & clickfarms. The guy could have been a 3,000 word document full of gibberish [not 'low quality' romance books but straight up nonsense] as 10,000 new books & then had his bots or clickfarm ppl scroll to the end of each of those books to get page read credits for all those pages. Or if it was before Amazon could tell what pages were read then he could just have them click to the last link in the TOC [I believe the arbitration docs also said he put a prohibited link in the book itself that jumped to the end to win a prize]. If that guy had a lawyer [not sure if he did], I bet he or she would argue that Amazon is the one paying authors for pages read based on a faulty system in which Amazon can't even tell which pages are read- to me that is dealing w/ vendors in bad faith & misrepresentation, & might be why Amazon settled for so little... did they really want to have discovery to get into the way in which they know or didn't know back then how pages were read yet were paying authors based on that? It can't come w/ unclean hands & expect to win arbitration, which is why I think they settled w/ this guy for the little they could get & were done w/ it & as you point out, filing to certify their arbitration award based on that settlement is just a technicality that had to go through the process to be certified, rather than any kind of a new lawsuit filed or any kind of case actually decided on its merits.

But anyway, my point is that people who are using this case to say it means Amazon filed lawsuits against book stuffers, could be being purposefully misleading for whatever reason, & we should all look at this situation w/ the reason & scrutiny it deserves instead of rushing to agree it means what we want it to mean.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

writerlygal said:


> Exactly. This is a well reasoned post.
> 
> The reason I question the motivations of people equating stuffing w/ scamming is that they seem to be seeing what they want to see, while accusing stuffers of doing the same. Ppl on both sides of the issue are seeing what they want & Amazon has remained purposefully gray about it, even up until the last response that Shelley received & posted in which I believe the rep used the words 'it's a gray area' or something to that effect.
> 
> ...


I think several people have posted responses from Amazon reps. Some of them were a lot more decisive than the one you cite.

That said, Amazon could have been clearer, and it could have done so much sooner. It could also have run KU better in the first place. I doubt anyone here is going to disagree with you on any of those points.

The question now is where do we go from here? If I had to give advice to a newbie, I'd say, "Stay away from stuffing." Why? Because, even if it is a gray area, Amazon has a habit of sorting gray into black and white without warning. For example, think about what happened to the TOC at the end issue. Yes, that was a device used by scammers, but it was also used by legitimate authors, mostly to avoid taking up lots of space in the Look Inside. Abruptly, Amazon decided the practice was wrong and lashed out at everyone. Innocent authors had their books pulled from sale in the midst of Bookbub promos, for example. Generally, the issue got straightened out after a great deal of unnecessary stress. It does, however, serve as a warning against taking the status quo for granted. What is permitted or in a gray area today may be forbidden tomorrow, particularly if scammers exploit the practice.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

For this reader, if I buy a book, I expect at least 95% to be the book I bought. I'm o.k. with limited front matter -- other books in the series, say -- and limited backmatter -- historical notes. I know a lot of people put a sample chapter of something else they've written --I'd prefer they didn't because I never read it but as long as its inclusion doesn't mean the actual length of the actual book I want to read is thereby misrepresented, I don't much care.

A book that was only 55% actual book with the rest being chapters or whole content from other books would not make me happy. If it's noted as such in the advertising copy/blurb, I probably won't buy it. If I find it as a surprise, I'm going to rate it down.

N.B. This is My opinion, only.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

RPatton said:


> So what exactly is stuffing? Is it excessive bonus content? Then what constitutes excessive? Personally, I lean towards the percentage definition and would say any previously published content that exceeds 55% of the entire content of a new release could fairly be called stuffing. And while some people would disagree and say that number is too low or too high, it at least takes into consideration genuine bonus content and separating it from those who might be exploiting the concept of bonus content.


I don't think people are going to be able to agree on a definition. 

Personally, I'd be more concerned about duplication of content and lack of clear labeling than about length. I doubt anyone would have a problem with someone publishing _Bad Boy Collection 1_, _Bad Boy Collection 2_, etc., with all the content in each collection being unique to that one book. Such books would just be omnibuses or boxed sets. What makes something "stuffed," for me, is the combination of unclear labeling and partially or fully duplicated content.


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

RPatton said:


> So what exactly is stuffing? Is it excessive bonus content? Then what constitutes excessive?


For me, bonus content is something that's relevant to the headline book: historical notes, other books in the series, glossary/maps/appendices, a snippet of the next book, author biog, something about how the book came to be written, etc.

Stuffing is unrelated or very loosely related material that's put in purely to ramp up the number of pages read.

But if you ask 100 authors, you'll get 100 different answers.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Becca Mills said:


> I don't think people are going to be able to agree on a definition.
> 
> Personally, I'd be more concerned about duplication of content and lack of clear labeling than about length. I doubt anyone would have a problem with someone publishing _Bad Boy Collection 1_, _Bad Boy Collection 2_, etc., with all the content in each collection being unique to that one book. Such books would just be omnibuses or boxed sets. What makes something "stuffed," for me, is the combination of unclear labeling and partially or fully duplicated content.


I totally agree with the above.

Part of it also could be a dissonance for what is seen in other genres. Many of us are really are not used to seeing bonus content, so it might not seem as normal. I read widely, mostly in fantasy and mystery, and never see bonus content. I have also been under the impression that readers are very sensitive to a book ending prematurely, and that isn't even considering bonus content. That's just the regular back matter! It could be that is mainly anecdotal from writers talking about it if they see complaints, whereas they are less likely to mention positive things. However, I have also seen complaints in some reviews. It does seem its something readers are very sensitive about, so that is another reason why it's so surprising to see it being well-received in romance - at least among part of the readership. It could be that it just hasn't hit other genres yet and some readers might like it. Talking about bonus content being up to 50% of the book seems quite extreme to me, but might not seem that extreme to those who are used to seeing it.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

RPatton said:


> I am really not trying to be argumentative here. However, i think the biggest issue is that everyone's definition of stuffing is different. Is a single bonus novel considered stuffing? 2? 3? Or is it a percentage? Where is the line? My guess is that while some people might grumble about a single bonus novel or novella, they wouldn't necessarily call it stuffing. At some point bonus content became conflated with stuffing and the words became interchangeable, even though they might not be. Stuffing is associated with scammers (rightfully so or not, I really don't want to debate about) and once stuffing became conflated with bonus content (reasonable or not) it puts people on the defensive and makes any kind of constructive discussion nearly impossible.
> 
> I was given advice once about bonus content. If I chose to include it, I should make sure that it makes up less than 50% of the entire content. So the original novel should be > or = to 51% and bonus content should be < or =49%. Whether that includes 2 novels or 3 wouldn't matter as long as the original content is at least 1% greater than any bonus content.
> 
> ...


Yes, a common definition would probably be good, but I'd think I'd be inclined to set the bar much lower. If we're thinking about the way in which bonus is used in other contexts, it almost never reaches the point at which it comes close to exceeding the nonbonus content. Pre-KU, bonus content was understood to be a preview or a short story following a novel--not a whole novel in its own right. From what I've seen, it's the same way in retail. Any kind of bonus attached to a purchase is substantially less than the purchase itself. That's also true of bonus content on DVDs and Blu-Rays. For instance, a DVD of a series might include a "bonus" episode from a crossover with another series--but it wouldn't include a whole bonus season of that other series. It might include extras about how the movie or series was made, and some of those can be pretty long, but they are clearly subordinate to the main content and would have no commercial value without it. That's not true of entire novels.

In any case, my original point was about how to keep safe from Amazon's abrupt and bipolar policy shifts. Bonuses of the type that I've described aren't likely to be targeted. What you're talking about--pairing a 500 page novel with a 499 page "bonus" novel--seems a lot riskier. That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to accuse everyone who does something like that of an ethical violation. I'm just saying it's less safe than a more traditional use of the term _bonus_ would be.

Another good litmus test of whether something is bonus content in the traditional sense would be whether or not someone would do if it KU did not exist. Would anyone put out two novels for the price of one on a regular basis? No. I can see that as an occasional promo (like the $0.99 box sets), but not as something people would do permanently.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

kw3000 said:


> Anything you wouldn't add to a book - were you not financially incentivized to do so - is stuffing.


Yeah, that's an important, though subjective, definition.

In print, stuffing would be de-incentivized. Adding things to a print book adds cost for printing and shipping, so it had better have a positive ROI, e.g., something to make readers happy or get them to buy another book.

It's only the artificial system of KU that incentivizes material that doesn't otherwise add value to the content.

Duplicate content could be considered stuffing if it's likely to be downloaded multiple times by the same reader. For example, if the standard ABC-BCA-CAB method of stuffing a series was used, readers would be very likely to find themselves downloading a book with a lot of content they've seen before. That would also fall under the "poor customer experience" heading.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

RPatton said:


> I am really not trying to be argumentative here. However, i think the biggest issue is that everyone's definition of stuffing is different.


I don't agree. It doesn't matter what everyone's definition of stuffing is, or coming to any agreement on it. What matters is that Amazon won arbitration on what _Amazon considers a violation of their TOS_, and then Amazon filed to enforce the arbitration decision. How any of us want to define "stuffing" isn't really the issue. Each author needs to read the arbitration documents, understand what behaviors Amazon cracked down on and filed the arbitration suit about (and won the arbitration based on), and decide for themselves how to proceed with their own careers.

Read the arbitration case, understand what Amazon took issue with, and make your choice to stay clear of those behaviors, or don't. <shrug> Make up your own definitions of what skirts the line or what doesn't. Argue that it wasn't a real court case or whatever. All of the arguing in the world about the definition of "stuffing" doesn't change the fact that Amazon took issue with *very specific tactics, which they detailed in the arbitration case*, and that they were the victor in that arbitration case.

If you are an author and want to ensure your good standing with Amazon, then read the case and simply make sure you steer clear of tactics Amazon took issue with.

If you are an author and want to skirt the line with what Amazon has specifically listed as actionable tactics, then that is your choice.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

I'm amazed by how long this thread is... let me sum up: Readers don't like stuffing! Isn't that all that matters?

I want the book I downloaded. I don't want a bonus book. I am perfectly happy (and quite enjoy) finding the first chapter of the next book at the end to entice me to read it. That is all.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

kw3000 said:


> Anything you wouldn't add to a book - were you not financially incentivized to do so - is stuffing.


I can imagine making decisions designed to maximize profit in KU while still remaining in white-hat territory. For instance, assuming the 3,000-KENP limit stays in place, and assuming I had a completed series of novels (which I don't), I might consider packing up the entire series into a clearly labeled omnibus, and making only the omnibus available in KU. Omnibus-only would be an awful decision outside KU, as someone would have to spring for an expensive set to even read Book 1. It'd make more sense to use a free or $.99 Book 1 funnel to the series. But inside KU, the omnibus's high sale price wouldn't matter, and having everything in one book would maximize the chances of read-through by removing the download-the-next-book step. Unless there's some sort of problem that's not occurring to me (?), sales-oriented adaptations like that one don't strike me as nefarious.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> I can imagine making decisions designed to maximize profit in KU while still remaining in white-hat territory. For instance, assuming the 3,000-KENP limit stays in place, and assuming I had a completed series of novels (which I don't), I might consider packing up the entire series into a clearly labeled omnibus, and making only the omnibus available in KU. Omnibus-only would be an awful decision outside KU, as someone would have to spring for an expensive set to even read Book 1. It'd make more sense to use a free or $.99 Book 1 funnel to the series. But inside KU, the omnibus's high sale price wouldn't matter, and having everything in one book would maximize the chances of read-through by removing the download-the-next-book step. Unless there's some sort of problem that's not occurring to me (?), sales-oriented adaptations like that one don't strike me as nefarious.


It might not be nefarious, but it wouldn't be the best business decision (unless KU reads make up the vast, vast majority of your income), as you probably wouldn't sell many copies of the book, and under Amazon's TOS you couldn't have the separate books wide, so you'd be relying entirely on KU members.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Lydniz said:


> It might not be nefarious, but it wouldn't be the best business decision (unless KU reads make up the vast, vast majority of your income), as you probably wouldn't sell many copies of the book, and under Amazon's TOS you couldn't have the separate books wide, so you'd be relying entirely on KU members.


Yeah, there's the downside.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Update:

On 1/2/19, a US federal judge confirmed Amazon's arbitration award in its case against Jake Dryan of Green Publishing.

Law 360 (Paywall, just posting for the headline)

https://www.law360.com/articles/1114842

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/24124083/Amazon_Digital_Services,_LLC_v_Green_Publishing,_Ltd_et_al

Article on the arbitration:

https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-tries-to-snuff-out-a-bunch-of-kindle-publishing-scams/

Arbitration demand:

https://www.scribd.com/document/358287153/Dryan-Arbitration-Demand


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

In the filing (Dryan Arbitration Demand) it reads:

_One of these accounts engaged in hyperlink abuse in violation of Amazon's rules and policies. This is a practice (now blocked by Amazon) in which KDP authors include, in the first few pages of a book, hyperlinks that, if clicked, bring readers to the end of books to artificially increase the number of pages ostensibly read._

What does Amazon mean by "This is a practice (now blocked by Amazon)"?

The reason for the question is I have links in my TOC to the end of my books for signing up to my mailing list and "About The Author".


----------



## PermaStudent (Apr 21, 2015)

Dpock said:


> In the filing (Dryan Arbitration Demand) it reads:
> 
> _One of these accounts engaged in hyperlink abuse in violation of Amazon's rules and policies. This is a practice (now blocked by Amazon) in which KDP authors include, in the first few pages of a book, hyperlinks that, if clicked, bring readers to the end of books to artificially increase the number of pages ostensibly read._
> 
> ...


Is the purpose of your link "to artificially increase the number of pages"? For example, is your link presented in a spammy "CLICK HERE FOR BONUS WHATEVER!!!1!" fashion to entice readers to go to the end, or is it legitimately listed in your TOC as "About the Author" like any other TOC entry?

If it's a regular entry in your TOC and correctly labeled, I believe you're on the right side of Amazon's rules.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

So I should drop the "AND FREE DIAMONDS" after the "About Author"... Got it.


----------



## PermaStudent (Apr 21, 2015)

Dpock said:


> So I should drop the "AND FREE DIAMONDS" after the "About Author"... Got it.


That's a different thread entirely. 

Here's a link to current policy, scroll down to find the section on links: https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200952510

From that page:



> All links in your book should navigate correctly to the place where the reader would expect them to go, and the reader should be able to navigate to the locations listed in your book's Go To menu (such as cover image, beginning, and Table of Contents). Please test links, including Go To items, on your Kindle device to ensure the links in your book navigate to their intended places before making your book available for sale. If you don't have access to a device, Kindle Previewer is a helpful tool that will reproduce how content will appear on a device.
> 
> Preventing Linking Issues
> Broken or incorrect links usually occur when a mistake has been made in the link URL or an incorrect link location has been pasted in. Check the HTML or inserted links in your text to correct this problem. Below are some examples of linking issues we see in books.
> ...


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Dpock said:


> So I should drop the "AND FREE DIAMONDS" after the "About Author"... Got it.


Speaking of "diamonds," who else is wondering whether Amazon will go after more banned publishers in this manner?


----------



## PhoenixFromTheAshes (Oct 1, 2018)

The TOS gets longer every day because Amazon Legal has to go back in and spell out very specific rules that non-scammers understand intuitively. Like product warnings that list a behavior sane people would never consider doing but Legal requires on the labeling because someone somewhere attempted it.

Here's hoping we see a lot more of these arbitration docs with similar arbitrator and court upholdings soon!


----------



## PermaStudent (Apr 21, 2015)

I would rather see *less* arbitration, in the form of Amazon closing loopholes, addressing scammers early on, and generally nipping it in the bud.

But if they prefer to pay out for months (or years) on end before finally taking someone to court, that's better than nothing.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2019)

Yeah, I'm against all the book stuffing.
If you mention your character's blonde hair, then that should be it. No more combing the "blonde" hair, or washing the "blonde" hair, or the wind rippled though her "blonde" hair, etc.
You already mentioned "blonde" earlier in the book. Move on.

And quite repeating weather descriptions, or the sunsets. You mentioned a beach sunset once. No need to describe a mountain sunset.

Amazon is doing a good thing by making us toe the line in our creative writing. A lot of descriptions can be dumped in the wastebasket.
Just get on with the story.
And how many times do we have to stuff "Hello" or "said" into our books? Instead of "said" just use quote marks. That means something was "said" and you aren't using "said" to needlessly stuff the book.

It's a good thing we left the big trad gatekeepers.
Amazon is doing a great job of telling us what we can't write and what covers will throw us in a dungeon.

Let's keep praising Amazon for watching over us.


----------



## PhoenixFromTheAshes (Oct 1, 2018)

Ahh, don't you just know it's going to be a good day
Once the straw man comes out to play.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

PhoenixFromTheAshes said:


> Ahh, don't you just know it's going to be a good day
> Once the straw man comes out to play.


And on the very first post!


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> And on the very first post!


It's terribly amusing.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

A Romance by Robert said:


> Yeah, I'm against all the book stuffing.
> If you mention your character's blonde hair, then that should be it. No more combing the "blonde" hair, or washing the "blonde" hair, or the wind rippled though her "blonde" hair, etc.
> You already mentioned "blonde" earlier in the book. Move on.
> 
> ...


You're quite right to relate book stuffing to all this endless repetition involving hair color, not to mention texture, length, and styling. I found a plague of alopecia among the main characters solves this problem.

I also avoid stuffing my books with wordy descriptions of the weather and sunsets by keeping everyone indoors. I also never let them speak, saving on endless speech tags and quotation marks.


----------

