# Sales Numbers for Kindle top 100



## Sam Landstrom (May 29, 2009)

MetaGame at 1 cent has been bouncing around the top 100 for nearly a month and a few authors asked me what my sales numbers were. As an author, this is something I'd be curious about so I thought I'd share #'s now that I finally got my sales report for last month. Keep in mind that it's my mobipocket version that is being measured so I just got a dump of total numbers without regard to what days had what performance:

During the time measured (last 10 days of Sept), MetaGame oscillated between rank # 12-30 and had a total sales of ~3,000 or, on average, 300/day.

This does not give me any real insight on how many sales you COULD have if you managed to hit #1. My guess is that there is a BIG difference between #1 and #12 in regard to sales. Could be triple or quadruple for all I know. Likewise, I don't have any way of knowing my sales rate at #12 versus say #30. Unlike DTP, I can't stalk my sales on a daily basis.

Sam


----------



## JimC1946 (Aug 6, 2009)

Sam, however you crunch the numbers, your sales numbers are phenomenal. I downloaded MetaGame last month to my Kindle, and I'm really looking forward to reading it.

By the way, your signature reads "Author of acclaimed "MetaGame", sci-fi novel for 80 cents," which is a bit out-of-date now.


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

That's awesome Sam, I think your cover had a lot to do with the sales... in my opinion at least.


----------



## Sam Landstrom (May 29, 2009)

JimC1946 said:


> Sam, however you crunch the numbers, your sales numbers are phenomenal. I downloaded MetaGame last month to my Kindle, and I'm really looking forward to reading it.
> 
> By the way, your signature reads "Author of acclaimed "MetaGame", sci-fi novel for 80 cents," which is a bit out-of-date now.


Thanks Jim! And thanks for the heads up about the signature. I pulled the price part alltogether 'cause Amazon and I both keep messing with the price.


----------



## Sam Landstrom (May 29, 2009)

911jason said:


> That's awesome Sam, I think your cover had a lot to do with the sales... in my opinion at least.


I totally agree. As a fledgling indie author, from what I can tell, you need three things to sell books:
- Very arresting cover art (spend a month creating it if you have to)
- Good reviews
- Very low price

Only Dan Brown can get away with a $9.99 book, mediocre cover, with 2 1/2 star rating. (;


----------



## JeanThree (Feb 22, 2009)

Hey Sam--I see you have a lot more reviews now--40 in all with 29 fives and 6 fours!!! Metagame is one of the top two books  I've read on my Kindle  where you can't wait for life to get out of the way so you can go back to the book--you want to stay up all night to read and see what happens. In Her Name was the other one.  Darn it-- I haven't found another one of those since. Not that I haven't read some good books, but they just haven't grabbed me.  Did ya notice lots of people said they wanted book number two  So let's get crackin!!  And congrats for the big sales.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

Sam, a question for you.  I'm trying to get some traction for my new book, White Seed: The Untold Story of the Lost Colony of Roanoke.  I priced it at 3.99, what I thought was a terrific introductory price for a well-written, thoroughly researched, 492 page book.  However, things are going very slowly.  I have a great cover, designed by a fine illustrator.  I'm wondering, if I just give it away for $0.00 for a week, and then change the price back up to where it should be, at least four or five dollars, do you think this would have generated enough word of mouth to start the book moving in the charts?

Also, how much trouble is it to change the price of the book?

And, if I were to change it to $0.00, does Kindle feature free books like that where they'd be noticed?  Or would the book just be lost in the pack?

Thanks.
paul Clayton


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

I know this question wasn't directed to me, but I'm pretty sure Amazon won't let you reduce your price below 99 cents. At least I've seen that posted here a few times. Not sure how Dennis Batchelder got Soul Identity to 1 cent or how Amazon chooses which books to offer for free.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Indie authors can't give their novels away free on the Kindle. The lowest you can go is one cent, and it's my understanding you have to go through mobipocket to do it.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

@ Paul Clayton

From a reader's perspective:  Don't give your book away. Price it at $.99 for a while. Advertise the new price. Get some reviews. Then, you can gradually raise the price.


----------



## JimC1946 (Aug 6, 2009)

RedAdept said:


> From a reader's perspective: Don't give your book away. Price it at $.99 for a while. Advertise the new price. Get some reviews. Then, you can gradually raise the price.


Red Adept is right. When I lowered the price of my book to 99 cents, sales quadrupled. Eventually I may raise the price a little, but it's nice to see the sales numbers so high.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

RedAdept said:


> @ Paul Clayton
> 
> From a reader's perspective: Don't give your book away. Price it at $.99 for a while. Advertise the new price. Get some reviews. Then, you can gradually raise the price.


I'm curious why you feel a book shouldn't be given away. Do you perceive something that is free to have no value?


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

ASparrow said:


> I'm curious why you feel a book shouldn't be given away. Do you perceive something that is free to have no value?


I'll throw in my two cents here--This is mostly data garnered via conversations with other authors and also with giveaways we used to do at BSCreview where I reviewed books. Giveaways and free books tend to get lower attention on the TBR pile. THis could be for a variety of reasons--It was free, so the person wasn't really interested. It was free, so there is a higher value/want to read on books paid for and so on.

I think people are more likely to sample a book when there is any price attached--and make a somewhat active decision to buy it and put it in the reading pile--as opposed to just "loading" it and stashing it "in case" it's interesting.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

That makes sense psychologically. I suppose.

In my experience though, the price of an indie ebook has little or no correlation with the quality of the content. On the contrary some of the best I've sampled are the cheapest. 

Alas, conventional 'wisdoms' (prejudices) are hard to break.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

MariaESchneider said:


> Giveaways and free books tend to get lower attention on the TBR pile. THis could be for a variety of reasons--It was free, so the person wasn't really interested. It was free, so there is a higher value/want to read on books paid for and so on.
> 
> I think people are more likely to sample a book when there is any price attached--and make a somewhat active decision to buy it and put it in the reading pile--as opposed to just "loading" it and stashing it "in case" it's interesting.


This pretty much sums up my answer.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

By that logic, to get to the top of the pile, the strategy for a beginning author should be to price their ebook at $19.99?  ;-)


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2009)

ASparrow said:


> I'm curious why you feel a book shouldn't be given away. Do you perceive something that is free to have no value?


I noticed that many of the reviews for MetaGame pointed out serious problems with grammar and some editing problems. The author responded (graciously, I might add) that the author couldn't afford an editor.

Well, when you aren't making a profit on your book, how can you?

Sure, 3,000 sales sounds great. And yes, you will pick up some loyal readers who maybe don't care about grammar. But you will also turn off potential readers who expect good editing.

The current ebook market is more forgiving that the traditional print book readership. Ebook readers, being early adopters of the format, have a higher tolerance for errors. But as the format becomes more mainstream and more "traditional" readers come into the fold, these people are not going to tolerate bad editing.

I know the argument is that people "just want to be read." But sometimes we treat our readers like Myspace "friends." We accumulate them without really cultivating them just to hit big numbers. I've downloaded dozens of free books. I completed reading one. I couldn't tell you the names of the other writers off the top of my head, because I didn't finish their books. Is THAT what we mean by getting readers? People who pick us up because we are cheap and easy and then forget about us when they get bored?

That would make me feel...dirty


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2009)

ASparrow said:


> By that logic, to get to the top of the pile, the strategy for a beginning author should be to price their ebook at $19.99? ;-)


Or just price at a normal price.

Seriously, the notion that new authors have to give away their work is counter-intuitive. There are plenty of established writers that I don't know by name, I picked up _Bright-Sided_ recently and it's a great book...but I never heard of the author. Yet she's had plenty of other books published.

Think about it, customers don't KNOW you are a first time author unless you make a point of it. If you produce a quality product, price it similar to established norms, and present it professionally...how would someone know that Jane Doe Publishing was ran out of Jane Doe's spare bedroom and not an office? If I come across a book that looks professionally done and peaks my interest, I don't even CARE if I heard of the author before or not!


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Lower in the TBR pile, perhaps, unless they are part of a donation program like Operation eBook Drop.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> The current ebook market is more forgiving that the traditional print book readership. Ebook readers, being early adopters of the format, have a higher tolerance for errors. But as the format becomes more mainstream and more "traditional" readers come into the fold, these people are not going to tolerate bad editing.


Just as an aside, I've noticed that the presence of an editor doesn't guarantee good editing, particularly for some smaller presses. I've recently noticed some atrocious errors in the early pages of a certain prominent line of novels (not to mention any names lest I be cattier than I already am. I honestly don't know what's got into me today).

But seriously, do people think that pricing too low hurts other authors? Or does the intrinsic perception of lesser quality associated with low price make it easy to separate the wheat from the chaff?


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> Or just price at a normal price.
> 
> Think about it, customers don't KNOW you are a first time author unless you make a point of it. If you produce a quality product, price it similar to established norms, and present it professionally...how would someone know that Jane Doe Publishing was ran out of Jane Doe's spare bedroom and not an office? If I come across a book that looks professionally done and peaks my interest, I don't even CARE if I heard of the author before or not!


So you would invest your time in an unknown author with a 'normal' price on their book, but not if their book was too cheap or free?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I am a reader, not a writer, not a reviewer.  The following is my opinion only.

When the free book announcements pop up, I check 'em out.  I have a much broader range of what I'll click for if the book is free.  About the only thing I won't even think about trying if it's free, is something that appears to be inane romance or horror/vampire/werewolf violence.

If the book is a buck. . . . I have a somewhat narrower, but still pretty broad range 'cause, after all, a buck is only a buck.  Still, the story blurb had better appeal to me.

At 2 bucks, it narrows again. . . .then you better be in one of my preferred genres or the blurb has to have something that grabs me and makes the story look really enticing.

At 3 bucks or higher. . . .you better be in one of my preferred genres/authors.  Even if the story looks interesting, I'm likely to just wishlist it for now.

I don't sample any more. . . realized I never read the samples. . .they just stacked up on my Kindle.  I'm to the point where I have to go through and just delete them because they're not serving a purpose.  Every now and again I'll sort by title and find I have a sample and have bought the book -- 'cause I never looked back at the samples.

So, I do wishlist things, and periodically go through it to see if there are reviews of any books on it that make me say either "buy now" or "delete" from the list.  I also make notes when I wishlist as to why I didn't buy it outright.

I'll even admit that sometimes the decision to "buy now" or "delete" happens because of something fairly nebulous:  I saw a post by the author on Kindleboards and my reaction affected my purchase decision.  Completely subjective and totally irrelevant to the writing of the person, I admit, but there it is.  So, sometimes, I try a KB author just because I decide I like him or her.  And, frankly, sometimes I don't because I don't. . .though that happens less often.  If the book looks good and is priced well I probably won't be too concerned if I haven't made a connection with the author here.  But I am much more likely to try a non-preferred-genre book by a KB author because of my perception of who the person is based on his or her posts here.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Pricing varies on the author and the reader relationship. Unknow authors to get a first readermust lower that price barrier, becuse getting read is more important than selling abook.However, once a reader decides whether they like the unknown author, then the "unknown" disappears, and price becomes irrelevant, so much so that the authors doesn;t need to fluctuate the price on this model. We're not sellingtitles, but ourselves and out style. My established readers (and I have some) will read anything I publish and will line up for it (even prod me to get moving and finish a work in progess). There was a time I had to strip naked on a corner and shout to get one reader. I am assured 25 sales now on the first few days of realise. This is not indulgence or bragging or what you will (although I've worked famn hard to get that reader beachhead). The reader/author relationship (which is one on one) is more important than the price model. And it's an obligation I must observe with all new writing. If I break that trust with my readership by publishing crap, it could disappear tomorrow. Readers are forgiving of editing issues if the story is good enough, but those same readers expect improvements as new works come out. Are we all famous now . . . household names. No. But I believe in my motto - I would rather live in relative obscurity than in total obscurity any day.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> When the free book announcements pop up, I check 'em out. I have a much broader range of what I'll click for if the book is free. About the only thing I won't even think about trying if it's free, is something that appears to be inane romance or horror/vampire/werewolf violence.
> If the book is a buck. . . . I have a somewhat narrower, but still pretty broad range 'cause, after all, a buck is only a buck. Still, the story blurb had better appeal to me.
> At 2 bucks, it narrows again. . . .then you better be in one of my preferred genres or the blurb has to have something that grabs me and makes the story look really enticing.
> At 3 bucks or higher. . . .you better be in one of my preferred genres/authors. Even if the story looks interesting, I'm likely to just wishlist it for now.


Your sampling pattern very closely matches mine. I rarely look at anything (indie) that is priced higher than $5 or so. Some of the best books I've sampled (like Boomerang) have some of the lowest prices. Some of the worst bear higher than average prices. So, my prejudices have evolved to become 180 degrees opposite the mainstream. I actually find myself giving more credibility to lower-priced offerings, based both on my experiences, and my suspicion that such authors are more interested in drawing readers than profits.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> Pricing varies on the author and the reader relationship. Unknow authors to get a first readermust lower that price barrier, becuse getting read is more important than selling abook.However, once a reader decides whether they like the unknown author, then the "unknown" disappears, and price becomes irrelevant, so much so that the authors doesn;t need to fluctuate the price on this model.


This seems like a wise strategy for most.

I'm basically in this to get some feedback from pure readers for a change, as opposed to writer's groups and such. I don't really want to 'sell' books. I'm just trying to perfect my art and am seeking clues on which way to tack.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

I'm just an old guy sunsetting, standing on the edge of life's end-path watching the sunrise of my art. It's nice to close my eyes and imagine my reader's faces when they come to certain passages and moments in my books. Such is the definition of sharing. Such is the annointment of our species.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2009)

ASparrow said:


> So you would invest your time in an unknown author with a 'normal' price on their book, but not if their book was too cheap or free?


You don't get my point.

1. Price is the LAST THING I consider when buying books. I look at whether or not the book appears to be well crafted. I read the preview. I look at other reviews. I read the blurb. Then so long as it isn't outlandishly priced I buy. Maybe I regret the decision later. Maybe I don't. But I don't look at price first.

2. Just because someone is "unknown" to be doesn't mean a whole lot. Over a half million books were published last year. How many of those authors do you think I possibly know off the top of my head? I'd say the vast majority of them are "unknown" to me. The majority of the books I have bought in my life were "unknown" authors, at least to me. I never heard of Jonathan Kirsch before I stumbled across _God Against the Gods. _ Didn't stop me from forking over good money on a hard cover. Don't remember hearing of Barbara Ehrenreich before buying _Bright-Sided,_ either.

Will I pick up free books? Sure, why not? I'll take a free coffee too if someone has a booth set up and is giving it out. What's the point? You wanna give me something for free, OK. Whatever. But there is no reason you HAVE to give me a book for free if you get my interest in the first place with good writing and good production value.

You know, it's like the old saying about buying the cow when you get the milk for free.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2009)

ASparrow said:


> Just as an aside, I've noticed that the presence of an editor doesn't guarantee good editing, particularly for some smaller presses. I've recently noticed some atrocious errors in the early pages of a certain prominent line of novels (not to mention any names lest I be cattier than I already am. I honestly don't know what's got into me today).


Editing and proofreading are two very different things. Two different jobs. Two different points in the publishing process. Unfortunately, sometimes the rush to print causes even big publishers to cut corners. But let's be honest...it happens much, much less in traditional publishers than it does self-publishers. I've found typos and stuff in books, too. But I've come across hundreds of samples of self-published books that I couldn't even understand what the author was saying.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Hey, I purchased in the last year 8 volumes of The Cambridge History of China (there are 15), at $180 - $220 each, and although price dictated "when " I could buy them, when you want a book and need a book and lust or a book, then a book you shall have. But I have about 500 books on the subject (my field) in a room you can't move in, so what's another 8 books.



Edward C. Patterson


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> Think about it, customers don't KNOW you are a first time author unless you make a point of it. If you produce a quality product, price it similar to established norms, and present it professionally...how would someone know that Jane Doe Publishing was ran out of Jane Doe's spare bedroom and not an office?


I think you hit the nail squarely on the head -- in my opinion, it's quite easy to distinguish the "established" authors from the "indie's" in most cases, all you have to do is look at the cover. If it looks like it was created in Microsoft Word or Publisher, then it's indie. I think the cover is the #1 difference in impulse sales between the established and the indies.

Even though the old saying goes "You can't judge a book by its cover", I think many people do exactly that.


----------



## AnnaM (Jul 15, 2009)

Great discussion. I value Ann's input about how she selects ebooks to purchase.

I don't put any stock in the rankings of free or nearly free (1 cent) books. I've "purchased" them on occasion (not really a purchase since it's free), but most I don't read, or don't like after reading a few pages. 

I've found that many of the serious (and good) indie authors are offering their books for 99 cents or 1.99. Konrath is one example, but there are many here on the board. It's a money-making strategy. When I lowered the price on my first book (from 3.99 to 99 cents) I sold 6 times as many copies, and sales are accelerating. With the lower prices on both books I had my highest revenue month in October. I think a lower "introductory" price gives the unknown author an edge.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

Wow!  What a great discussion.  I like Red's suggestion.  I'll have to think about all of this.  In the meantime, I have to make something for dinner.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> Editing and proofreading are two very different things. Two different jobs. Two different points in the publishing process. Unfortunately, sometimes the rush to print causes even big publishers to cut corners. But let's be honest...it happens much, much less in traditional publishers than it does self-publishers. I've found typos and stuff in books, too. But I've come across hundreds of samples of self-published books that I couldn't even understand what the author was saying.


I'll grant you that the frequency of edit and proofreading problems is much greater in self-published work, but some of the editing goofs by major houses can be obscene. Have you read any Stephen King lately? I usually find large chunks within his novels that read like rough drafts with redundancies and irrelevancies that I would have slashed if it was my own book (or editing task). The proofreading is fine. This is an editing problem. It almost seems that the larger an author gets, the sloppier their writing becomes (at least in parts, somehow the beginnings of their novels get slicker) and the more they're allowed to get away with.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

When we released SERIAL it was #1 for a while, and we were getting over 1000 downloads per day, but not much over, and sometimes a bit under.

As for free, I found SERIAL to be a terrific way to hook readers and get them to buy my other books. 

People are looking for two things online: information and entertainment. They prefer those things to be free, at least as a way of introduction. It's why drug dealers give out free samples. Hook them with a freebie, then charge them later.

My blog, my website, and free ebooks all help spread branding and name-recognition, assist in building a fanbase, and hook readers.

Some readers become fans. Some fans become buyers. Enough buyers, and you're making a living.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Ah, but when you're  branded aithor, you can write your novel n Charmin and it'll sell.  

Ed Patterson


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> It's why drug dealers give out free samples. Hook them with a freebie, then charge them later.


See?? I knew it!!! Books = Drugs

It's a conspiracy to get us poor readers hooked!


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2009)

ASparrow said:


> Have you read any Stephen King lately?


lol, I haven't paid much attention to King since _Insomnia_.

But don't let the uber egos get in the way of the point. Just because King's editors are gun-shy (and let's be honest, his grocery list would sell thousands of copies just on his brand) doesn't mean editing is not important. King's brand is so strong that he can afford bad editing.

And, surprisingly, he built that brand without giving his work away for 99 cents.

I completely expect Sarah Palin's autobiography to have more typos in it that a 3rd grade project because of how it was rushed to market, but her brand doesn't depend on being articulate. But that doesn't justify bad proofreading for everyone else.

But frankly, your comment proves my point. The bigger an author gets, the more you can afford to get away with. But when you first start out, you have to function under a "zero-tolerance" in order to build that brand loyalty in the first place. If you have produced ten books people love and your 11th looks like illiterate Aunt Edna proofed it, you can probably still depend on your audience to give you a break when book 12 comes out. If your FIRST BOOK looks like illiterate Aunt Edna proofed it, you have no history to go on and you just lost potential readers.


----------



## AnnaM (Jul 15, 2009)

After many rejections King nearly did give away his book for 99 cents. His advance for _Carrie_ was a mere $2500 (Doubleday).


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Tell me about it. My Aunt Edna edited my first book. Good thing I have a winning smile and 3,000 readers later . . .     You should taste Aunt Edna's cupcakes. They're the best.

Ed Patterson
"It's better to live in relative obscurity than in total obscurity. We all get to the end in the end."
   
Uncle Stevie's older sister. Here's to the starving Oruno assistant professor at Orono, ME, thankee sai.


----------



## J Dean (Feb 9, 2009)

ASparrow said:


> I'm curious why you feel a book shouldn't be given away. Do you perceive something that is free to have no value?


Because I'm a capitalist. My work has value. People don't work for free


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Ah, the difference between a


Spoiler



prostitute and a whore


.    Ask my


Spoiler



pimp


. This is a fun discussion, because, as the ex-Marketing Director of a fortune 500 company, I'm irrelevant to it. Or an elephant on it.

Ed Patterson


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

J Dean said:


> Because I'm a capitalist. My work has value. People don't work for free


And...This was my other point. Authors work hard to write their books. I'm big on buying up less expensive books. I will try almost anything for $.99 (as long as the description is something I might be interested in).

However, I don't think authors should just give their books away. They, well, most, deserve far more than the little $.30 per copy they will get for selling for a buck, but at least it's something.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Funny. I give away only one book. The infamous Are You Still Submitting . . . blah balh blah. I also sell it for $.99 and for $6.50 in paper. I offer it for free, because I am sharing my experiences in publishing and do not really feel that I should capitlize on that ---- sharing is better. Nonetheless, although the book is nearing a circulation of 600, and has 18 5-star reviews, I still get at least one $$$$Sale per day on it. When given the choice between FREE and $ .99, some readers (in this case aspiring or fellow Indie authors), will spring for the dollar.

Ed Patterson


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Pretty soon all ebooks will be free.

I've talked with many author who hate Amazon because they offer used books alongside new books.

Some authors even dislike libraries, where thirty or more people can read a book that was only paid for once.

Silly attitude, in my opinion.

The goal is to be read.

If you Google "JA Konrath" you can find all of my books for free on filesharing networks, bit torrent, usenet, file lockers like Rapidshare and Megaupload, and even on blog where people give away things they bought or stole. You can get my complete work, conveniently packaged as a single download, and have a choice of formats, including audio.

And I'm fine with it.

It's not that I don't believe my work has worth. It's that some people are going to read it for free, that's just the way it goes, and worrying about it won't solve anything. Besides, I'd rather have a million people reading me for free than a thousand people buying me.

For all the moaning Hollywood does about pirating, they seem to be doing okay. So is iTunes. In fact, I just released my Kindle books on iTunes, for cheap.

Digital media wants to be free. It's the reason the Internet was invented; to share information. 

A smart writer can use this to their advantage.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Pretty soon all ebooks will be free.
> The goal is to be read.
> If you Google "JA Konrath" you can find all of my books for free on filesharing networks, bit torrent, usenet, file lockers like Rapidshare and Megaupload, and even on blog where people give away things they bought or stole. You can get my complete work, conveniently packaged as a single download, and have a choice of formats, including audio.
> And I'm fine with it.
> ...


I admire your approach. And if I was a real writer and it mattered what I thought, I would share it.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

ASparrow, you are an author - there's a difference.

Ed Patterson
a stupid writer, but an author that smarts


----------



## AnnaM (Jul 15, 2009)

"Pretty soon all ebooks will be free."

I don't buy into this. Youtube hasn't found a way to monetize a site full of creative content (and very few content providers are making money on their work there). iTunes podcasts, which are free, have not been monetized (one could argue that they add value for Apple, but the content providers aren't being compensated for their work).

Some of the free iTunes apps authors are being paid (by corporate interests) to produce the work, but those apps typically are adding value to the company's services (insurance companies, banks, etc.) or they are drawing business to the corporate interest.  I can't see Amazon or Google putting ads on the pages of my books (and there just wouldn't be enough readers for most books to make that a sustainable model).  How many people want to click on an ad while reading a book?  

How do you propose we monetize a free book sale model, when youtube can't do it with videos, and major newspapers have been unable to make their web sites (full of great content) profitable?  NYT sells subscriptions on the Kindle, and they are planning to do that on the Apple tablet as well . . . if they can't figure out a model for free content (that pays) how will books do it any better?

Most newspapers are losing money on their web sites.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Ebooks will be free, and have ads in them. Authors will make money based on ad revenue.

While people uploading videos to YouTube aren't making money, YouTube is, with ads.

Google is a billion dollar company, because of ads. Most big Internet sites are ad-based.

TV, magazines, and newspapers all have ads. Cable has ads. 

Movies have product placement and ads before the feature. 

Ebooks will have them to. Especially when pirates begin to steal in earnest.


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

Depressing, but I tend to agree with Jack to a point.

It wouldn't be so bad if they had one after, say every three chapters, for example. I wouldn't want to have to "next page" through pages and pages of them.

It would take getting used to though.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Free ebooks with ads in them may be a verity, however, that doesn't mean any of us need to kick start it by getting on the bandwagon and touting its glories. There's no glory in it, just some pandering to the reader. You all know me well enough to know how I feel about the reader, and I will not sell out the reader at the expense of the "Handwriting on the Wall." But as handy as this debate is, it's a sideshow to get the reader inside to sell them snake oil. But I guess there can be more than one bear in the pit, yet only one


Spoiler



cock


 in the henhouse.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

People prefer free.

This year, more than 100,000 people have downloaded SERIAL, which is free.

Compared this to about 13,000 downloads of my ebooks for sale on Kindle, all priced $1.99 and lower.

If SERIAL contained 10 print ads, sold at the standard Internet rate of 2 cents per add, each download would be worth 20 cents.

Multiply that by 100,000, and the free ebook would have made $20k. Which is more than I made on my 13,000 sales.

Putting ads in books would also eliminate the need for piracy. Readers could get their ebooks for free while supporting the author, rather than stealing from the author.

Seriously, how cool would it be if all ebooks were free, and all you had to put up with were ten one-page ads? Especially if the ads were directly marketed to you, based on your demographic?

Download the new Nora Roberts, and it includes a coupon for a nearby pizza place...


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> While people uploading videos to YouTube aren't making money, YouTube is, with ads.


A factual correction: YouTube is not making money, at least not yet. Malcolm Gladwell reports in his article reviewing Anderson's "Free" book: "Credit Suisse estimates that YouTube will lose close to half a billion dollars this year. If it were a bank, it would be eligible for TARP funds." (However it appears in retrospect that Credit Suisse overestimated infrastructure costs by about 300 million, but that still leaves YouTube 200 million in the hole.)


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Digital media wants to be free. It's the reason the Internet was invented; to share information.


I guess that first sentence is an allusion to Steward Brand's famous: "Information wants to be free." I've always had reservations about that statement and the whole free content movement. In the first place how can information want anything? Isn't it really that information users want information to be free? (To which I say, "Duh.") In the second place is it really fair to reduce what authors produce as "information?" I don't know about you but I produce books, art even. In the third place, isn't the free content movement seeking to decriminalize theft? I believe so and think that it's morally reprehensible. The argument seems to be, "Well, you can't stop it," i.e., "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." It seems to me the free movement evangelists want to deny that culture can change--"We can't stop digital thievery, it's impossible"--while at the same time trying to change culture themselves: "Digital theft isn't really theft," not to mention, "Giving your blood, sweat, and tears away for free is a great business model." I'm all for fighting piracy with cost and convenience but how about a little moral suasion and some faith in technological breakthroughs?


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

I can see it already:

_...as Biff was falling from the 14-story *Bank of America* building, he spotted a *Waste Management* rubbish hauling truck passing on the street below. He checked his *Timex* watch and realized he had only moments to save Gina (who he met on *Match.com*) before the bomb blew her to bits! That'd be a bad thing, not just because he loved Gina, but he really didn't have the money to call in *Molly Maids* to scrape her remains off his *LakePointe View* apartment walls...
_


I don't even want to *think* about how this could be implemented in those sex romance novels! 



Spoiler



Now, aren't you guys glad I'm a _reader_ and not an _author_!


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

911jason said:


> I can see it already:
> 
> _...as Biff was falling from the 14-story *Bank of America* building, he spotted a *Waste Management* rubbish hauling truck passing on the street below. He checked his *Timex* watch and realized he had only moments to save Gina (who he met on *Match.com*) before the bomb blew her to bits! That'd be a bad thing, not just because he loved Gina, but he really didn't have the money to call in *Molly Maids* to scrape her remains off his *LakePointe View* apartment walls...
> _
> ...


I almost choked on my coffee!    This was GREAT!


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Eric C said:


> A factual correction: YouTube is not making money, at least not yet.


YouTube IS making money. It just isn't making a profit, yet.

Besides the sidebar and banner ads, it now has ads before some of its videos, and during some of its videos.

But it's much harder to monetize a user-generated video without interrupting it.

Text, however, has chapter breaks. Plus we're used to seeing ads in text, with ads and newspapers.

As a society, we're immune to ads, because they're everywhere. It's only a matter of time before they appear in ebooks.



Eric C said:


> I've always had reservations about that statement and the whole free content movement.


The Internet was invented by a bunch of tech geeks who wanted a way to share information using computers.

People are looking for one thing online: content.

Content comes in many forms, but the two major ones are information and entertainment. In many cases, information is entertainment (like surfing wikipedia.)

Art is entertainment. Storytelling is a form of art, and is as old as humanity. Publishing is a few hundred years old. Storytelling is thousands and thousands of years old.

The way art is distributed is through media. For most of the history of art, media was limited. Books were hand written on scrolls. The only way to enjoy music was to see it live. When a painter did a portrait, it could only be seen by those in the same room as the painting.

These days, media can be digitized. The whole point of digital media is to copy and share it.

The fact that millions of people are digitizing and sharing media on a daily basis speaks to the quote that digital media wants to be free.

Does that mean information is the same as art? No. But it's all content. You can call your writing whatever you like, but on a computer its nothing but binary code.



Eric C said:


> "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."


Laws, and morals, are dictated by the majority in any given society at any given time.

In other words, "If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em" is the reason old laws are abandoned and new laws are created. The US Constitution allows for this with amendments.

Whether or not you personally think it's fair, a large number of people have no problem sharing media. As this number increases, majority perception will shift, and laws will change. That's just how things work.



Eric C said:


> I'm all for fighting piracy with cost and convenience but how about a little moral suasion and some faith in technological breakthroughs?


If a man can create it, a man can crack it. Windows 7 was recently released. Microsoft has technology and money to burn, more than the entire publishing community combined. Search for "Windows 7 torrent" and you'll see it's already been hacked and shared.

As for morality, in the polls I've seen, the majority of college students see no moral problem with file sharing. These are the folks who will be running the world someday.

Here's what it comes down to: publishing may not survive, but the world will always need storytellers.

I've been watching this situation for a long time, and the only way I think storytellers will be able to monetize their art is through ads.

Cost and convenience are a good way to fight piracy. They're a much better way than punishing the customer with DRM, proprietary formats, and limits on the media they've purchased.

But ultimately, even cost and convenience won't eliminate piracy.

However, if there were an internet hub that offered ebooks quickly and easily, either free and containing ads or for a small price and ad-free, I believe that model would allow authors to earn a living creating art.

As for product placement, if Coke offers me a grand to have my character drink one, or Toyota gives me a car if I use one in a chase scene, I'd be a fool not to take it.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

It's a good thing the serious author isn't in it for the money, or the ads or the dog and pont show. 

Ed Patterson
Support Operation eBook Drop
where your free ebook makes a difference


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Does that mean information is the same as art? No. But it's all content. You can call your writing whatever you like, but on a computer its nothing but binary code.


I really wasn't asking whether fiction can be reduced to binary code but whether it should be.



Jack Kilborn said:


> Laws, and morals, are dictated by the majority in any given society at any given time.


Laws are dictated by dictators in some societies, and even in a democracy the majority do not always obtain the laws they'd prefer.

The majority in any society do not dictate morals, they impose a set of moral standards. But what of the value of those standards? You're suggesting that whatever the majority decides is acceptable. Yet there was a time when the majority of Americans supported slavery, for example. Surely the moral philosophy you've applied to the issue at hand is too simplistic.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Eric C.

Bravo. It's never that simplistic. Ask any historian. Ask any marketing guru. Ask me. The name for a simplistic, absolute wave of the future is called A FAD, and those that ride them wind up stockpiling Hula Hoops.

Ed Patterson
Does anyone want to buy a Hula Hoop? Mine gets stuck when I try to bring it around my waist.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> If a man can create it, a man can crack it. Windows 7 was recently released. Microsoft has technology and money to burn, more than the entire publishing community combined. Search for "Windows 7 torrent" and you'll see it's already been hacked and shared.


I'm a bit out of my depth on this one, not a real techie, but I do know there were codes that were never cracked during WW II and until we found the Rosetta stone we couldn't read Egyptian hieroglyphic writing for how many centuries?


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Eric C said:


> Yet there was a time when the majority of Americans supported slavery, for example. Surely the moral philosophy you've applied to the issue at hand is too simplistic.


You just showed that morals and laws change according to the views of the majority.

As for value, there is no universal moral code. People do what they want to do.

Arguing absolute moral truths is fine for philosophy class, but right now we're trying to figure out how to make money when ebooks are freely shared.

I don't believe any amount of DRM will stop it. As for moral awareness and teaching that stealing is wrong, we can look at the catastrophic failure of the War on Drugs to show that people do what they want to do regardless of what they're taught.

If you believe that the world will come to its senses and stop file sharing, or that tech will make sharing ebooks impossible, that's your opinion. But it doesn't mesh with what I'm seeing, researching, and coming to realize based on my study of the subject.



Eric C said:


> I really wasn't asking whether fiction can be reduced to binary code but whether it should be.


Should be? Why does that matter?

People want it to be, so it is.



Eric C said:


> but I do know there were codes that were never cracked during WW II and until we found the Rosetta stone we couldn't read Egyptian hieroglyphic writing for how many centuries?


Computers make things a bit easier these days.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> The name for a simplistic, absolute wave of the future is called A FAD, and those that ride them wind up stockpiling Hula Hoops.


Or perhaps stockpiling Kindles or iPhones.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

I have only one thing to say to that.

Slinkys. (I have a collection in 5 colors. The chocolate brown one shall be popular in 2013, if we get through 2012).   

Ed Patterson


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

lava lamps
pet rocks


betcha we could make a long list.

It might even be that e-readers are a fad, but it doesn't have that feel to me. Even so they might eventually be superseded by something else.

Maybe books are a fad -- just a very long lived one!    Or is that oxymoronic?


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Says one protozoa to another: "Those humans . . . Fads!!! They won't last past 2012."

Ed Patterson
Ain't serious marketing discussions fun


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

<ppbbfffsst>

good thing I wasn't taking a sip of anything just then!  LOL!


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Hey, I'll stop with the philosophy just as soon as you stop spewing it. 



Jack Kilborn said:


> You just showed that morals and laws change according to the views of the majority.


No I didn't, though I don't disagree that that's one way morals and laws change. I suggested that the moral standards of the majority can be evil.



Jack Kilborn said:


> As for value, there is no universal moral code. People do what they want to do.


There are those who in fact believe in moral absolutism. On the other hand, I'm sure Jeremy Bentham could've come up with a Utilitarian argument as to why it's not in society's interest to support digital theft.



Jack Kilborn said:


> As for moral awareness and teaching that stealing is wrong, we can look at the catastrophic failure of the War on Drugs to show that people do what they want to do regardless of what they're taught.


I'm not suggesting the solution is necessarily a government sponsored public policy initiative. How about good old fashioned round the dinner table family talk? You know, where the parents try to impose their beliefs on their young, rather than vice versa, which is what you want, right? Essentially? Besides, there have been government sponsored policy initiatives that have worked. Are you old enough to remember "Litter bug, litter bug, shame on you?"


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

I'm just going to drop this tidbit of info:

I work for a TV station's website. There was a time when employees were being laid off and our web page was losing tons of money. Everyone thought "Who's going to go to a TV station's website for news?"

Now, the website alone makes over $2 million a year in revenue with just 3 1/2 cheap employees. The site also looks like crap with ads all over the frickin' place.

But it's making money. So it ain't going away.

I think what Jack's trying to accomplish is having something to say about how and where ads might show up in our books before we don't have a chance to offer suggestions.

I don't want them either, and hope it takes a long time, but I agree with him--I think they're coming. ebooks will be seen (by corporations) like magazines instead of published novels.

One other aside: I cracked up laughing over the "story excerpt" with all the links in it. I don't think it will ever go that far, but who the heck knows? Every time at the station we say, "oh, they'll never do THAT," they always do a few years later...


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> People prefer free.


No. People prefer VALUE. A free item with no perceived value is junk.

This is why people by brand names instead of store brands. This is why people are willing to pay $30,000 for a car instead of buying a used one for $5,000.

This is why I spent $20 yesterday buying stupid virtual pets for my World of Warcraft account. They had a value to me (because I am a gamer geek, but I digress).

I can use a free web service, but I prefer the value of not having my site controlled by third-party advertising because it allows me to control my message. So I pay $11 a month to control what appears on my site. I could go with a free service, but then I would not have the value of that control.

Their is a difference between "low-cost" and "low-price." A low cost item is an item for which the price is considered much lower than the actual value of the product. A low price is just something with a low price that may or may not have any real value.

Which is the better deal? A $1 cheeseburger at Burger King, or a $15 lobster dinner? The cheeseburger is the lower price, but the lobster dinner is considered a low cost, because it has a higher perceived value.

So the goal of the author should not be to focus on low-price, but to create a good value for the reader. Readers are like any other customer. They want to feel that they have gotten a good value for their money. They will pay for quality. They will pay for good value. You just need to give them a reason to.

I've said this elsewhere. Occassionally "freebies" work, but only if they have value. If you give everything away, then the freebie has no value. If you have a deep backlist of products, and you offer a "special" free product, it has a much higher value. Using freebies as part of an overall smart marketing strategy that includes building value and smart pricing works. But building an entire marketing strategy on giving everything away for free is foolish and, more importantly, completely unneccessary.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Seriously, how cool would it be if all ebooks were free, and all you had to put up with were ten one-page ads? Especially if the ads were directly marketed to you, based on your demographic?


Yeah, I've seen these 'targeted' ads on websites. Apparently because I am a middle-aged woman Yahoo! has decided I want to see ads with a bikini-clad woman's


Spoiler



ass


to sell cellulite cream.

Thank you, but no. I'd hate to see what they would advertise in a zombie survival horror novel.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Eric C said:


> There are those who in fact believe in moral absolutism.


People can believe whatever they want to. That makes this world interesting.

But I wouldn't want to debate on the side of moral absolutism, because it can't be proven.

History shows moral ambiguity, where majority rules.

If, a hundred years from now, society decides that internet forums are immoral, does that mean what we're doing now is immoral? Or do time, place, and people truly dictate what is considered moral?



Eric C said:


> I'm not suggesting the solution is necessarily a government sponsored public policy initiative. How about good old fashioned round the dinner table family talk? You know, where the parents try to impose their beliefs on their young, rather than vice versa, which is what you want, right? Essentially? Besides, there have been government sponsored policy initiatives that have worked. Are you old enough to remember "Litter bug, litter bug, shame on you?"


So the majority of college students all had bad parents?

I'm still not sure where morality figures into this debate. The fact that we're at a point where Mininova alone has helped share almost 10 billion files, and that this number is only a small fraction of the file sharing being done, is proof that laws, morals, values, and everything else isn't working.

Continuing to fight it, when the trend is accelerating, seems to me to be a waste of time.

Isn't it smarter to work with human nature, look at how we behave, and try to make money in that climate?

Right now, you and I are able to compete against bestselling authors with large publishers behind them, because people don't want to pay a lot for digital media. I've proved this time and again.

I've also proven that people prefer free over cheap, to the tune of 10 to 1.

It's also a fact that advertising funds newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, and the Internet.

When we take into account the increasing file sharing habits and attitudes of the world, the solution is a no-brainer:

Release books for free, with ads in them.

The artist gets paid. The readers get what they want without stealing. The advertisers find their target audience. Everyone is happy.

For those readers or writers who don't want ads, they can be a cheap pay-per-book alternative.

That seems smarter, and simpler, than trying to artificially inflate the price of ebooks, as publishers are now doing, or trying to change the mindset of file-sharers, which isn't going to change.

As a species, we thrive because we're able to communicate. Human nature involves sharing. It's not going to stop, even if Mom and Dad say don't do it.


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> Yeah, I've seen these 'targeted' ads on websites. Apparently because I am a middle-aged woman Yahoo! has decided I want to see ads with a bikini-clad woman's
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Probably more pictures of a woman's bikini-clad


Spoiler



ass


.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> Thank you, but no. I'd hate to see what they would advertise in a zombie survival horror novel.


Shotguns and meat tenderizer?



bardsandsages said:


> Yeah, I've seen these 'targeted' ads on websites. Apparently because I am a middle-aged woman Yahoo! has decided I want to see ads with a bikini-clad woman's ass to sell cellulite cream.


Think in more specific terms.

I'm a 39 married male. I like horror novels. Hobbies include video games, fishing, beer. I like Italian food, drive a 2001 car, and love tech stuff.

Let's say I join a website that offers free ebooks with ads. No credit card required, but I have to fill out a short questionaire to join. Then I can download as many books as I want to, for free.

So I download a horror ebook, and the ten ads inside are specific for me. A beer ad for a new microbrew. A coupon for a pizza place in my zip code. An announcement of a new Italian restaurant opening nearby. A sale on new cars. An announcement for a new ebook reader gadget. An ad for a new horror movie. An ad for a vacation rental on a bass lake.

See what I mean? This could go way beyond Yahoo banners, or magazine ads. This is a chance for advertisers to market potential audiences with pinpoint accuracy. These are ads that people might actually want to get.

And they're in free books.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> No. People prefer VALUE. A free item with no perceived value is junk.
> 
> I've said this elsewhere. Occassionally "freebies" work, but only if they have value. If you give everything away, then the freebie has no value.
> 
> But building an entire marketing strategy on giving everything away for free is foolish and, more importantly, completely unneccessary.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't value linked with supply and demand?

Perhaps that's why people file-share. There's no supply shortage when something can be copied and distributed freely.

But I do know that the media that is file-shared is used and enjoyed.

Just like a library book, or a magazine in the dentist's waiting room, or a DVD your friend rented, can be used and enjoyed by you for free.

Is there value to listening to the radio or watching TV? These are free.

Is there value to surfing the Internet? This is free.

We pay for TVs and radios and computers, and often pay for services like satellite radio and cable TV and internet service providers, but the people who create the content--the writers--are ultimately paid by advertising dollars.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't value linked with supply and demand?


No, supply and demand refers more to commodities. Value refers to the perceived worth of an item.

Diamonds are one of the most plentiful gemstones on earth. If they were actually sold at real "supply and demand" cost, a diamond ring would cost about $10.

The diamond industry is used as an example in marketing in regards to building value. A diamond is not worth what it is sold for in terms of supply and demand. Yet people place incredible value on them.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Joe, near as I can tell, you and I only disagree about one point: whether to condone digital theft. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point. The rest I agree with you on, but I don't think there's any real reason to be optimistic about the future from a monetary standpoint as an author. The big change from the digital revolution is the lowering of barriers to entry into publishing. When supply goes up, price goes down. The real winners are readers--who get cheaper books--and, to a lesser extent, authors who couldn't or wouldn't be able to get past the traditional gates of publishing. At least now they'll get a sliver of pie.

In the long run, the producers of fiction, authors and agents and publishers alike, will fight to make a normal profit in a very, very competitive environment. The only real way to big gains financially is to construct another barrier to entry to gain monopoly profits, and if you're an author that comes down to talent, skill and effort. Write books that everyone knows about and wants but that only you--or very few others--can produce.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Shotguns and meat tenderizer?
> 
> Think in more specific terms.
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing that a portion of the buying public would be willing to share that much personal information with marketers. What I am saying is that this is not the norm, nor does it work with the majority of the buying public. This type of a site would appeal to a certain demographic, but it most certainly would not appeal to the whole demographic. It can be used as part of a broader distribution plan, but to claim that it is the end-all, be-all, undisputed final outcome for all electronic media is wrong.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> No, supply and demand refers more to commodities. Value refers to the perceived worth of an item.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the worth of an item contingent on it being a commodity?


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

People prefer one thing one moment and something else another. We are talking about people, aren't we? As for what I would like to see advertized with the zombie survival novel - BURMA SHAVE. Wouldn't everyone? Or any number of the AXE products. Aeromatic zombies and a segue into novels that extol the benefits of sharp instruments. Perhaps a Lizzie Borden series, or . . .here's an idea - Jane Austen with Zombies. I just came up with that one. Naw. It would never fly.

All kidding aside . . . no, I'm not kidding. People prefer humor to Mao's little red bok. Well, most poeple. Alright, Mao's book was required reading for a few people. Well, more than a few. Well, for 2/3rds of the species. Well . . . excuse me. I suddenly have a urge for several bags of potato chips.

Ed Patterson


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> It can be used as part of a broader distribution plan, but to claim that it is the end-all, be-all, undisputed final outcome for all electronic media is wrong.


Why is it wrong?

Content on the internet--in the form of information and entertainment--is free.

Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites on the net. Prior to the net, dictionary and encyclopedia companies were the ones that compiled date and definitions.

When the net came around, Encyclopdia Britannica tried to sell memberships online to their electronic database.

As we know, Wikipedia kicked their butts. Free won.

People fill out surveys all the time. Filling out a short form in order to have access to 100,000 free ebooks seems like a fair trade off. Online, you have to fill out forms to do anything, including join this forum.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the worth of an item contingent on it being a commodity?


The definition of a commodity is a good for which there is a demand but there is *not a significant difference * throughout the market. Wheat, oil, soybeans. These are commodities. If there is X amount of wheat and there are Y amount of buyers then Z can be charged.

Books are not interchangeable commodities. If I want a horror novel, you can't exchange it for a romance and expect me to be happy. And I think that is where your logic is failing, because you are treating books as interchangeable commodities instead of independent products with inherent value. Which is sad, considering you call yourself an author.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Maybe I can get a part-time gig writing the advertisements for ebooks.

Call me Ishmael--on my iPhone.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a . . . Kenmore Frigidaire!


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Eric C said:


> Maybe I can get a part-time gig writing the advertisements for ebooks.
> 
> Call me Ishmael--on my iPhone.
> 
> It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a . . . Kenmore Frigidaire!


It was the Best Buy of times.

Now is the winter of our... Giant Snowplow Sale!!!


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Why is it wrong?
> 
> Content on the internet--in the form of information and entertainment--is free.
> 
> ...


There is no such thing as "free" on the internet. Someone is paying for it. If people stop paying for it, it ceases to exist.

Wikipedia survives on donations. It doesn't charge a per user fee, but SOMEONE is in fact paying. And if the donations and grants stopped coming in, it would die.

Those grants that support Wikipedia often come from government agencies, which are funded with taxpayer dollars. Ergo, you are indirectly paying.

Just because you don't SEE the cost, does not mean it is not there and there is not a price.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything truly wrong, he was arrested and called Johnson, Banks, and Turner attorneys at law at 555-347-5567, that's 555-347-5567.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> And I think that is where your logic is failing, because you are treating books as interchangeable commodities instead of independent products with inherent value. Which is sad, considering you call yourself an author.


This is where your logic fails. There is nothing "inherent" in a book. It's all subjective.

Books are products. Sure, they're art. And they can mean a lot (or mean nothing) depending on the reader.

But there is nothing inherent in a book that makes it good or bad.

I actually call myself a "fulltime author" and make a living at this. I know I'm the luckiest man on the planet. I get to pay my bills doing something I love. At the same time, I get make a lot of people happy.

But I don't equate my books with feeding the poor, or curing disease, or building roads, or any career that actually benefits humanity.

I'm an entertainer. That's all I do.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> There is no such thing as "free" on the internet. Someone is paying for it. If people stop paying for it, it ceases to exist.


Google is a 100 billion dollar company. People don't pay for it. Ads do.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Eric C said:


> Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything truly wrong, he was arrested and called Johnson, Banks, and Turner attorneys at law at 555-347-5567, that's 555-347-5567.


If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth, because now I'm driving a Brand New Prius!


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth, because now I'm driving a Brand New Prius!


Good one. That ad concept has potential! Over and out (for now).


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

I think all of this is . . . debatable.

Ed P


----------



## gerrydodge (Oct 30, 2009)

I've had my book on kindle for two months approximately and I've only gotten two reviews, one from a former agent and one from Adept Red.  I thought her review was honest but I didn't agree with her.  I've sold fifty books which isn't a lot but I just am not getting any reviews.  I wish I could get a few more.  And my question is the same.  How long does it take to change the price?  Thanks.


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

Usually up to 5 business days. Changes show up in sequence--first the title and cover, then the description, finally the price. If everything's not good to go after 5 BUSINESS days, then you could have grounds to investigate.


----------

