# Anyone seen this post by Hugh Howey re: Kindle Unlimited and Amazon exclusivity?



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

I scrolled down to the 2nd and 3rd pages of WC and didn't see this post so if it's somewhere on the older pages, please holler and I apologize...

Anyhoo, what say you? I just set up all my accounts on iTunes, Kobo, BN Nook... And yeah, my sales on those booksellers are minuscule compared to Amazon... Some of my titles are coming out of Select next month but my borrows are OK for those. I get more sales than borrows.

http://www.hughhowey.com/ruminations-on-exclusivity/



> "Again, since May of 2012, my other outlets combined have failed to make up the difference in readers lost from borrows on Amazon. Part of this is certainly my focus on Amazon as my go-to store for customers..." - Hugh Howey
> 
> "As the time ticks down on my trial run in KU, which way am I leaning? Toward exclusivity. A larger readership is only one advantage. It'll also be easier to keep my works up to date by only having to upload to a single site. Another bonus will be to concentrate my sales into a single set of bestseller lists. One of the drawbacks of being published everywhere is the reduction of visibility, ironically. The more sales are concentrated in a single outlet, the higher your ebooks will be on bestseller lists, and the more prominent to casual browsers. Reviews will also be more concentrated. Like with the publishing house analogy earlier, all efforts are channeled into the biggest sales outlet." - Hugh Howey
> http://www.hughhowey.com/ruminations-on-exclusivity/


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

He's... incredibly wrong.

Maybe if there was more even ground between platforms, exclusivity could breed competition, but that's not a thing that's happening.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Well, I'm no expert, but this bit really jumped out at me as having some unconventional truths in it:



> It might also be true that spreading our ebooks everywhere hinders retailer competition rather than increasing it. After all, the indiscrimination of signing up for all services means they don't have to compete for our business. They are guaranteed to have it by those who urge us to "publish everywhere, no matter what." I've blogged about this before, and also how it takes getting used to the idea that we can move our eggs from basket to basket at will. None of these decisions are final. The KDP Select period is a mere 90 days. How do you think publishers would treat their authors if they could move to another publishing house every 90 days? How would digital retailers treat us if we exercised this right more often? It seems clear to me that the lack of discrimination harms us more than it helps us.


I want competition among retailers as much as the next person, but I think Hugh has a great point -- that at some point, other retailers need to be forced to up their game. And if that means their losing sales because they lose authors because their platforms are sucky in comparison to Amazon, I think that does make sense. As a reader, I buy books almost exclusively at Amazon because they serve me 1000x better. So, as an author, doesn't it make sense to operate similarly?

I have NEVER thought of exclusivity in a positive way until reading this post. Still on the fence about it all, especially because I can't help but be afraid that Amazon will take over the whole market, and I feel sorry for the readers who (god knows why) have stuck with other platforms like B&N. But Hugh definitely has me thinking.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

Oh boy, this is going to end well...


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

I don't buy it. KU is going to work okay for a while, like Select free days did way back when for those who were around at the time. But it isn't going to last forever. We're already seeing the pay out slip. I have a hard time believing exclusivity is the smart business choice for the long run. Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels pretty iffy to me.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Randall Wood said:


> I'm having a hard time agreeing with Hugh on this one as well.
> 
> Everyone will have a different tipping point. Obviously mine is much different then his. I was kind of shocked to hear him say how big the discrepancy is between his sales at Amazon vs. ALL the other platforms.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure he meant the amount he was losing each month by not getting borrows anymore, once he left Select. Obviously, he knew how many borrows he was getting per month while in Select.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

To each his own...all I know is that Amazon is now 44% of my total income, and falling all the time. Apple has been surprisingly strong for me, and I've really reached the Australian market through iTunes, in a big way. My Amazon Australia numbers are minuscule compared to the amount I sell there through iTunes. Not to mention the fact that iBooks are now preinstalled on all Apple products. 

But, then again, who can argue with Hugh? But he's just one top-seller. Most of the others who post here - like Holly, Bella, Liliana, etc. - distribute wide.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

anniejocoby said:


> To each his own...all I know is that Amazon is now 44% of my total income, and falling all the time. Apple has been surprisingly strong for me, and I've really reached the Australian market through iTunes, in a big way. My Amazon Australia numbers are minuscule compared to the amount I sell there through iTunes. Not to mention the fact that iBooks are now preinstalled on all Apple products.
> 
> But, then again, who can argue with Hugh? But he's just one top-seller. Most of the others who post here - like Holly, Bella, Liliana, etc. - distribute wide.


But this is why I want to test a series on all the channels. Once I have a bunch of series out in Select, I can afford to test one outside of Select. So, I plan to go for that next year around this time. By then I'll have at least three other series out besides my Benton series.


----------



## AriadneW (Feb 16, 2013)

I posted on his Facebook page, but I still think that it comes down to doing what's best for you and only you are going to work that out.

I've had one month this year where my iBooks sales exceeded my Amazon sales, they were nearly double. That, and for a New Zealand author with NZ and Australian readers, I'd rather have my books in subscription services such as Scribd and Oyster that they can sign up to if they choose to. Kindle Unlimited isn't available outside the US so for them it's not an option. So I'm quite happy with my status quo of books on multiple retailers even though I could possibly do better if I went into Select.


----------



## Maddie_K (Sep 13, 2014)

I'm in the US, but I'm distributing to all channels. I didn't even consider Select. Why? My first e-reader was a Sony, and I used to get very very frustrated because all the books my friends were recommending were all Kindle Select exclusive titles. Those authors ALL lost out on my sales.

I'd rather loose the borrows, but have my book available around the globe on any platform the reader wants to use.


----------



## Drake (Apr 30, 2014)

As long as Amazon keeps supporting the KU program with cash, I'll stick it out.  I agree with Hugh that loading to one platform is easier, and I'd rather spend time writing that formatting.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Drake said:


> As long as Amazon keeps supporting the KU program with cash, I'll stick it out. I agree with Hugh that loading to one platform is easier, and I'd rather spend time writing that formatting.


I think that's specious reasoning (the time spent formatting). It takes all of half an hour to format the files for all of the other sites and about the same to upload. Surely, there's one hour for every book that can be spared. It's not time-consuming and is simply not a good justification for not diversifying. Not to say that there aren't others, to each his own, but "the time better spent writing" just isn't one of them.


----------



## RipleyKing (Mar 5, 2013)

I want to say that there is something missing here in HH's equations. The pay-to-play factor of all the Kindle-oriented newsletters, and so many marketing opportunities that exclude iTunes, Nook, and Smashwords books. Their absurd review requirements, factor that in. Also, readers have flocked to these marketing outlets to find their next read. I can understand why: books that seem to have been sifted, and have earned some (invisible) seal of approval. 

These other retail outlets do need to step up to the next level, and I've take Mark Coker to task on this more than once. He seems determined to cast his distribution net even wider and let us authors fend for ourselves (in terms of marketing). We need something that rivals Bookbub (for half the cost) with almost the same reach.

The reality is there are very few marketing opportunities that have the reach and significance of the Kindle only sites and newsletters. 

My wider distribution stance has paid me more than any Amazon exclusive program ever could. Admittedly I have yet to buy an ad, and have relied on what little I could find and would have me. To counter that, I've offered a lot of my published material to read from my blog site, 50% and 30% samples of my published books, and my permafree offerings have paid off in reviews and some sales. I'm not doing cartwheels and back flips, but won't begrudge anyone their success. 

I'm just now starting to pick up in the iTunes market, due to my freebies. Aussie and other (select world markets) readers can only have one freebie from Amazon, while those (worldwide) iTunes customers can have three. Amazon offers nothing of mine for free in the UK, and I don't know why, when iTunes people the world over can have three of my published works for free. 

Also, I've earned the hard way every review I've managed to get, while one Bookbub ad can earn me how many reviews? Right now I'm spread so thin of some great, detailed, 5-star reviews, I'm using my wall, one spot, I blogged about not to long ago, as stress relief. 

All I'm really saying is to look at this equation from all sides. My side of the coin, your side, his side, and this one coin is as round as the Earth we live on.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

I don't know what to make of this situation yet myself, so I'm still in stand-back-and-watch mode.

But heck, whether Hugh's approach works well for all authors or not, I have nothing but respect for how open he is about his process, his data, and what works for him vs. what doesn't. Maybe exclusivity isn't going to suit a lot of authors here, but I think the point is it looks like it will suit him.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

Drake said:


> As long as Amazon keeps supporting the KU program with cash, I'll stick it out. I agree with Hugh that loading to one platform is easier, and I'd rather spend time writing that formatting.


This isn't an issue if you use Scrivener. Formatting becomes much more streamlined once you get past the learning curve. I can have a book formatted for Amazon, Smashwords, B&N, and Google in a matter of minutes. The only time-suck after that is uploading.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

I'm still watching my dashboard closely, something I haven't done in a long while. This was my "ruminations" on exclusivity, not my conclusions by any means.

If Apple steps up their game, as they've been promising (and showing signs this week), and if Google allows everyone to opt out of random discounting (or at least gives us a heads-up the way Kobo does), then the equation changes.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Drew Smith said:


> I hadn't ever thought before about the fact that splitting your books between retailers results in lower visibility as far as best seller lists are concerned. It makes sense though.


Without some hard data this conclusion is suspicious at best. Many, many readers find books by browsing the online bookstores. If a book isn't on a retailer, they won't find it. Also a lot of people are loyal to one store or another. It takes a lot of work to find a reader off a retailer and point them to the place you want them to buy.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Well, it's a hard one.  I wish they would not make you need to be exclusive--format or any other way--to get the KU benefits, etc.  But, that's where it is right now, and that's the decision each person has to make for themselves.  

I published my longest (and I thought at the time, best) gay romance novel around the beginning of the year.  I put it out through multiple channels, and it completely bombed.  I later adjusted the price a bit here and there, but still...nothing.  I changed the cover, too.

Finally, I've accepted the inevitable.  I pulled it from other channels and put it in KU.  Now instead of selling maybe 1-2 copies per month, it's selling multiple copies (or getting multiple borrows) a day.  It just wasn't working elsewhere.  

You just never know what's going to happen until it does, and then you've got to go with it, I guess.  I'm trying to be a businessperson about this instead of a sensitive artist, but sometimes it gets confusing and I don't feel very competent.  Always glad to read more takes on it, though, and to keep thinking about it and following the numbers the best I can.  I haven't yet put all my books in KU, but I have released my latest there--and plan to do so for the next ones as well.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Deanna Chase said:


> Without some hard data this conclusion is suspicious at best. Many, many readers find books by browsing the online bookstores. If a book isn't on a retailer, they won't find it. Also a lot of people are loyal to one store or another. It takes a lot of work to find a reader off a retailer and point them to the place you want them to buy.


Yep, this. I kept reading that part as saying that if you put your titles exclusively on Amazon, they're rank higher because all those buys over on Apple, or wherever, will become buys on Amazon, thereby pushing your book higher on the lists. But we know that's not how it works -- readers are retailer-specific. As a very frustrating example, I tried to lure my aunt away from B&N by offering her my K3 and she wouldn't do it, even though she thinks Amazon and the Kindle are superior, because she's already bought so many books on B&N. (She has the world's oldest Nook.)

What Drew said, though -- about splitting readers between book 2 and the series bundle on a single retailer -- does make sense. It just doesn't carry over to multiple retailers.


----------



## m.a. petterson (Sep 11, 2013)

I cannot see this working with permafree.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

Amazon also gives Hugh a LOT of attention that the rest of us do not get. In Hugh's case, considering his relationship with Amazon, his arguments make sense. Meanwhile, I read two current threads here in the WC TODAY regarding authors who had their exclusivity yanked out from under then without even the courtesy of the normal five day warning nastygram (one was a case of piracy the author had no control over). Amazon won't yank Hugh's exclusivity if a pirate throws his stuff up somewhere. But they do it to us "lesser beings" all the time.

Exclusivity makes sense when both parties are on a level playing field. I have an exclusive deal with RPGNOW for my roleplaying games. Why? Because I have a very good relationship with the team there and there is a great level of trust. They have never once in a decade given me a reason to question my relationship with them. I don't get nastygrams. I don't get threats. They don't have bots trolling the internet looking for my games so that they can yell at me. And when they DO find one of my games on a pirate site, the communication I get is "Hey, Jules, wanted to let you know we found (insert title) at (name of pirate site)." as a COURTESY, not as a WARNING. 

Amazon isn't going to screw with Hugh, who is one of their best PR tools with indies. Hugh has leverage with Amazon the rest of us do not, and therefore can risk exclusivity with Amazon because of that leverage. But as thread after thread in this forum has shown, the rest of us don't have that luxury.


----------



## Bob Stewart (Mar 19, 2014)

DianaGabriel said:


> ... But we know that's not how it works -- readers are retailer-specific.


Now, with so many people reading on tablets, phones, etc., there must be a fair number who are _not_ retailer specific. And this number is almost certainly increasing.

To offer my own anecdote, I had a book in BookBub last January that was in KDP Select and had 24,000 downloads. I ran another ad in July with the book in all the big venues and had 40,000 downloads. But the number at Amazon actually fell about 20%. And the number at Apple was 45% of Amazon's. I took that to mean there are a fair number of people who prefer to get their eBooks from Apple, but if they can't, they'll go ahead and get them from Amazon. Whether they cruise the bestseller lists at Amazon is another question.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

My biggest concern with Hugh's points about the positive side of exclusivity is that Amazon's competition is not struggling for relevance because of an inability to attract _authors,_ but rather an inability to attract _customers._ Amazon is where the eyeballs are. Think about it: you could sell your books on your own website and keep 100% of the income for yourself. You could treat yourself to dinner and a movie, a relaxing mani/pedi, whatever floats your boat. Does this star treatment mean that you're your own best retailer?

Amazon is the best option for the vast majority of authors simply because it's the best option for the majority of readers. Our loyalty as authors is part of that, but top authors-the real draws for most readers-are wide already, and nobody can afford to pay authors to walk away from Amazon entirely. Hachette is fighting tooth and nail with Amazon, but even _they_ couldn't dream of walking away entirely! B&N could give out 90% royalties and it wouldn't be enough. Kobo could buy you a live-in massage therapist. Apple could give you an iPhone 6 prototype. None of it would be enough to be exclusive with someone who isn't Amazon.

There may be an exception here if your name is so big that enough of your readers would follow you to whatever platform you choose. I don't think even Hugh qualifies for that one.

Ultimately, I think Hugh's point about exclusivity is astute to an extent, but that there's no retailers on the horizon who could lure anybody into cutting ties with Amazon. Nobody can compete with them on volume. We'd be cutting our own throats if we started jumping ship in order to make the market more competitive.

On the other hand, I'm inclined to agree that KDPS seems like a great deal for authors. There's plenty of folks succeeding at Hugh's level from Amazon sales alone. Holly, Bella, and Liliana might distribute wide, but who's their bread and butter? Remember, _Hugh himself distributes wide_-he just finds that he loses money doing it.

As someone who's aspiring to their level of success, it's worth considering whether a bump where you see the majority or plurality of your sales is worth more than going wide. Hugh's experience is compelling, even as a single data point. He's a unique guy in a lot of ways, but I doubt this is one of them.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Amazon also gives Hugh a LOT of attention that the rest of us do not get. In Hugh's case, considering his relationship with Amazon, his arguments make sense. Meanwhile, I read two current threads here in the WC TODAY regarding authors who had their exclusivity yanked out from under then without even the courtesy of the normal five day warning nastygram (one was a case of piracy the author had no control over). Amazon won't yank Hugh's exclusivity if a pirate throws his stuff up somewhere. But they do it to us "lesser beings" all the time.


Absolutely agree that precipitously yanking KDPS is a load of ballocks. You're also right that it's an extremely unequal relationship (even for Hugh). Even so, if you're forced out of KDPS, that frees you up to go wide. What you will have lost in the interim is whatever traction you might've gained on those other platforms, and that could easily have been made up by increased revenues at Amazon in the meantime.

Let's also not forget the hazards of going wide and devoting effort to build up other platforms: B&N could collapse any day; Apple pulls books off of their shelves or holds them up in publishing for weeks at a time, often because of arcane and capricious editorial standards; Google Play likes to tinker with your prices; formatting for other channels can be done quickly, but remains a non-zero cost to wide distribution, and so forth.

I'm not persuaded that most indies will see a net benefit from going wide vs. KDPS. I'm particularly skeptical because my sense from early returns is that KU borrows play a considerable role in the algos. Exclusivity with Amazon may mean more now than it ever has. Moar data plz.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

Deanna Chase said:


> Without some hard data this conclusion is suspicious at best. Many, many readers find books by browsing the online bookstores. If a book isn't on a retailer, they won't find it. Also a lot of people are loyal to one store or another. It takes a lot of work to find a reader off a retailer and point them to the place you want them to buy.


Agreed.

That particular argument is only valid if people know to type your name in elsewhere. Otherwise a no-name author is completely at the mercy of the platform he chose to publish on.


----------



## Amy Corwin (Jan 3, 2011)

It is fascinating to read this thread and the original article. Exclusivity has tormented me like a siren over the past few years. Every once in a while, I experiment with it, but since I rarely get borrows and it does not seem to affect my sales one way or the other, I've always come to the conclusion that I need to drop the exclusivity after 90 days and go to other markets. The sales from all the other markets are not as strong as Amazon, but they are enough to make it worth while to me.

I am always fascinated by the experiences of others. I'm trying KDP Select with my latest book and have decided that my new strategy (at least for the next six months) is to first put books out on KDP Select and then after 90 days, going to the other markets. Or I think I've decided that. ha, ha. Threads like this constantly make me re-think my decisions...


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Amazon won't yank Hugh's exclusivity if a pirate throws his stuff up somewhere. But they do it to us "lesser beings" all the time.


Yes they do. I've had books yanked. I've had books taken down because of formatting complaints from readers. I've had books price-matched to titles that were pirated and uploaded to Google Play where someone else was making money off my title (with stern emails from Amazon informing me that I'm violating my TOS and that my account would be suspended).

But, you know, why take the time to ask me when you can just say whatever fits your worldview and spread whatever kind of misinformation you like?


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

FWIW, if Kobo or Google Play came along with a special offer for better placement in return for exclusivity, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Not all my books,of course, just as I would never put all my books in Select.

In fact, I am preparing to launch an omnibus on all non-Amazon sites but not on Amazon, because of their silly price ceiling.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> Yes they do. I've had books yanked. I've had books taken down because of formatting complaints from readers. I've had books price-matched to titles that were pirated and uploaded to Google Play where someone else was making money off my title (with stern emails from Amazon informing me that I'm violating my TOS and that my account would be suspended).
> 
> But, you know, why take the time to ask me when you can just say whatever fits your worldview and spread whatever kind of misinformation you like?


Because it is easier to throw shade by implying you're an acolyte who gets special treatment from the Zon than actually considering your points as you present them (in good faith and with logic), and on their own merits. 

It's fair to say that due to Hugh's level of success, what works for him might not work for me. It's not fair to say that he's a PR tool, when his track record has always been to fight for authors and readers, regardless of whether that aligns him with Amazon.


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

... to spread my thread-killing knack farther and wider, I'm repeating a post from another threat. (If the moderators want me to kill other threads, I'm for hire for a modest fee.)

Quote from: Hugh Howey on Yesterday at 02:43:49 PM



> I like lots of data, large samples, and long timelines. This last bit we have none of.


My long timeline is why exclusivity makes me edgy. I just left a comment on Hugh's blog to that effect.

In 25+ years in publishing I've made a lot of choices. Even more, as an active member of the writing community for all those years, I've known the details of and watched the results of thousands and thousands of choices. I don't have the stats, but I do have the observational skills to say that choices/changes that narrow authors' future options are far, far, far less beneficial in the long-range than those that keep them as open as possible.

Some changes/choices we have little to no control over. In the traditional world that included the consolidation of distributors and the (still ongoing) consolidation of publishers. These were decisions made by businesses for the benefit of those individual businesses. Neither trend has been a good thing for authors. Both contributed to many, many authors' earnings dropping (while, yes, some individuals did very well.)

In my view one of the joys of indie is that it broke the exclusivity stranglehold that traditional publishers have had on authors. With indie we've had choices. We've had control.

I will not discuss details because I agreed not to. But anyone who looks at my books can see the fact that I have 3 of my 30+ titles in Select. It's an ongoing experiment. I agreed, because I wanted to see from the inside what had made me so uncomfortable from the outside.

But I'm definitely edgy. Not for myself, but for the future for authors.

Look, in another 25 years, I probably won't be here ... No, wait. What am I saying? Of course, I'll be here. Still writing, too. But possibly beginning on the downslope of my career. That I'll give you. ... Anyway, my approach and view are not going to be the same as someone starting out or someone who is not a survivor of traditional publishing.

I know that my top priority in writing is to write what I want to write. If what I want to write doesn't sell as well as things I don't want to write, then I won't make as much money as those writing other things. My decision, and I'm fine with that.

I'm realizing from this discussion and my reactions to it that another priority is to have the control of selling in many outlets. Some might make more money going another way than I do by diversifying, and I'm fine with that.

So, I'm good with making my choices in favor of more control, even if I make less money that way. In 25 years (barring disasters!) I'll still be doing what's most important to me -- writing what I want to write.

But I am concerned about where authors will be in 25 years. From my experience, the road paved with exclusivity has not led anywhere good for authors as a whole.


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

Drake said:


> As long as Amazon keeps supporting the KU program with cash, I'll stick it out. I agree with Hugh that loading to one platform is easier, and I'd rather spend time writing that formatting.


Me <==== one epub file per book (used for every channel). Time to make it: 1 button click in scrivener (0.5secs?)


----------



## boo4321 (Nov 21, 2013)

Dolphin said:


> Let's also not forget the hazards of going wide and devoting effort to build up other platforms: B&N could collapse any day; Apple pulls books off of their shelves or holds them up in publishing for weeks at a time, often because of arcane and capricious editorial standards; Google Play likes to tinker with your prices; formatting for other channels can be done quickly, but remains a non-zero cost to wide distribution, and so forth.


But that's exactly the point -- EVERY vendor comes with some risk, INCLUDING Amazon. One vendor might cut their royalties. One might go under. One might block your books (actually had this happen to two people I know on Amazon this week...). That's exactly why diversifying can be so important - if you bet all your money on one horse (even the biggest, fastest horse) and something happens with that horse, that affects your entire writing income. If your income comes from multiple places and something changes at one of those places, you still have your income from the other sources. (Which isn't to say that terrible things couldn't happen at ALL vendors, but the chances of them happening ALL AT ONCE are very slim.)

As others have mentioned in this thread--there have been a couple of cases on WC *this* week of Amazon blocking books of people who are in Select -- meaning that they are losing their only source of income for those books. If B&N goes under, that will blow, but I'll still have money coming in from iTunes, Amazon, Kobo, Google Play, and a few other places.

There are obviously risks involved with EVERY choice we make in this industry. My goal at this point is to make my income as "steady" as possible - and diversifying helps me achieve that (income at all vendors seems to rise and fall in waves--but in my experience, not at the same time...one of my worst months at Amazon this year was my best month at iTunes). Diversifying has helped *me* gain more readers (Amazon only makes up about 50% of my income these days). Other people might have different goals, or different audiences.

Hugh is smart, and he didn't get to where he is today without making savvy business decisions, but his career is in a very different place than mine. I keep my eye on the big players and what they're doing, the decisions they make at *this* point in their careers, when they're stratospheres above where I am, aren't the decisions I should be making for myself right now.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

EmberC said:


> But that's exactly the point -- EVERY vendor comes with some risk, INCLUDING Amazon. <brevity snip>


Right, I agree with all of this to a point. The choice comes down to the opportunity costs of going wide, versus the risk of your exclusive distributor screwing you over in some fashion (intentionally or otherwise).

I think one of the main reasons why I'm inclined to cast my lot with Hugh on this one is that thanks to his short- to mid-term run with Amazon, he built the kind of brand that even Amazon wouldn't be able to kill entirely. He'd suffer a huge setback if Amazon disappeared tomorrow, or cast him out, but he'd still be a millionaire, a NYT bestselling author, and just about as close to a household name as indies get. He'd still have a readership that he never could've built anywhere else. Even when I assume, for the purposes of argument, that Amazon will eventually fade or stab me in the back, I still think there's a very strong argument to make hay with them while the sun shines.

I should also say that I'm coming at this from a very different angle than most of you. I'm planning my future and my family's future as indy authors, but we haven't got a proper catalog of work online yet. All of this is in the planning stages for me. I don't doubt that wide distribution would be very hard to walk away from, if it was something I'd already built (maybe harder than it should be-loss aversion is a sneaky devil). Speaking as someone who hasn't developed any such thing, however, I'm not convinced it's the best way to direct my efforts.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Monique said:


> I think that's specious reasoning (the time spent formatting). It takes all of half an hour to format the files for all of the other sites and about the same to upload. Surely, there's one hour for every book that can be spared. It's not time-consuming and is simply not a good justification for not diversifying. Not to say that there aren't others, to each his own, but "the time better spent writing" just isn't one of them.


Less than that if you have Scrivener. When it's time to compile the uploaded version, you simply do it once for MOBI and once for EPUB (and a third time for Smashwords since they demand you have that stupid "Smashwords Edition" bullshit at the front). 
There's a Word/notepad with the blurb, keywords, everything I need. Takes more time to fill out the info at each dashboard than it does to compile/format/upload. But these days, after doing it for something like fifteen books, it takes almost no time to hit Gplay, Amazon, Kobo, B&N, Smashwords, etc. Or maybe it takes weeks, and I've fooled myself into thinking there's no such thing as a black hole of time.

What's good for Hugh isn't necessarily what's good for you.

Yes, I'm a poet and have an understanding about it. 
I rhyme always.


----------



## Jacke Wilson (Sep 19, 2014)

Fascinating article and discussion. I launched into the self-publishing process excited about the DIY part of it - and the complete control and ownership that came with it. And while it's true that some extra steps only take thirty minutes (in best case scenarios), there are a lot of those thirty-minute tasks. Blog posts, email to readers, sending out review copies, cover designs, formatting, vetting and hiring editors, etc. (You know all this already!) Plus a full-time job to pay the bills and keep my kids in clothes that fit. So while it seems important to take into consideration the viability of competition and how our decisions may shape the future of publishing and distribution, it also seems natural to ask the question of each task: is this worth it? But I'm open to both sides (and currently trying to get my books in as many different markets as I have time to keep up with)!


----------



## SB James (May 21, 2014)

I personally know people who do not use Kindle, but use Nook or Apple to buy their books. I also personally know people who would feel that KU is a waste of money. These people do have a bit of influence on me, as I consider them the general reading public.
I don't worry about my rankings on Amazon being reduced since people are downloading my permafree and buying my book on other sites, I only worry about the number of units overall that were sold.
There are many authors who are making money with the borrows that they never did with the other outlets. I know I'm making more money on the other outlets than I did with the borrows when I was in Select. And yes, KU was around one whole month before I Book 1 out.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

I've come to the conclusion that Amazon exclusivity is the best option. Not out of some obscure ability of one vendor to push up whatever though. It's simple. Amazon is a defacto monopoly for English language ebooks and if you go exclusive, they very obviously put their thumb on the scale in terms of your sales rank and visibility.

Given that I think this is a foregone conclusion, me putting new books onto other platforms just isn't going to make any difference to Amazon's power, so I might as well do what benefits me the most until they crack down and spotify the whole thing and we're making 5 cents a borrow and 10% of cover.


----------



## Jacke Wilson (Sep 19, 2014)

Wow, that's a very cynical view, Kat S. But like a lot of cynical views, it also strikes me as being eminently realistic and practical. What a world we live in!


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Kat S said:


> I've come to the conclusion that Amazon exclusivity is the best option. Not out of some obscure ability of one vendor to push up whatever though. It's simple. Amazon is a defacto monopoly for English language ebooks and if you go exclusive, they very obviously put their thumb on the scale in terms of your sales rank and visibility.
> 
> Given that I think this is a foregone conclusion, me putting new books onto other platforms just isn't going to make any difference to Amazon's power, so I might as well do what benefits me the most until they crack down and spotify the whole thing and we're making 5 cents a borrow and 10% of cover.


Right. Even in the worst case scenario, I'm not sure there's anything to be gained by fighting the tide.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

HSh said:


> I'm trying to be a businessperson about this instead of a sensitive artist, but sometimes it gets confusing and I don't feel very competent. Always glad to read more takes on it, though, and to keep thinking about it and following the numbers the best I can.


Same here. I'm fumbling along, made a _huge_ mistake very recently and it's cost me. But lesson learned. I pick up and move on, trying to keep up with the conversations and make the best decisions for me.

By the way, I just read Wes and Kit. You have a new fan.

/irrelevance to the rest of the thread

Thanks to everyone for such a measured, even-handed discussion. So much to learn, so much to do.


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

Kat S said:


> I've come to the conclusion that Amazon exclusivity is the best option. Not out of some obscure ability of one vendor to push up whatever though. It's simple. Amazon is a defacto monopoly for English language ebooks and if you go exclusive, they very obviously put their thumb on the scale in terms of your sales rank and visibility.


That's awesome. When it comes to ebooks, I tend to look at it in this light and it plays a part in my decision to stay in Select.


----------



## mysterygal (Aug 7, 2014)

Well, I'm close to being all in. I missed the great surge many of you enjoyed when select was first rolled out. I remained true to my belief, which was that exclusivity was a bad thing. Then I sat and watched while those who bellied up and drank from the Amazon cup reaped huge rewards in sales and recognition.

Not this time. My sales at other markets have dwindled, and I've never gotten traction here. If Amazon has the best platform and offers the most sales or borrows, I want in on the party this time.

But that doesn't mean anyone should take me or my books for granted. I'm not marrying the Zon, I'm simply playing around in his rooms for a while. If he eventually treats me badly, I'll move on. Nothing in this business is writ in stone.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> Yes they do. I've had books yanked. I've had books taken down because of formatting complaints from readers. I've had books price-matched to titles that were pirated and uploaded to Google Play where someone else was making money off my title (with stern emails from Amazon informing me that I'm violating my TOS and that my account would be suspended).
> 
> But, you know, why take the time to ask me when you can just say whatever fits your worldview and spread whatever kind of misinformation you like?


Oh come on, Hugh. You really expect me to believe that since Wool hit it big and Amazon has put your face everywhere, your treatment by Amazon hasn't changed? That even if a bot sends you an email, you don't have a rep you can call to tell them to fix it? I've been here forever. You have never said anything about Amazon yanking your titles from the site that I can recall. And I think that the way people quote you every time you say something, that is the sort of thing that would get around. There would have been a "Amazon Yanks Hugh Howey's Books!" thread here in the cafe.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

I was disappointed by your blog, Hugh, because you kept comparing a reseller to publishers. Going exclusive with a publisher is not even remotely the same as going exclusive with Amazon. Do you believe that Harper Collins or Random House is offering your books only at Amazon when you give them exclusive rights to handle your books? Of course not, yet that was the inference you made.

I am not now in Select, have never had any of my books in Select, and will never have any books in Select while Amazon requires exclusivity. Having so much control over the market is what allows Amazon to keep chipping away at author shares. Look at ACX. Lack of competition has allowed Amazon to cut the author share to 40%.

Since the KU program has begun, Amazon accounts for less than 45% of my income. It's taken me a long time to develop a steady following in other distribution channels and I'm d*mn glad I have them. I'm not trying to convince others not to use Select. Each author has to decide for themselves which course is best for their business.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> Oh come on, Hugh. You really expect me to believe that since Wool hit it big and Amazon has put your face everywhere, your treatment by Amazon hasn't changed? That even if a bot sends you an email, you don't have a rep you can call to tell them to fix it? I've been here forever. You have never said anything about Amazon yanking your titles from the site that I can recall. And I think that the way people quote you every time you say something, that is the sort of thing that would get around. There would have been a "Amazon Yanks Hugh Howey's Books!" thread here in the cafe.


Class warfare at its finest.

If I were Hugh, I wouldn't bother responding to the rest of this thread.


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Oh come on, Hugh. You really expect me to believe that since Wool hit it big and Amazon has put your face everywhere, your treatment by Amazon hasn't changed? That even if a bot sends you an email, you don't have a rep you can call to tell them to fix it? I've been here forever. You have never said anything about Amazon yanking your titles from the site that I can recall. And I think that the way people quote you every time you say something, that is the sort of thing that would get around. There would have been a "Amazon Yanks Hugh Howey's Books!" thread here in the cafe.


Don't take Hugh's word for it.

Maybe Hugh doesn't complain about it publicly, because he knows it will get fixed. For Hugh, that might happen a little faster than the rest because he has access to a rep. Bottom line, Amazon fixes this stuff fairly quickly. I've had a book yanked for a BS pirating issue, and I didn't say a word here or anywhere, because Amazon got back to me quickly and resolved the issue...like they've done with every single thing issue I've ever had with them-as a writer, publisher and customer.


----------



## Christine_C (Jun 29, 2014)

Maybe just take him at his word? I'm not really sure what motivation he would have for lying. Seems to me like he dispenses a lot of valuable free advice, and I personally would like to see that continue.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2014)

Steven Konkoly said:


> Maybe Hugh doesn't complain about it publicly, because he knows it will get fixed. For Hugh, that might happen a little faster than the rest because he has access to a rep.


But that is my point. I love Hugh. He's a great guy. But he does have access to a rep. And that changes the dynamic between him and Amazon. Maybe he doesn't think it matters. But it does. There are threads here in KB right now about people getting their entire accounts yanked without even the benefit of the normal "five days to comply" letter. And these are people who can't pick up the phone and talk to their rep. They are stuck in the circle of emails.

And it isn't "class warfare." It is a matter of reality. The ability to pick up the phone and talk to a decision maker, as opposed to having to be stuck in a loop of emails to customer service reps, is a big deal. And it changes the dynamic of exclusivity. Again, that is the reason I do exclusive with RPGNOW but not Amazon. I can talk to a real person at RPGNOW if I have a problem, and they handle it. They know who I am. That is a huge difference there. I don't see why it is inherently evil to point out that difference.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Can we not alienate one of the few top authors who still comes here?


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2014)

Kalypsō said:


> Can we not alienate one of the few top authors who still comes here?


I'm pretty sure Hugh has known me long enough that he isn't feeling "alienated."


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

AngryGames said:


> Less than that if you have Scrivener. When it's time to compile the uploaded version, you simply do it once for MOBI and once for EPUB (and a third time for Smashwords since they demand you have that stupid "Smashwords Edition" [bullcrap] at the front).


In Jutoh there are separate Open Office and Open Office Smashwords compile options, the latter includes the Smashwords branding. It is why I gave up doing epub direct at Smashwords as Jutoh does not currently have an epub Smashwords compile option.


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

It's not evil to say that Hugh has a different dynamic with Amazon, but this: 

"I've been here forever. You have never said anything about Amazon yanking your titles from the site that I can recall. And I think that the way people quote you every time you say something, that is the sort of thing that would get around. There would have been a "Amazon Yanks Hugh Howey's Books!" thread here in the cafe."

is tantamount to saying Hugh is full of $#@! Not evil, but not nice either...unless I'm totally missing the tone. And that's possible. I know you are direct, and that's what everyone has come to expect, but my "a fellow KBoarder and author is under personal attack" alarm sounded with the quote above. 

Related to the original topic of exclusivity and the risks involved, if you are worried about having the rug pulled out from under you in Select, we should all ascertain 1.) how often does this occur and 2.) does it get resolved, and what damage occurs. My guess, supported by nothing but the presence of TWO threads out of thousands, representing a TINY fraction of the self-pubbed, exclusive/non-exclusive writers out there is that 1.) This occurs rarely, and is statistically insignificant as a risk factor to be a balance tipping consideration in your decision about exclusivity. This doesn't factor having multiple titles, multiple series, all of which would have to be "zapped" at once to kill you, even for a few days. 2.) All of these get resolved, with varying, minor degrees of damage to sales or sales momentum. No kill shots.


----------



## chris56 (Jun 8, 2013)

Donald Rump said:


> Class warfare at its finest.


That comment was really uncalled for. I don't always agree with Julie's opinions, but I prefer to address the issues without flinging personal insults. And she has a valid point - Hugh's standing as an top selling author affords him opportunities that most authors don't get. It's not about jealousy or class warfare - it's about pointing out the obvious.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

I stand by my comment. Empathy in communication is a lovely thing.


----------



## lostagain (Feb 17, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The ability to pick up the phone and talk to a decision maker, as opposed to having to be stuck in a loop of emails to customer service reps, is a big deal. And it changes the dynamic of exclusivity.


Yes! As someone who suffered through waiting for an email when dealing with a timely issue (free day not going free when ads were booked), the ability to talk to someone would have lowered my blood pressure immensely. It boggles my mind that they are this big and the only customer service for KDP and KS is email. We're customers too.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Sticking my academic hat on (it is not a very fetching one, so no photos) the issue of whether exclusivity works better will always be one of life's great imponderables, because it contains too many factors to take into consideration. It is something on which reliable data can never be found. Book sales are so reliant on what it hot, how old the book is, how the retailer uses also boughts etc. This problem is compounded by Select's 90 exclusivity. Book tails may be long in the digital world but they also have peaks in the early days when less people own it (or troughs as there are few reviews ans also boughts/views). 90 days is a long time in the data set of book selling, so there can never be an answer to the inclusivity/exclusivity from a data set viewpoint. You have to go by your principles of who is losing out (KU customers or iPhone 6 iBooks users) and the fact that if you are already doing well inclusive or exclusive that a change risks the income stream.


----------



## Eltanin Publishing (Mar 24, 2011)

Random tidbit - If you're going to be exclusive to Amazon, it is best to have NO DRM. That way if someone says they really want the ePub, you can suggest they convert it. 

I've still had a few people say they hate Amazon and won't give them a dime. I said buy from B&N. They said B&N doesn't sell in their country. That's what spurred us to sell on Kobo. Very few sales, but at least we have a come-back to those few people.

Hey, do what works for you, and live and let live, eh? It really looks a bit... uninformed... to say that a very well-selling author is doing it "wrong".


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Hugh is entitled to his opinion and I'm sure it makes sense for him. However, let's not assume all big sellers feel the same way. There are many huge sellers who no longer participate here for a variety of reasons who DON'T think KU or Select is a good thing. Six figure a month royalty authors. 

The reason I mention this is it's easy for someone newer to see this post and assume if big sellers think it's good it has to be. They don't all see it as good and it doesn't have to be. Each person has to decide for themselves if they're going to drink the kool-aid.


----------



## Tricia O&#039; (Feb 19, 2013)

I've read through this thread and the KDP AllStars one in their entirety. I commend Hugh for putting himself out there like he has. Not only has he been a catalyst for change in the self-publishing movement but he continually reports back on his experiences so that others can make informed decisions.

As do a lot of authors on these boards.

Which goes to say that _all_ of our experiences and opinions are valid. Together they shape the data and form of this ever-changing self-publishing movement. It isn't easy to be the person whose success has (intentionally or unintentionally) thrust them into being a voice of this new landscape that we are all trying to traverse. There are plenty of authors who haven't been as vocal and have done their best to help and lead others and still have been lampooned for doing so.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that...people, please don't forget that we are all human. Yes, we can take criticism. Yes, facts should be dissected and analyzed. Yes, some of us are competitors and will work with different vendors for our publishing career. But, ultimately, we are all in this together.

Thanks Hugh, and to every author, that contributes their experiences here.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> That comment was really uncalled for. I don't always agree with Julie's opinions, but I prefer to address the issues without flinging personal insults. And she has a valid point - Hugh's standing as an top selling author affords him opportunities that most authors don't get. It's not about jealousy or class warfare - it's about pointing out the obvious.


On this thread alone Hugh Howey has essentially been called a liar and flat out "wrong." It's not the point being made but rather the manner in which it's delivered that suggests it's more than an "I'm right, you're wrong" argument. "Wool hit it big", "Amazon has put your face everywhere", "your treatment by Amazon", "a rep you can call to tell them to fix it" are the phrases that caught my eye, since I also don't have a title that hit it big like Wool, Amazon hasn't put my face everywhere, I don't get special treatment, and don't have a rep to call and fix things. I'm happy for Mr. Howey's success, I truly am. Prefacing an argument with these things doesn't make one's case anymore than something can only be true if it were first mentioned on Kindle Boards.

It's painfully obvious that this is a case of the people making little to no money vs. people making lots of money. Class warfare at its finest.

Hugh is struggling to make a tough business decision, and business decisions have a funny way of going against traditional logic and one's personal beliefs. I'm glad that he shared his viewpoints and took the initiative with Author Earnings. He doesn't have to fight for the little guy, self-published authors like us who have never had a level playing field since the creation of the printing press. Yet he still does.

Since he started out like many of us and obviously isn't a shill for Amazon, why should he lie?


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Donald Rump said:


> On this thread alone Hugh Howey has essentially been called a liar and flat out "wrong." It's not the point being made but rather the manner in which it's delivered that suggests it's more than an "I'm right, you're wrong" argument. "Wool hit it big", "Amazon has put your face everywhere", "your treatment by Amazon", "a rep you can call to tell them to fix it" are the phrases that caught my eye, since I also don't have a title that hit it big like Wool, Amazon hasn't put my face everywhere, I don't get special treatment, and don't have a rep to call and fix things. I'm happy for Mr. Howey's success, I truly am. Prefacing an argument with these things doesn't make one's case anymore than something can only be true if it were first mentioned on Kindle Boards.
> 
> It's painfully obvious that this is a case of the people making little to no money vs. people making lots of money. Class warfare at its finest.
> 
> ...


Except it isn't class warfare. There are authors who make 100,000 a month who don't believe in Select. They are no more wrong than Hugh. I'm not saying Hugh is wrong for Hugh. Or for some other people. Please don't say anyone who doesn't agree with Hugh is an author not making any money. That is simply not true. They've left here months ago. Used to contribute a lot but got sick of a myriad of things.


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

AriadneW said:


> I posted on his Facebook page, but I still think that it comes down to doing what's best for you and only you are going to work that out.
> 
> I've had one month this year where my iBooks sales exceeded my Amazon sales, they were nearly double. That, and for a New Zealand author with NZ and Australian readers, I'd rather have my books in subscription services such as Scribd and Oyster that they can sign up to if they choose to. Kindle Unlimited isn't available outside the US so for them it's not an option. So I'm quite happy with my status quo of books on multiple retailers even though I could possibly do better if I went into Select.


That's a very good point about the international aspect of exclusivity. I often get the feeling that many people forget there's a big, wide world beyond the US. And let's be honest here, the Amazon AU and CA stores are a joke. Here we have 2 major English speaking countries, and they don't even have Look Insides. What is that about?

But I do get where he's coming from. At the end of the day it really does fall on the retailers to make their platforms more attractive to us, but more importantly, to their readers. As a reader searching the Apple store, for example, I'm constantly frustrated. It isn't a pleasant experience at all. So these guys have to meet us half way.

(Obligatory counsel: Everyone should do what's best for them, blah, blah, blah)


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

My best marketing guess would be:

Exclusivity will help you build up a name with Amazon customers if no one knows you.

Broad distribution will have more impact if at least some people are looking for you (or if anything released in that category tends to sell well, regardless of author.)

So, an unknown author releasing a children's mystery may be better off to release in KDP while an erotica or romance writer would likely find enough people looking for new books that a broad distribution would build their following more quickly. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## tessblunt (Jan 29, 2014)

Caddy said:


> Used to contribute a lot but got sick of a myriad of things.


This happens in every (online) community. You've gotta be a brave soul to participate on these forums, and I find Hugh's, and others', advice invaluable here.

Obviously we're all going to have to make the business decisions that best suit our individual situations, and the beauty of self-publishing is flexibility.

Also, if KU [crap]s the bed in a month or two, I'll simply choose to not re-enroll my books in Select and reactivate them on D2D instead. What's the big [expletive]ing deal? Amazon is on top, hands down, for selling in the genres that make the most money. There is no use trying to fight against Amazon, put your political convictions aside and make yourself some money while it's there, for Christ's sake.

_edited to comply with Forum Decorum. Thanks. --Betsy_


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Holy crap, someone got called 'wrong' for saying something incorrect on the internet?!

Raise the palisades! Light the torches! The Barbarians are at the gates!

Seriously guys, last time I checked, Hugh was a grown-ass man and could stand on his own two without a bunch of mother cats gently licking the scruff of his neck. I can't speak for him, but I would be freaked the hell out by the creep-ass zealotry.


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

EmberC said:


> EVERY vendor comes with some risk, INCLUDING Amazon. One vendor might cut their royalties. One might go under. One might block your books (actually had this happen to two people I know on Amazon this week...). That's exactly why diversifying can be so important - if you bet all your money on one horse (even the biggest, fastest horse) and something happens with that horse, that affects your entire writing income. If your income comes from multiple places and something changes at one of those places, you still have your income from the other sources. (Which isn't to say that terrible things couldn't happen at ALL vendors, but the chances of them happening ALL AT ONCE are very slim.) ...
> There are obviously risks involved with EVERY choice we make in this industry. My goal at this point is to make my income as "steady" as possible - and diversifying helps me achieve that ...


An excellent point. Just as risk aversion/irrational exuberance are important elements in investing style, they are here, too.

Some fascinating studies in financial psychology show that we might think we're being rational and businesslike, but actually being driven by emotions.


----------



## chris56 (Jun 8, 2013)

Donald Rump said:


> On this thread alone Hugh Howey has essentially been called a liar and flat out "wrong." It's not the point being made but rather the manner in which it's delivered that suggests it's more than an "I'm right, you're wrong" argument. "Wool hit it big", "Amazon has put your face everywhere", "your treatment by Amazon", "a rep you can call to tell them to fix it" are the phrases that caught my eye, since I also don't have a title that hit it big like Wool, Amazon hasn't put my face everywhere, I don't get special treatment, and don't have a rep to call and fix things. I'm happy for Mr. Howey's success, I truly am. Prefacing an argument with these things doesn't make one's case anymore than something can only be true if it were first mentioned on Kindle Boards.
> 
> It's painfully obvious that this is a case of the people making little to no money vs. people making lots of money. Class warfare at its finest.
> 
> ...


I'm not seeing painfully obvious class warfare here. What I do see is people with obviously different opinions about Amazon/Select. I don't happen to share Hugh's opinion about staying in Select for the long haul but at the same time, I respect his right to make his own choices to do what's best for him. Just like I respect the rights of others to make choices they believe are best for them. There are just too many variables to believe there is only one road to success.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> Holy crap, someone got called 'wrong' for saying something incorrect on the internet?!
> 
> Raise the palisades! Light the torches! The Barbarians are at the gates!
> 
> Seriously guys, last time I checked, Hugh was a grown-ass man and could stand on his own two without a bunch of mother cats gently licking the scruff of his neck. I can't speak for him, but I would be freaked the hell out by the creep-ass zealotry.


I know snark is part of your schtick, Vaal, but c'mon. Is it really this hard for you to have a calm discussion about Amazon? Ever? Without the name-calling and relentlessly mocking people who a) don't agree with you and b ) happen to be a touch more civil about it?

"Wrong" and "incorrect" are debatable and fluid here. Hence the thread. Which is for discussion. Which - GASP - is possible to have while being respectful.


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

MyraScott said:


> My best marketing guess would be:
> 
> Exclusivity will help you build up a name with Amazon customers if no one knows you.
> 
> ...


Very interesting points, Myra.

Thank you for them.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2014)

I am for Hugh making his own decisions without any mud slinging from bystanders.
All the approving and opposing viewpoints have been rendered. More than once.
Let's find another topic


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

DianaGabriel said:


> I know snark is part of your schtick, Vaal, but c'mon. Is it really this hard for you to have a calm discussion about Amazon? Ever? Without the name-calling and relentlessly mocking people who a) don't agree with you and b ) happen to be a touch more civil about it?
> 
> "Wrong" and "incorrect" are debatable and fluid here. Hence the thread. Which is for discussion. Which - GASP - is possible to have while being respectful.


I'm perfectly fine having a discussion. What I'm not fine with it fallacious arguments; this ridiculous notion that because someone makes money means they're infallible and shouldn't be questioned when they make frankly dangerous statements or that calling someone 'wrong' is some kind of personal attack.

Time and time again, I make arguments from an analytical, observational approach and get shouted down by people making emotional appeals about how I 'hate' Amazon or other such emotional appeals and/or prosperity gospel derived grandstanding.

So yeah, I'm a a damn sight tetchy about it. I'm not just being snarky and contrarian, I'm fighting showmanship with showmanship, since analysis and observation are constantly dismissed and snowed under by flash.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK...

Again, let's lighten up.  Make the same points without characterizations. 

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## MJWare (Jun 25, 2010)

I haven't been able to _ever_ sell anything on any platform except Amazon.
I even have a book in the top 100 (Free) Apple Kid's bestsellers, which includes a preview of my best selling book, and I still only sell 5-8 copies a month.

That being said, my sales at Amazon are tanking now too. Every other year September is the beginning of an upswing. So, I don't know what to make of it, but it's pretty depressing.

My experience may be atypical, but Amazon is the only retailer to ever deliver for me.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> My experience may be atypical, but Amazon is the only retailer to ever deliver for me.


Ah! You're the Super Zombie Juice Mega Bomb guy. I've been meaning to read that book.

I have a bunch of Italian children's books that sell better in Kobo than Amazon, but so far that's the only exception.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

I read Hugh's post in it's entirety and I'm kind of taken aback by his response. Maybe I'm wrong but I didn't take it as a call for all authors to join select. He simply outlined his logic behind his decision to go exclusive. Many times he mentioned some of his reservations. I could be wrong, but it sounds like he'd love for other distributors to improve but for him Amazon just out does them all. I've had a similar experience. Ideologically I'm against the idea of exclusivity but my numbers speak to me and they are quite clear. Honestly, it does take time to upload AND update titles across so many platforms. When I add a book to a series I have to update all the previous books as well... Takes more than 30 minutes. Also, I personally reject the idea that people only use one retailer and will thus not "find" an author. I've read books from Amazon, Nook and ARe. Even read some on Scribd before they started their little program. Readers are saavy. They don't buy groceries in one place and I'm sure they don't buy books in one place.

And honestly, I am a bit disturbed by how mean the responses have been towards Hugh. Sure, he's a grown man, but he's human and doesn't get paid to comment here. Surely his time is better spent doing other things. But he chooses to offer advice from his perspective. I'm gay and I've had more civil conversations with folks adamantly against homosexuality. It's no wonder folks who are doing well in the self publishing world tend to steer clear of here now.

For me, as a writer of black gay fiction, I averaged about $1200 a month from my titles across all boards. In the middle of last month I switched to Select. Made a little more. This month I'll be close to $2,000 if sales and borrows continue and the rate is $1.50 again. Is Amazon Select awesome and faultless? God no. But even though I don't like exclusivity I like making money from my work. So if you don't like Select, awesome, more money from the pot for me. Because when being in the program is no longer financially beneficial I will move on.

You'd think a bunch of authors would look up the meaning of rumination to understand that Hugh struggled with his decision. But I guess I'll just chuck that up to people's disdain for Amazon's exclusivity plan. It is the Devil...


----------



## pagegirl (Feb 3, 2014)

Maximillion, without quoting all of your post, I totally agree.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

pagegirl said:


> Maximillion, without quoting all of your post, I totally agree.


Thoroughly seconded! 

And Betsy, thank you for popping in.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

What Maximillion said. It's why I'll rarely post here any more. I miss the old WC, where wise, experienced people would share their OPINIONS and state them as such, instead of insisting they are irrefutable facts.

It's hard to have a productive discussion with someone who refuses to believe that they could be wrong.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> Holy crap, someone got called 'wrong' for saying something incorrect on the internet?!
> 
> Raise the palisades! Light the torches! The Barbarians are at the gates!
> 
> Seriously guys, last time I checked, Hugh was a grown-ass man and could stand on his own two without a bunch of mother cats gently licking the scruff of his neck. I can't speak for him, but I would be freaked the hell out by the creep-ass zealotry.


I'm more freaked out by posts like this. I've noticed a lot of the negativity on these boards comes from the same handful of people, and it has changed the tenor here, made it a less positive "group-hug" place, and while that might be more rational and balanced, I do miss coming to a place that felt like therapy and got me fired up to write more, publish more, share more. I'm sure that's selfish of me, to have viewed KBoards as a sort of therapy, a healthful and helpful place to procrastinate (or recharge, as it were).

Perhaps it's a better forum now. Perhaps my situation is now unique and it doesn't make sense to share. But you and Julie are wrong (and cruel) to suggest that I'm an adult, that adults don't have feelings, and that you can state that my (clearly stated as opinion) opinion is wrong.

I don't get it. Honestly, I think you're trying to shame the people from sticking up for me so they don't stick up for me. A lot of passive aggressive manipulations like that around here. It makes me sad more than anything else. One of my favorite places on the internet is gone. Yeah, I'm the old guy pining about the past when maybe the present is even better for most people. Trying not to be sour grapes about it all, just voicing my two cents.

Personally, I can't imagine being a person who gets a thrill out of being called a liar, privileged, wrong, etc. but is creeped out by someone offering encouragement, support, and agreement. That would be a depressing way to live.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> I don't get it. Honestly, I think you're trying to shame the people from sticking up for me so they don't stick up for me.


Hugh, my dear, those tactics may work on some people, but they don't work on me.

*I'll stick up for you for as much as I darn well please.* 

(Oh, and I never say "darn." I use the other one. But I can't do that here. Sooo . . .  )


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

FWIW... I think too often people overstate the "easiness" of doing it all on your own. It's hard work to write, manage editing, manage covers, manage listings, manage marketing, etc. etc. It's exhausting, and I have people helping me! (That I pay). I do everything I can myself to keep costs low so that my profit margin stays high.

Focusing on Kindle right now has been very profitable to me. I don't have to research and figure out how to crack Kobo or Barnes and Noble's Siberia that my books were placed in. I don't have to be daunted about updating ALL of my book descriptions etc., and no, I'm NOT paying an aggregator 10% to not worry about it, because that brings a whole new set of issues for me as a publisher. 

There's nothing wrong with focusing on one sales channel IF you have a good plan for doing so. I was making next to nothing for three years on every channel out there, and now, just working on one and publishing quality work as often as I can reasonably do so, I'm finally making more than my 45 hour a week job at a daycare facility as an assistant director. Maybe what I'm doing won't work for everyone, but so often new authors are told go free with the first one or price it at 99 cents and if that doesn't work then you must not be a good writer. There's other ways some of us are making it and doing okay. No reason we can't all share what has or hasn't worked for us, with the understanding that no one has the one answer that works for everyone. 

Well, that's not true... there is always 42.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2014)

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> FWIW... I think too often people overstate the "easiness" of doing it all on your own. It's hard work to write, manage editing, manage covers, manage listings, manage marketing, etc. etc. It's exhausting, and I have people helping me! (That I pay). I do everything I can myself to keep costs low so that my profit margin stays high.
> 
> Focusing on Kindle right now has been very profitable to me. I don't have to research and figure out how to crack Kobo or Barnes and Noble's Siberia that my books were placed in. I don't have to be daunted about updating ALL of my book descriptions etc., and no, I'm NOT paying an aggregator 10% to not worry about it, because that brings a whole new set of issues for me as a publisher.
> 
> ...


And you write novellas, correct? So there's hope there, too.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Rykymus said:


> What Maximillion said. It's why I'll rarely post here any more. I miss the old WC, where wise, experienced people would share their OPINIONS and state them as such, instead of insisting they are irrefutable facts.
> 
> It's hard to have a productive discussion with someone who refuses to believe that they could be wrong.


I was a lurker back in 2012 and I read as much of Writer's Cafe as I could. I especially looked forward to posts from folks like Elle Casey, Liliana Hart, Joe Nobody, HM Ward and JA Konrath just to name a few. Maybe they are just busy now. I don't know. But it is very telling, in my opinion, that KU and Amazon Select has been the topic of discussion in many threads and most that I have read have more or less been fruitful discussions, yet when the topic comes up and Hugh's name appears (I'm not attacking the OP, they just wanted views) this thread goes off the hinges.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

HUGS FOR HUGH!


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

I don't know a single person, no matter how successful they are, that doesn't react to a direct attack or negativity.

Hugh puts his views out there and by nature of posting them to the Internet, they are up for public discussion. And no one has to agree with the opinion stated. Hugh is not the messiah, leading his people through the waters of Amazon. He's a guy with a successful string of books who goes out of his way to help others achieve success too.

Attacks aside, is Amazon evil for actively soliciting, manipulating and enticing people to go exclusive? NO. They are a business. A very, amazingly successful business. As a business, it is in their best interest to attract products that sell and encourage exclusivity for those products that sell. It is wicked smart.

You don't have to like it, and they don't care if you do. The market determines their policies, not authors with hurt feelings. For all the teeth-knashing over exclusivity... it's still your choice. You can still make a healthy bundle of money if you choose not to go exclusive, no one is forcing you.

The fact that it makes sense for Hugh doesn't mean it's right for anyone else and he's been painfully clear that these are_ his thoughts on his results. _ And his input helps all of us to consider our own options. If there's one thing I feel like Hugh stands for, it is making information available on some of the topics that most want to keep secret.

Agree with his findings or not, his data is extremely valuable as is his opinion.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> And you write novellas, correct? So there's hope there, too.


Yes. I put up my preorder for the second book in my novella series Sept 3, and there's 258 preorders on it right now. It comes out on Wednesday. Right now I"m working on a new space for authors to hang out with readers with some other authors and that took up most of this week, but I need to start Book 3 in the series. A few thousand a month in royalties isn't terrible at all on 4 books.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

MyraScott said:


> I don't know a single person, no matter how successful they are, that doesn't react to a direct attack or negativity.
> 
> Hugh puts his views out there and by nature of posting them to the Internet, they are up for public discussion. And no one has to agree with the opinion stated. Hugh is not the messiah, leading his people through the waters of Amazon. He's a guy with a successful string of books who goes out of his way to help others achieve success too.
> 
> ...


Totally Agree.

I think on some level, folks who don't like Select see authors who testify to their success in the program view them as a problem. That problem is the perception that by going exclusive we are undermining a free market and giving too much power to Amazon. And that Amazon may one day stick it to us all when they no longer have real competition. That's what I hear when I hear the phrase "long term" regarding a self publishing strategy. By next month, I'll have made more money from borrows on Amazon in two months than I made from B&N in two years. But that's my situation. And to be honest, I do fear giving too much power to Amazon. I do think about what would happen if they changed the royalty rate. I do wonder if I'm contributing to that end. These are my ruminations...


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Well personally I hope Hugh (and everyone else) keeps sharing their results from KU.  I'm finding the program useful so far, but the more I can learn the better...for the next road curve ahead, whatever's coming!  Would hate to see Hugh (or anybody who cares about sharing their experiences) stop posting.  Also, that cat image is adorable.  <3


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> Yes. I put up my preorder for the second book in my novella series Sept 3, and there's 258 preorders on it right now. It comes out on Wednesday. Right now I"m working on a new space for authors to hang out with readers with some other authors and that took up most of this week, but I need to start Book 3 in the series. A few thousand a month in royalties isn't terrible at all on 4 books.


I'd love to hear how things go with your pre-order release. Especially how it sales after a month, two months and so on compared to other titles. Folks have complained that it isn't all that great but I wonder if a pre-order has more staying power. Meaning, you get all those days of exposure and sales up to the release and then the 90 days on those new release lists. And I promise to take any advice and insight you offer with the utmost appreciation.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2014)

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> Yes. I put up my preorder for the second book in my novella series Sept 3, and there's 258 preorders on it right now. It comes out on Wednesday. Right now I"m working on a new space for authors to hang out with readers with some other authors and that took up most of this week, but I need to start Book 3 in the series. A few thousand a month in royalties isn't terrible at all on 4 books.


Elizabeth, thanks for sharing, and that's impressive, particularly the 258 preorders. I'm trying to focus more on people who write the lengths that I write. So I'll be looking for more of your posts.

For my two little zombie books, I had a good month in August. September is not as good, but I have a new book coming out and a bundle, and I start my new series October 1.

Onward and upward!


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

Maximillion said:


> That problem is the perception that by going exclusive we are undermining a free market and giving too much power to Amazon. And that Amazon may one day stick it to us all when they no longer have real competition.


I agree. But a few authors won't stop the progress.

I am an Internet marketer. I was doing SEO back in the day when we checked results on Yahoo!, MSN, Ask Jeeves, Infoseek, Altavista, Lycos, Overture, etc. Google wasn't the first but it was destined to be the last one standing.

When Google started dominating the market, the forums absolutely exploded with bile and warnings and anger towards those who worshiped at the feet of our new overlord, Google. But I will tell you that no matter how many diatribes were written and how many sacrifices were made, domination was inevitable.

Just like that stupid cheese book, you could stand around complaining about the situation, or you could adapt and grow with it.

I'll be honest, there is no doubt in my mind that eventually, Amazon will win this battle. Apple and Google will remain players but much like Yahoo still hangs on, I think Amazon will only continue to dominate. _That is my opinion. _

While I'd love to see healthy competition, in the end, the competition will kill off the players because even though all the players have mountains of cash to throw at ebooks, Amazon is the only one focused on it. It's not their side business.

FWIW, anyway. Rage against the people who follow the business won't stop the business from growing.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

Maximillion said:


> I'd love to hear how things go with your pre-order release. Especially how it sales after a month, two months and so on compared to other titles. Folks have complained that it isn't all that great but I wonder if a pre-order has more staying power. Meaning, you get all those days of exposure and sales up to the release and then the 90 days on those new release lists. And I promise to take any advice and insight you offer with the utmost appreciation.


I write in a genre with a very strong fan base. That's important to note. It's not about ME, per se, but the strength of the public's Darcy addiction (which I am a victim of myself, LOL). For me, my books were still Top Ten on the Hot New Release list for the less competitive categories I target when I was booted off because I hit my 30 days. Therefore, a preorder where I am #11 on the Hot New Release list for Historical Fiction>Regency is VERY valuable to me for exposure (http://www.amazon.com/gp/new-releases/digital-text/7588801011/ref=zg_bs_tab_t_bsnr).

All I did differently for the genre was make sure my covers could be read in thumbnail version, make sure I reached out to readers who would also like Jane Austen Fan Fiction like those who like clean romances and historical romances instead of just sticking with the fan pages for Jane Austen. Also, I ignored the Romance categories completely because my books aren't great fits (being clean or sweetheart) and it's too competitive. All I need is for Amazon to email my book out some  I only hoped to make a few hundred off each book, so I was pleasantly surprised and I'm over the moon with the results.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I'm more freaked out by posts like this. I've noticed a lot of the negativity on these boards comes from the same handful of people, and it has changed the tenor here, made it a less positive "group-hug" place, and while that might be more rational and balanced, I do miss coming to a place that felt like therapy and got me fired up to write more, publish more, share more. I'm sure that's selfish of me, to have viewed KBoards as a sort of therapy, a healthful and helpful place to procrastinate (or recharge, as it were).
> 
> Perhaps it's a better forum now. Perhaps my situation is now unique and it doesn't make sense to share. But you and Julie are wrong (and cruel) to suggest that I'm an adult, that adults don't have feelings, and that you can state that my (clearly stated as opinion) opinion is wrong.
> 
> ...


Hugh, I'm pretty sure I have to be misunderstanding what you're saying in this post, but I've read it several times and only have one way to interpret what your actual words mean.

When people say that you're wrong, it's usually because they disagree with you. It's not because they want to hurt your feelings. It might hurt your feelings that some people think you are wrong, but usually, the discussion is about some other thing, and your hurt feelings are a side effect of the discussion. Your expressing an opinion contrary to their opinion might also hurt their feelings, but that's kind of the way things go. I know you're cool with that.

And yet you seem to be saying that you don't think that people should be able to call you wrong at all, even when they genuinely disagree with you, because it will hurt your feelings.

I'm especially getting that from this line:



> But you and Julie are wrong (and cruel) to suggest that I'm an adult, that adults don't have feelings, and that you can state that my (clearly stated as opinion) opinion is wrong.


Of the three things that you mention as wrong and cruel, two are factually true. You are an adult. People can disagree with someone else's opinion in a lot of different ways--they can disagree with the premise, they can disagree with the motives, they can disagree with the inferences drawn to reach that opinion, they can think that the opinion was made on the basis of bias... The list of ways that people can disagree with opinions is endless.

The only thing that you call out here that is actually wrong is that adults don't have feelings--but nobody has said that you don't have feelings. They have simply said that people are allowed to disagree with you, even if the effect of that is that your feelings are hurt.

I do think the criticism here can get personal in a way that isn't warranted, and maybe that's something we should work on as a board. But posts like this don't help with that--it's hard not to respond personally to someone who has just said he should be insulated from criticism.

I really don't think you meant to say that nobody should disagree with you--I think what you're trying to say is, "Hey guys, I don't mind disagreement, and appreciate people talking about my ideas no matter where you run with it, but I feel like this tone is becoming personal rather than focusing on the business aspects. Let's pull it back to talking about business."

That's something I completely endorse. This thread doesn't need to be a referendum on whether Hugh Howey is a swell guy. It doesn't need to be about Hugh Howey at all. It could be about Kindle Unlimited and Amazon exclusivity, using Hugh's experience as one single data point among many other data points--neither all-encompassing nor totally irrelevant, but just one piece of the whole picture.


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

Question: If KU didn't require exclusivity, and you simply ticked a box to say you wanted in, how many people would tick that box? The royalty share remaining the same, of course.


----------



## Chad Grills (Aug 19, 2014)

[A brand new writer getting ready to publish weighs in]

I'm getting ready to publish several works at once. I'll be going exclusively with Amazon KDP/Unlimited and aiming for a foothold first. Once I establish that I can consider going other places. But at this point, I have limited time and cash. I'm aiming to go where I can see some results first, and have some kind of win (even if it's minuscule). I think the type of exposure to upside from having multiple works in Kindle Unlimited thanks to also bought, etc, is crucial... For now I'll be watching to hear the experiences from those testing it out and running numbers from the trenches.

I'm a big believer in the goals vs. dreams mindset that Hugh Howey wrote about here: http://www.hughhowey.com/goals-vs-dreams/

I can't see a better way then KDP/Unlimited for a brand new author like myself to hit baseline goals and have the exposure to dreams.

But, I'm open to adjustments and course corrections.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Courtney Milan said:


> Hugh, I'm pretty sure I have to be misunderstanding what you're saying in this post, but I've read it several times and only have one way to interpret what your actual words mean.
> 
> When people say that you're wrong, it's usually because they disagree with you. It's not because they want to hurt your feelings. It might hurt your feelings that some people think you are wrong, but usually, the discussion is about some other thing, and your hurt feelings are a side effect of the discussion. Your expressing an opinion contrary to their opinion might also hurt their feelings, but that's kind of the way things go. I know you're cool with that.
> 
> ...


No. Hugh said absolutely nothing like that. There was a lot more to his post than that. In fact, you totally ignored the point of his post:



> Honestly, I think you're trying to shame the people from sticking up for me...


If someone says that they agree with him or defends him they should *not* be attacked and shamed or told off nasty terms such as Vaalingrade's comment that they are 'a bunch of mother cats gently licking the scruff of his neck'.

This thread as with many here recently has a thoroughly nasty tone. I absolutely agree with Hugh on the recent tone on Kb and if someone wants to call me names for that he is welcome to.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

In my opinion (ha), an opinion is neither 'right' nor 'wrong.' It is an opinion, like Hugh's speculations in his original blog post. That's all we are exchanging here: opinions on the future of Select, how it might work for us or not, etc. 

To me, at least, "I disagree" is different from saying, "You're wrong." Or, in this case, "You're wrong and a liar (about how Amazon treats you)." In addition to, "You're a PR tool," while those who pipe up to call for civility are "over-zealous mother cats licking the scruff of Hugh's neck." (Which is a nice gendered insult, thanks.)

It's a tone thing. But again, I suppose that's a matter of opinion.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Hugh is certainly not lying about having his book yanked by KDP for a few hours, at least in the early days.



Hugh Howey said:


> The Omnibus isn't. Click the link. It says it's not available to customers in the United States.
> 
> I'm trying not to be paranoid, but I went ballistic about my other two books being taken off due to some glitch. Would someone over there do this on purpose? They are working harder and faster on a Sunday to remove my bestselling book than they worked on Friday to restore two of them.
> 
> I literally can't feel my body right now. The amount of money I'm losing per hour makes me nauseas to think about. My life just swerved off-course, and there's no one I can call and talk to!


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Yeah, Hugh, it's meaner than it used to be. I don't think it's most people, not at all. But what I've seen leveled at you the last couple days is beyond the pale. It's NOT OK to call somebody a liar. It's not OK to impugn somebody's integrity, especially somebody who has never, as far as I've seen, done one single thing on here but be helpful. 

It's not OK by me for anybody to tell anyone, by implication or outright, that they are stupid for their business decisions. And if that's me posting again about how people ought to be nice, I'll wear that one too. I don't think incivility works in a discussion forum. I don't think snark works. I think it reflects negatively back on the hostile person, and it stifles open discussion. I don't have a thick skin. I don't think most of us do. Eventually, anybody  gets tired of being insulted.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

MichaelWallace said:


> Hugh is certainly not lying about having his book yanked by KDP for a few hours, at least in the early days.


Hmm, the beauty of a discussion board... The ability to quote things that did in fact happen...


----------



## Kathy Clark Author (Dec 18, 2012)

Gotta stick with Hugh.

This week I heard stories first hand about his statement that the NYT or USA Today lists if you are exclusive...are un-linked to actual sales.  After 32 novels, the last 9 being self-pub, I have played both sides of the street.  I was and am a hybrid author.

But my goal is not about making best seller lists.  Check it out.  What do SAMS, Costco, Home Depot and 1,000s of other retailers have in common?  Now of them accept copies of the NYT or USA Today lists.

So I want the money.  In June I ended 15 months with my most recent 9 books on a dozen different book retailer sites...ALL the BIG ones and ALL the mid-size.  Then I popped back on exclusive to Amazon.  Ate the KU pudding etc...

Bottom line was that 15 months of sales on all the other sites was dwarfed by what July's increase was on Amazon over normal.  Ditto for August and same so far in September.  Bob's got a black belt and although it won't hold up to a 99.97% level confident the 95% is fine for us.


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

> But it is very telling, in my opinion, that KU and Amazon Select has been the topic of discussion in many threads and most that I have read have more or less been fruitful discussions, yet when the topic comes up and Hugh's name appears (I'm not attacking the OP, they just wanted views) this thread goes off the hinges.


Nah, it got multi-dimensionally snarky elsewhere without Hugh's name. The posts slide into a cult-of-personality trance -- negative and positive. Redundant and boring. A good editor paring this back to what moves the story forward would have it down to a page of posts.



> Let's pull it back to talking about business.


Oh, yes, please.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

First of all, of course opinions can be wrong. People like to say no opinion is wrong, but opinions can obviously run counter to observable evidence. And in that spirit, I'm still going to say the big assertion in the blog post: the exclusivity will breed competition in the existing environment is wrong.

If it were correct, the other platforms would have countered a long time ago, or Amazon wouldn't have done this in the first place. As smart as people say Amazon and Bezos are do you think they're going to do something to _foster_ competition? No., of course not.

And the response to the disagreement was wrong. Okay, I'll back off the mother cat line, but not the idea that the response did not come from a place of 'I disagree with your argument, here are logical reasons why', but _because of who it was being disagreed with_. No one tried to support the assertion, they just appealed to authority that since a given person said it, then it couldn't be argued with. It took dozens of posts for someone to bother looking and finding evidence that Julie was in fact wrong about one point because everyone else was working far harder to chastise people for disagreeing with a community-established authority.

No matter how much you like someone, no matter how successful they are, that dos not mean that everything they say or do is correct or optimal. Nor does it justify the concentrated effort to shut down people who question them. In fact, the people you admire most are precisely the people you should question the most to insure that the admiration isn't getting in the way of proper analysis.


----------



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

I'm with JR, Rosalind and others who shared their opinions. Being an adult may mean one _can _stand a certain level of abuse; it doesn't mean one _should have to_ or doesn't suffer various unpleasant emotional reactions. Hugh has done more to stick up for and try to shine the spotlight on those of us who are nowhere near his success than anyone else except maybe Konrath. Why on earth his sharing his thought processes about anything brings out ugliness is beyond me. Disagree with him? Ignore him, state you own reasons for different conclusions somewhere.

Like Hugh, I've long considered this the one safe, supportive place, and I usually stay away from threads like this to keep that illusion, but for heaven's sake -- ripping at Hugh for sharing?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> First of all, of course opinions can be wrong. People like to say no opinion is wrong, but opinions can obviously run counter to observable evidence. And in that spirit, I'm still going to say the big assertion in the blog post: the exclusivity will breed competition in the existing environment is wrong.
> 
> If it were correct, the other platforms would have countered a long time ago, or Amazon wouldn't have done this in the first place. As smart as people say Amazon and Bezos are do you think they're going to do something to _foster_ competition? No., of course not.
> 
> ...


When you post in the helpful spirit Hugh does, I'll listen to you as much. I said if yesterday and I'll say it again. People who speak rightly--with respect and a helpful intention--are listened to more. At least by me.

Julie was challenged because she implied that Hugh was a liar. If you can't see how offensive that is, I throw up my hands.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

What I dislike the most is people running around yelling about exclusivity being "bad" for the market, but see nothing wrong with being permafree. I scratch my head at that one.

We all have different strategies. We are all individual publishers and authors. Being someone who actually woke up for the ungodly early Freshman macroeconomics class, I learned that market forces are so varied, even people with advanced degrees in the stuff get it wrong. All the time. Just ask Barnes and Noble. To ask people to base their microeconomic business plans on the health of the macroeconomic market is wrong, and the very antithesis of a "free market." Readers will buy what they will buy. Readers will read what they will read. 

I have loved KindleBoards since I found it shortly after publishing in 2011. I just ignore some posters. And people who share numbers are ALWAYS helpful. I do my best to share what I can as a thank you to the people who shared back when I was starting out.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

My intention is ever helpful. I don't push back until pushed and careful reading of the thread will bear that out. I said Hugh's post was wrong and left it at that until other things were said to provoke a response.

As for Julie, I'm pretty sure she can (and will) deal with this herself. She was wrong on _that_ point and I'm sure she'll own up to it.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Rosalind James said:


> Julie was challenged because she implied that Hugh was a liar. If you can't see how offensive that is, I throw up my hands.


If someone put together "Julie's Big Book of Indie Slams" into an ebook, it might exceed the file limit. Not saying her style isn't too aggressive for my taste, but to be fair, she doesn't just target Hugh. She pretty much hits anyone who she has categorized as an idiot, and that's most of us. I know I've never wanted to argue with her. About anything. Ever.

More on point, I think some people might be targeting Hugh when they're really angry at Hugh's supporters. I do think there was an interesting discussion developing here that got derailed by people who jumped in to automatically agree with everything that Hugh said, and then a bunch more people who reacted badly to that.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> First of all, of course opinions can be wrong. People like to say no opinion is wrong, but opinions can obviously run counter to observable evidence. And in that spirit, I'm still going to say the big assertion in the blog post: the exclusivity will breed competition in the existing environment is wrong.
> 
> If it were correct, the other platforms would have countered a long time ago, or Amazon wouldn't have done this in the first place. As smart as people say Amazon and Bezos are do you think they're going to do something to _foster_ competition? No., of course not.
> 
> ...


Well, not trying to sound insulting, but maybe taking a look at the definition of opinion would be a good thing. You can't offer any observable evidence that says exclusivity won't DEFINITIVELY breed competition. Just like Hugh can't. It's subjective and both opinions are valid. It's not Amazon's job to foster competition. It's not Walmart's or anyone else's. But when one company does something well it is up to others to see the financial gain in doing it better. No one is competing with Amazon, in my opinion, like they should. B&N or Google could have offered better royalty rates or their own advertising program in response to Amazon's Select moves. They did not. From my understanding, Amazon up their royalty rate years ago in RESPONSE to others...

Amazon using Select may indeed foster more competition. Other distributors will have to offer more incentives to keep authors from going Select.

It's not about disagreeing. It's the tone and to be honest your tone is just sore and not just on this thread but on many others. It seems like you really have an issue with Select. I get that. But with an "authority" speaking on it, you really got riled up. Dude, it's an opinion and it's not wrong. Neither is yours. Hugh offered an opinion on his blog with the observable facts in his situation. It's not that serious.

I get being passionate but usually a discussion, which is why we are all here, is to discuss and ask questions about how someone reached the conclusion they reached. Everyone did not agree with Hugh. Many in this thread said they would not go to Select and offered their reasons. But you and a few others seemed a little more prickly with the issue and it seemed very much directed at Hugh.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> What I dislike the most is people running around yelling about exclusivity being "bad" for the market, but see nothing wrong with being permafree. I scratch my head at that one.


Care to explain how this relates?

Is it the valuation argument?


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Rosalind James said:


> When you post in the helpful spirit Hugh does, I'll listen to you as much. I said if yesterday and I'll say it again. People who speak rightly--with respect and a helpful intention--are listened to more. At least by me.
> 
> Julie was challenged because she implied that Hugh was a liar. If you can't see how offensive that is, I throw up my hands.


This.



> Okay, I'll back off the mother cat line, but not the idea that the response did not come from a place of 'I disagree with your argument, here are logical reasons why', but because of who it was being disagreed with.


So, it's wrong to take Hugh's own word about how he is treated by Amazon? I'm sure going to take his word over Julie's, and I don't mind saying so. And no, I don't need to go digging through his own past posts to believe that what he said is true. That has nothing to do with his sales. Or his 'authority.' It's about common courtesy. I don't think that flies in the face of logical, reasoned discussion, and I feel sorry for anyone who does.



> everyone else was working far harder to chastise people for disagreeing with a community-established authority.


No. Everyone was working far harder to chastise people for being pretty dang rude. Disagree all you like... Just don't be a jerk about it.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

I'm waiting for google play and kobo to offer their version of select (are you listening, Mark?). I would jump at that. Some books or authors are just not doing as well at Amazon than at other platforms. With the rise of people reading on tablets, retailer brands become less important anyway. I have a kindle app and a kobo app on just about every computer and tablet in this house.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> Yeah, Hugh, it's meaner than it used to be. I don't think it's most people, not at all. But what I've seen leveled at you the last couple days is beyond the pale. It's NOT OK to call somebody a liar. It's not OK to impugn somebody's integrity, especially somebody who has never, as far as I've seen, done one single thing on here but be helpful.
> 
> It's not OK by me for anybody to tell anyone, by implication or outright, that they are stupid for their business decisions. And if that's me posting again about how people ought to be nice, I'll wear that one too. I don't think incivility works in a discussion forum. I don't think snark works. I think it reflects negatively back on the hostile person, and it stifles open discussion. I don't have a thick skin. I don't think most of us do. Eventually, anybody gets tired of being insulted.


Everyone is capable of snark, Rosalind, including you. I've seen it.

I appreciate all personalities (including Vaalingrade - whether I disagree with him sometimes or not.)

For me, that's what makes an interesting board.

I'm sorry that Hugh was and is attacked. But I'll stick up for Hugh and other people I admire, and others will too.

And if it gets too crazy, that's what moderators are for.



Elizabeth Ann West said:


> What I dislike the most is people running around yelling about exclusivity being "bad" for the market, but see nothing wrong with being permafree. I scratch my head at that one.


Excellent, excellent, excellent point!


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

I just read back over the thread and boy oh boy. First, Julie made the comment about Amazon not pulling Hugh's books and that's where the thread seemed to go sour. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt and agree that at this point, in September 2014, Amazon would not pull Hugh's books. I'm going to assume that she meant that he would not get pulled now, not that he had never been pulled. And she was fair to point out that he does have a bit more leverage than most but I don't agree with the argument that having that leverage makes his opinion and observations less relevant.

Second, Vaalingrade, I'm really not seeing your point. Who followed Hugh's opinion like mindless lamb Between your first and second post, the majority of people who wrote anything either disagreed with him or said they were going to wait it out. Read it yourself. The issue came up when folks took Julie's comment as calling Hugh a liar, which, after rereading, I don't think she was. You simply added flames to the fire with the mother cat remark.


----------



## Christine_C (Jun 29, 2014)

Well this has been interesting to read. It's almost as though writers have terrible social skills or something.  

Anyway I think the whole "logic vs. emotion" characterization is ridiculous. I'm new here, but it's clearly emotional for both sides for reasons I don't fully understand.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> Care to explain how this relates?
> 
> Is it the valuation argument?


Well, start with the basic reasoning why exclusivity with Amazon is bad. If all indie authors went to Amazon Select what would happen? I ask that question seriously. Now, consider what would happen if all indie authors used Perma Free. It's an argument I understand but don't fully agree with.

Perma Free supposedly is a race to the bottom and will undermine an author's ability to earn money from their books. Same supposedly goes for the increasing reach of Select. All the authors get in until Amazon can supposedly screw us...


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Chad Grills said:


> [A brand new writer getting ready to publish weighs in]
> 
> I'm getting ready to publish several works at once. I'll be going exclusively with Amazon KDP/Unlimited and aiming for a foothold first. Once I establish that I can consider going other places. But at this point, I have limited time and cash. I'm aiming to go where I can see some results first, and have some kind of win (even if it's minuscule). I think the type of exposure to upside from having multiple works in Kindle Unlimited thanks to also bought, etc, is crucial... For now I'll be watching to hear the experiences from those testing it out and running numbers from the trenches.
> 
> ...


Really happy to read this, thanks for sharing! I'll be starting publishing this fall and I'll be largely following the same plan--all in with Amazon and Select to start out. I have nothing to lose. Any readers I had from my few tradpub items are gone, so I'm starting from scratch. I have nothing to lose by trying out Select for 90 days and evaluating from there. I'll look forward to following your successes and hoping to sharing my own inputs along with anyone else starting up about the same time.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Maximillion said:


> Second, Vaalingrade, I'm really not seeing your point. Who followed Hugh's opinion like mindless lamb Between your first and second post, the majority of people who wrote anything either disagreed with him or said they were going to wait it out. Read it yourself. The issue came up when folks took Julie's comment as calling Hugh a liar, which, after rereading, I don't think she was. You simply added flames to the fire with the mother cat remark.


Responding via PM.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

CN_Crawford said:


> Well this has been interesting to read. It's almost as though writers have terrible social skills or something.
> 
> Anyway I think the whole "logic vs. emotion" characterization is ridiculous. I'm new here, but it's clearly emotional for both sides for reasons I don't fully understand.


HAHA, yes, we strive to write scenes with intense and believable social interactions but when we get to the boards...Hmmm.

Well, it's emotional because of two things in my opinion. First, there's the money. Sure, we all write because we love it. But when I go from $1000 a month to $500 a month after KU, I'm going to have an emotional response. Second, it's a values issue. I think most here believe in the idea of free market and competition. Amazon Select undermines that belief system. And I for one do feel rather uncomfortable about being in Select but for now earning money from my work trumps that discomfort.

I've said over and over again. It's the Walmart scenario for books. Walmart is convenient and cheap. We shop there for those reasons even though we know they put out thousands of smaller stores. They undermined competition. Many of their products are cheaply produced elsewhere but we still shop there and turn around and complain about jobs going over seas. At the end of the day, I can go to Walmart, get all I want and for cheap. Now, I can publish in one place, use all the tools and my readers can get all my books and many others for $9.99 a month. It is problematic...


----------



## Jonathan Sean Lyster (Jun 7, 2014)

Dolphin said:


> My biggest concern with Hugh's points about the positive side of exclusivity is that Amazon's competition is not struggling for relevance because of an inability to attract _authors,_ but rather an inability to attract _customers._ Amazon is where the eyeballs are. Think about it: you could sell your books on your own website and keep 100% of the income for yourself. You could treat yourself to dinner and a movie, a relaxing mani/pedi, whatever floats your boat. Does this star treatment mean that you're your own best retailer?
> 
> Amazon is the best option for the vast majority of authors simply because it's the best option for the majority of readers. Our loyalty as authors is part of that, but top authors--the real draws for most readers--are wide already, and nobody can afford to pay authors to walk away from Amazon entirely. Hachette is fighting tooth and nail with Amazon, but even _they_ couldn't dream of walking away entirely! B&N could give out 90% royalties and it wouldn't be enough. Kobo could buy you a live-in massage therapist. Apple could give you an iPhone 6 prototype. None of it would be enough to be exclusive with someone who isn't Amazon.


I recently "jumped ship" from Amazon. My book hasn't been selling spectacularly (it's only been out there three months, so no big deal), and I really wanted to experiment with the other platforms. So far I have it up on Kobo, and this weekend it will be on Google Play and Smashwords.

My experience with Kobo is, they need to get their act together in terms of search and browse functionality. Their interface is clunky and slow. Using the Kobo app on my smartphone is a nightmare. I can find my book, but only by searching specifically for it. The browsing features are dreadful. The Amazon app is much cleaner and easier to use.

That's the stick that Amazon is using to beat the hell out of its competitors: ease of use from the customer/reader side. They make it simple to find what you're looking for, and to browse for books in the genres that interest you.

I hope Google Play and Smashwords carry some pleasant surprises. I'll report back on what I find. But based on my research on KBoards and other outlets, I'm not holding out a great deal of hope on this front.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> Everyone is capable of snark, Rosalind, including you. I've seen it.
> 
> I appreciate all personalities (including Vaalingrade - whether I disagree with him sometimes or not.)
> 
> ...


You're a paragon of virtue and are an inspiration to me for being far more patient than I. I appreciate the moderators here, and I really appreciate that the board owners saw fit to keep the buddy and ignore list functionality for use. I feel like the ignore list is a nuclear option, but boy does it help me sort out the signal to noise ratio.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

My skin is too thin, I guess. For now anyway, I'm done. I hope this isn't "taking my ball and going home." I don't want it to be that. I'm sad. But it's not worth it for me. I think I'd better put that energy into my book.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Maximillion said:


> Well, start with the basic reasoning why exclusivity with Amazon is bad. If all indie authors went to Amazon Select what would happen? I ask that question seriously. Now, consider what would happen if all indie authors used Perma Free. It's an argument I understand but don't fully agree with.
> 
> Perma Free supposedly is a race to the bottom and will undermine an author's ability to earn money from their books. Same supposedly goes for the increasing reach of Select. All the authors get in until Amazon can supposedly screw us...


That's really apples and boa constrictors. Who makes every single book permafree? The only way it even works is as a series lead-in to sell the other books so by definition permed books would never be a majority.

The point of exclusivity is a starvation tactic. That's how it's been ever since Thomas Edison stopped being allowed to electrocute elephants to discourage people from using his competitors.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Jonathan Sean Lyster said:


> I recently "jumped ship" from Amazon. My book hasn't been selling spectacularly (it's only been out there three months, so no big deal), and I really wanted to experiment with the other platforms. So far I have it up on Kobo, and this weekend it will be on Google Play and Smashwords.
> 
> My experience with Kobo is, they need to get their act together in terms of search and browse functionality. Their interface is clunky and slow. Using the Kobo app on my smartphone is a nightmare. I can find my book, but only by searching specifically for it. The browsing features are dreadful. The Amazon app is much cleaner and easier to use.
> 
> ...


And this is the issue I have with Google Play. Google is the search engine king. So WTF is going on with visibility and discoverability over there? SMH, it makes no sense. I just don't think ebooks are a priority with them. And Apple...SMH, you'd think they'd have some insight since they have iTunes and understand selling and marketing digital goods. It's infuriating how difficult they make things for readers/authors, compared to Amazon.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> But that is my point. I love Hugh. He's a great guy. But he does have access to a rep. And that changes the dynamic between him and Amazon. Maybe he doesn't think it matters. But it does. There are threads here in KB right now about people getting their entire accounts yanked without even the benefit of the normal "five days to comply" letter. And these are people who can't pick up the phone and talk to their rep. They are stuck in the circle of emails.
> 
> And it isn't "class warfare." It is a matter of reality. The ability to pick up the phone and talk to a decision maker, as opposed to having to be stuck in a loop of emails to customer service reps, is a big deal. And it changes the dynamic of exclusivity. Again, that is the reason I do exclusive with RPGNOW but not Amazon. I can talk to a real person at RPGNOW if I have a problem, and they handle it. They know who I am. That is a huge difference there. I don't see why it is inherently evil to point out that difference.


I read through the thread to figure why they kept mentioning your name, Julie.

No, it is not inherently evil to point out a supposed difference.

It's clear you dislike Amazon, and that's fine.

But the problem is, people like you want ALL of the rest of us to dislike Amazon, and if we don't, then we're made to feel stupid.

Well, I don't feel stupid, because I don't care if you dislike Amazon, but there are other people who are more sensitive to this kind of stuff and who are easily influenced.


----------



## Jonathan Sean Lyster (Jun 7, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> Personally, I can't imagine being a person who gets a thrill out of being called a liar, privileged, wrong, etc. but is creeped out by someone offering encouragement, support, and agreement. That would be a depressing way to live.


That does sound like an awful way to live.

While I'm not following the path of exclusivity myself, your article on the topic gave me much to think about. Much as I like Amazon, I want to understand how the other platforms function. This may mean my book (soon to be "books") won't fly off the virtual shelves, but the knowledge I'll garner will be invaluable. My next books may be exclusive to Amazon -- at this point I don't know what decision I'll make. But that decision will be based on a solid understanding of how the various rival platforms work.

If someone jumps up and down screaming, "You're a flaming moron for using Smashwords!" I'll bemuch less inclined to pay attention to that person in the future. If that person says, "I put my book on Smashwords, and I encountered the following problems . . . " then those comments will have my focus.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

Jim Johnson said:


> Really happy to read this, thanks for sharing! I'll be starting publishing this fall and I'll be largely following the same plan--all in with Amazon and Select to start out. I have nothing to lose. Any readers I had from my few tradpub items are gone, so I'm starting from scratch. I have nothing to lose by trying out Select for 90 days and evaluating from there. I'll look forward to following your successes and hoping to sharing my own inputs along with anyone else starting up about the same time.


Jim, I keep forgetting that you haven't published!!! We haven't scared you off? LOL! Please keep me posted on your progress. I'm rooting for you, buddy!


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> That's really apples and boa constrictors. Who makes every single book permafree? The only way it even works is as a series lead-in to sell the other books so by definition permed books would never be a majority.
> 
> The point of exclusivity is a starvation tactic. That's how it's been ever since Thomas Edison stopped being allowed to electrocute elephants to discourage people from using his competitors.


Don't really understand that last sentence but okay. Sure, exclusivity is a starvation tactic. But to what end? To squash the competition? Isn't that what a business is supposed to do And once Amazon has killed off Apple, B&N and Google what next? That's the question you didn't answer. There fear is that once that happens then Amazon will turn down the royalty rate from 70% to 50% or lower. That's the real fear behind Select. Us making less money.

Same with Perma Free. At one point $0.99 was the gimmick. Race to the bottom... Folks would cut their nose off on earnings so that the subsequent books would earn through. Now we have Perma Free. Should a book really be free? or just $0.99? At what point do we stop lowering the price, sacrificing profit to gain traction? Then it becomes the first book in a series is free, the second is $0.99 and the next ones are $2.99. That's a recent trend in the Urban Fiction genre. I've seen two series where the first two books were free. Race to the bottom. Less money being made.

Apples and boa constrictors? I respectfully disagree with the analogy. The naysayers of Select and Perma Free both fear the loss of income from works of fiction...


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> Jim, I keep forgetting that you haven't published!!! We haven't scared you off? LOL! Please keep me posted on your progress. I'm rooting for you, buddy!


Thanks! I keep telling myself things will settle down after the unpacking, wedding, and honeymoon. That's the hope anyway, lol. Appreciate the vote of confidence.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

Maximillion said:


> Don't really understand that last sentence but okay. Sure, exclusivity is a starvation tactic. But to what end? To squash the competition? Isn't that what a business is supposed to do And once Amazon has killed off Apple, B&N and Google what next? That's the question you didn't answer. There fear is that once that happens then Amazon will turn down the royalty rate from 70% to 50% or lower. That's the real fear behind Select. Us making less money.


B&N may disappear, but Apple and Google won't.



Jim Johnson said:


> Thanks! I keep telling myself things will settle down after the unpacking, wedding, and honeymoon. That's the hope anyway, lol. Appreciate the vote of confidence.


Congratulations!


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Edison electrocuted animals (most famously an elephant) to discredit Tesla and show how dangerous his AC was.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Monique said:


> Edison electrocuted animals (most famously an elephant) to discredit Tesla and show how dangerous his AC current was.


Thanks Monique. Just Googled it. Still don't see how that is a fair comparison to what Amazon is doing. In that analogy Vaaligrade implies that Amazon is Edison so who is Telsa and what is the elephant I guess. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to get it.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Monique said:


> Edison electrocuted animals (most famously an elephant) to discredit Tesla and show how dangerous his AC current was.


...And then worked up a sweetheart contract with the local municipalities to ONLY use ConEd electricity.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> ...And then worked up a sweetheart contract with the local municipalities to ONLY use ConEd electricity.


Once again, I may not be that smart and I'd be the first to admit that the full ride scholarship to Vanderbilt may have been wasted....BUT, I don't see how this is a fair comparison. You have competing companies. Check. One offers contract of exclusivity. Check. At what point did Amazon actively go after B&N, Apple or Google How does the electrocuted elephants fit it. Was there a press release from Amazon criticizing someone falsely or truthfully for that matter?

Amazon is not the messiah of ebooks. But why make a false analogy that seems an attempt to vilify them? It just undermines you objectivity when you talk about anything Amazon does. How can I trust any critique you have of them when it just seems like you hate them? Like Hugh and many others, I struggle with the issue of Select. I love how he and others bear that struggle out publicly. But honestly, you just sound jaded. I'm sorry.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Maximillion said:


> HAHA, yes, we strive to write scenes with intense and believable social interactions but when we get to the boards...Hmmm.
> 
> Well, it's emotional because of two things in my opinion. First, there's the money. Sure, we all write because we love it. But when I go from $1000 a month to $500 a month after KU, I'm going to have an emotional response. *Second, it's a values issue. I think most here believe in the idea of free market and competition. Amazon Select undermines that belief system.* And I for one do feel rather uncomfortable about being in Select but for now earning money from my work trumps that discomfort.
> 
> I've said over and over again. It's the Walmart scenario for books. Walmart is convenient and cheap. We shop there for those reasons even though we know they put out thousands of smaller stores. They undermined competition. Many of their products are cheaply produced elsewhere but we still shop there and turn around and complain about jobs going over seas. At the end of the day, I can go to Walmart, get all I want and for cheap. Now, I can publish in one place, use all the tools and my readers can get all my books and many others for $9.99 a month. It is problematic...


We may all love the free market, but I disagree with what you're saying about it being undermined by exclusivity. The free market system has survived exclusivity pretty much forever. If I want to buy certain brands of goods I may well have to go to certain stores to do so because they are exclusive. I don't know about now but for quite some time Tommy Hilfiger was exclusive to Macy's for example. There are thousands of examples out there. The free market survives them just fine.

I really doubt that some of us selling our novels exclusively on Amazon is going to have a whit of difference either to capitalism or to the free market. 

As for Hugh's article, I found his reasoning very interesting although my reasons for deciding to go exclusive with Amazon were totally different because my situation is different.

ETA: There are certainly down sides to exclusivity that I do have concern about. It just happens that undermining the free market isn't one of them.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I said it came up _after_ the electrocutions. The electrocutions aren't in comparison to anything, it's just that the exclusive contracts were Edison's tactic after all the crispy critters.

[[Also, I don't think he was ever banned from doing that, he just ran out of larger animals and had already invented the electric chair specifically to show how AC can kill a man]]


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

MJWare said:


> That being said, my sales at Amazon are tanking now too. Every other year September is the beginning of an upswing. So, I don't know what to make of it, but it's pretty depressing.


Glancing at the titles in your sig, I can't help but notice that your paid titles in KU are selling much better than your titles that aren't in KU.

Coincidence? Alternative explanations?



Jonathan Sean Lyster said:


> That's the stick that Amazon is using to beat the hell out of its competitors: ease of use from the customer/reader side. They make it simple to find what you're looking for, and to browse for books in the genres that interest you.


I've said this before (in this very thread, I think), but I'm surprised it isn't coming up more often. Amazon is already winning by an astonishing margin thanks to its advantage with readers, not with authors. They have not risen and will not fall on the basis of how they treat indy authors. Amazon wasn't built on having all the best indy authors in its stable, and it wouldn't fall from the top spot if every indy author pulled their books tomorrow. We are a distant secondary concern for them. Their customers--the customers who made and who keep them #1--will always be their primary focus and strength.

Think about this: in terms of market share, Amazon is bigger than a good _dozen_ of their next biggest online retail competitors _combined._

A day may come when the sales of Amazon fail, when we forsake KDP Select and break all bonds of the Fellowship of the All-Stars, but it is not this day. An hour of Nooks and third party apps, when the age of exclusivity comes crashing down! But it is not this day! This day we profit! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you _stand, indies of Amazon!_



Joliedupre said:


> B&N may disappear, but Apple and Google won't.


Bing probably won't disappear either. Would you rather have a website that's a first page result on Google and doesn't show up on Bing, or a 10th page result on both?



Vaalingrade said:


> I said it came up _after_ the electrocutions. The electrocutions aren't in comparison to anything, it's just that the exclusive contracts were Edison's tactic after all the crispy critters.


An analogy that compares Amazon's activities to heinous acts of animal cruelty and intellectual dishonesty is still patently, despicably misplaced. Despite your earlier claim, your "showmanship" is inapposite and does nothing to further the debate. Nobody was grandstanding in the slightest until Julie waded in with her lightsabers and falsehoods.

You're not new to the internet. Your repeatedly inflammatory language isn't some innocent mistake. You're trolling, and you know it.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> [[Also, I don't think he was ever banned from doing that, he just ran out of larger animals and had already invented the electric chair specifically to show how *AC* can kill a man]]


*Semantic sidenote- Tesla was promoting DC or direct current. Edison wanted everyone to use his "safer" alternating current (AC). Only one system could reasonably be adopted because of the cost of wiring up a nation. Edison's shenanigans won the contracts.

The reason this doesn't really apply is that there doesn't have to be a single winner in this race.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> We may all love the free market, but I disagree with what you're saying about it being undermined by exclusivity. The free market system has survived exclusivity pretty much forever. If I want to buy certain brands of goods I may well have to go to certain stores to do so because they are exclusive. I don't know about now but for quite some time Tommy Hilfiger was exclusive to Macy's for example. There are thousands of examples out there. The free market survives them just fine.
> 
> I really doubt that some of us selling our novels exclusively on Amazon is going to have a whit of difference either to capitalism or to the free market.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. But why are folks so against exclusivity in the realm of ebooks? Why does what Amazon is doing rub them wrong so badly?


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

Ah, yes-- here we go again.

I was here when another very successful and incredibly generous writer was savaged and threw in the towel, tired of the negativity. Fortunately for me, I followed her offline and we continue to be Internet buddies, and I continue to be benefit from her kindness, advice, and wisdom.

I would hate to think that I will soon have to become Hugh's "private" Internet buddy for the same reason.(*Edit to add: AND Rosalind's.)

Frankly, this kind of thing bores me to distraction and lessons all of us.

As to the topic, Hugh looks to Amazon and the possibility of exclusivity because, like Willie Sutton, for him, that's where the money is. And also the readers.

YMMV. That's what makes horse racing. God Bless America.

As I've said before--in fact, in response to the "observation" that we who choose to stay in KU as royalty payments go down, are somehow mindless, "docile" victims-- I will fully cop to my docility, as I recline on my bed stuffed with Amazon money.

BTW, Thank you Hugh. I am enriched by your knowledge (free, last time I checked) and your generosity in sharing it.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Drew Smith said:


> And I think that's part of the problem -- as more and more of us stop sitting back and letting them disparage the people supporting Amazon/KU without saying anything like we used to do... they just get more and more strident.


It's a tough problem. Like a dog trainer, I generally find that it's best to ignore behaviors you dislike and encourage any that you do, since grouchy people on the internet feed on confrontation. Things aren't going well, though, and a wizard should know better.

KBoards has lost some fantastic voices just in the last year. Losing another one in Hugh would be tragic.



MyraScott said:


> The reason this doesn't really apply is that there doesn't have to be a single winner in this race.


That, and it's a pointlessly inflammatory analogy to gruesome animal murder.


----------



## Nathan Elliott (May 29, 2012)

MyraScott said:


> *Semantic sidenote- Tesla was promoting DC or direct current. Edison wanted everyone to use his "safer" alternating current (AC). Only one system could reasonably be adopted because of the cost of wiring up a nation. Edison's shenanigans won the contracts.
> 
> The reason this doesn't really apply is that there doesn't have to be a single winner in this race.


You have this backward. Tesla promoted AC, Edison promoted DC. Edison thought (or at least claimed) that AC was dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Nathan Elliott said:


> You have this backward. Tesla promoted AC, Edison promoted DC. Edison thought (or at least claimed) that AC was dangerous.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents


Either way, is it a fair analogy when comparing Amazon to every other distributor?


----------



## Christine_C (Jun 29, 2014)

When I look in my genre (urban fantasy), almost all the top ranked books are free. And then randomly there will be an $11 or $13 ebook. I don't really understand it. Not a lot of middle ground.

examples:

http://www.amazon.com/Witch-No-Name-Hollows-ebook/dp/B00JOGB1DQ/ref=sr_1_26?ie=UTF8&qid=1411181649&sr=8-26&keywords=urban+fantasy

http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Breaks-Kate-Daniels-Book-ebook/dp/B00G3L6JV4/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&qid=1411181540&sr=8-19&keywords=urban+fantasy


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

You are correct!  I was remembering that AC won the day and connected that with Edison.

So, the story ends differently- despite the over-the-top and horrifying smear campaign, Edison still lost because AC was cheaper to install.  Not entirely sure how that applies back to Amazon, but I wasn't clear to begin with.  The important thing is that now we have the history of this red herring argument corrected.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Maximillion said:


> Either way, is it a fair analogy when comparing Amazon to every other distributor?


I suppose if you saw Amazon as a ruthless villain, it would be. For the record, I don't, but I do have strong (and mixed) feelings about Select, exclusivity and the All-Star bonuses.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Maximillion said:


> Fair enough. But why are folks so against exclusivity in the realm of ebooks? Why does what Amazon is doing rub them wrong so badly?


Heavens, you're asking me to understand people? I have no idea. It may be that they are simply frightened by a company they consider too large and powerful and feel that exclusivity increases that-which no doubt it does or Amazon wouldn't do it. (Apple annoys the hell out of me for much the same reason) It may well be that they have perfectly valid reasons for avoiding Select and generalize that into thinking that everyone should. Or maybe it's something totally different. I have a hard enough time figuring out my characters without trying to figure out people on forums.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

Drew Smith said:


> I've noticed this over and over. It seems like the people who are supporting Amazon/KU are constantly saying "Here's what's working for me" and "Here's why I decided to go into KU" and "You'll have to decide what's best for you."
> 
> Then you have the handful of people who dislike Amazon who are constantly talking down to us and making jokes and snide comments about anyone who doesn't fall in line behind them. Anyone going into Select is "drinking the Koolaid" not making a rational business decision.
> 
> ...


Drew, the thing is, I believe this forum would be worse, not better, if we didn't hear opinions like Vaal and Julie have.

If I disagree with Vaal, or if I disagree with Julie, then I say so. That's communication.

Expecting everyone to express themselves the same way, as if we're robots, is not _honest_ communication.

If I had to choose between a nice person and an honest person, I'll choose the honest person every time.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Monique said:


> I suppose if you saw Amazon as a ruthless villain, it would be. For the record, I don't, but I do have strong (and mixed) feelings about Select, exclusivity and the All-Star bonuses.


Yea, I agree. I don't think they are villains but I am troubled by how Amazon can affect my bottom line at their whim. You've not gone into Select. I've read many of your post and you are very informed and knowledgeable. You offer arguments without the snark and I appreciate that. Hence, I give your opinion more weight when I make my decision on particular issues. A multitude of views is why I come here.



JRTomlin said:


> Heavens, you're asking me to understand people? I have no idea. It may be that they are simply frightened by a company they consider too large and powerful and feel that exclusivity increases that-which no doubt it does or Amazon wouldn't do it. (Apple annoys the hell out of me for much the same reason) It may well be that they have perfectly valid reasons for avoiding Select and generalize that into thinking that everyone should. Or maybe it's something totally different. I have a hard enough time figuring out my characters without trying to figure out people on forums.


 True. None of us are mind readers. But my question is just, what would happen if Amazon gets too large and powerful? I think it is a legitimate concern. And then, if what potentially happens affects my bottom line, I welcome a discussion on how to see the dark days ahead and if there is anything we can do. We all have to figure it out for ourselves. But I really do want to know what the heart of the disdain is so I can decide if I share the concern and worry. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Miss Tarheel (Jul 18, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Amazon also gives Hugh a LOT of attention that the rest of us do not get. In Hugh's case, considering his relationship with Amazon, his arguments make sense. Meanwhile, I read two current threads here in the WC TODAY regarding authors who had their exclusivity yanked out from under then without even the courtesy of the normal five day warning nastygram (one was a case of piracy the author had no control over). Amazon won't yank Hugh's exclusivity if a pirate throws his stuff up somewhere. But they do it to us "lesser beings" all the time.
> 
> Amazon isn't going to screw with Hugh, who is one of their best PR tools with indies. Hugh has leverage with Amazon the rest of us do not, and therefore can risk exclusivity with Amazon because of that leverage. But as thread after thread in this forum has shown, the rest of us don't have that luxury.


I completely agree with everything you said. KDP works for him because he's basically the lead mediator between them, Amazon, and indie authors. However, I just don't see exclusivity working for the little guy. I have 3 books in KDP right now and am taking them out as soon as my 3 months is up. The headache of exclusivity just hasn't been worth it in my own experience.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Joliedupre said:


> Drew, the thing is, I believe this forum would be worse, not better, if we didn't hear opinions like Vaal and Julie have.
> 
> If I disagree with Vaal, or if I disagree with Julie, then I say so. That's communication.
> 
> ...


Honesty is awesome but not at the expense of civility. I've had great conversations about gay marriage with folks who are against it. They expressed that view without hurling insults. Just my two cents. Besides, there have been folks who have said similar things without the...sharpness, and created an environment of worthwhile discussion. Just my two cents.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Maximillion said:


> Yea, I agree. I don't think they are villains but I am troubled by how Amazon can affect my bottom line at their whim. You've not gone into Select. I've read many of your post and you are very informed and knowledgeable. You offer arguments without the snark and I appreciate that. Hence, I give your opinion more weight when I make my decision on particular issues. A multitude of views is why I come here.


I get snarky sometimes.  But then a little spices things up. All things in moderation.

I was in Select way back in the day. It did well for me, but not spectacularly, so I ventured out to other retailers. Slowly, but surely I gained some traction in each. None are as powerful/lucrative as Amazon, but all of them combine for nearly half my income now.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Monique said:


> I get snarky sometimes.  But then a little spices things up. All things in moderation.
> 
> I was in Select way back in the day. It did well for me, but not spectacularly, so I ventured out to other retailers. Slowly, but surely I gained some traction in each. None are as powerful/lucrative as Amazon, but all of them combine for nearly half my income now.


Yea, I've been snarky once in a while as well... Reading this you sound like not being in Select and being in other places improves your bottom line I get that. But do you think that if the masses of indie authors joins Select, you will be affected somehow?


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Tiara McClure said:


> However, I just don't see exclusivity working for the little guy. I have 3 books in KDP right now and am taking them out as soon as my 3 months is up. The headache of exclusivity just hasn't been worth it in my own experience.


Could you elaborate on the "headache of exclusivity?" What's that involved?



Maximillion said:


> Honesty is awesome but not at the expense of civility. I've had great conversations about gay marriage with folks who are against it. They expressed that view without hurling insults. Just my two cents. Besides, there have been folks who have said similar things without the...sharpness, and created an environment of worthwhile discussion. Just my two cents.


Right. The problem is that people are voluntarily banning themselves from KBoards because they don't want to suffer the unpleasantness of a few bad actors. Those voices certainly add to the diversity on their own, but how much diversity have they cost us? How many voices have been silenced so that they can continue to denigrate people and pollute earnest dialogue?

Furthermore, Julie and Vaal haven't been honest. They justified their vitriol by making claims that were demonstrably untrue. Even if they were honest, it's no excuse for incivility.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

Maximillion said:


> Honesty is awesome but not at the expense of civility. I've had great conversations about gay marriage with folks who are against it. They expressed that view without hurling insults. Just my two cents. Besides, there have been folks who have said similar things without the...sharpness, and created an environment of worthwhile discussion. Just my two cents.


So have I, but not everyone is the same. And people who express themselves without hurling insults will have _other_ parts of their personalities or lives that aren't so perfect.

People are human and humans are not perfect. Whenever you bring a variety of humans together, you get a mixed bag. Expecting anything else is an exercise in futility unless you're dealing with a small group of people who share the same lives, personalities and backgrounds.

And I would hate that, by the way.


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

Look--if one has an experience contrary to Hugh's, share it. But there is no reason to question Hugh's personal opinion and his personal experience as false just because one feels like it.

Hooray for us. We've managed to question the integrity of a man who has done more for the Indie community than just about anybody in this thread, because we don't like his hat. (I know, it has nothing to do with his hat. Substitute "his hat" for "his personal experience." Equally absurd.)

And, as collateral damage in this festival of bloviation, we manage to lose Rosalind, another successful Indie who has done nothing but try to help us, and has discovered--as others before her--that it's far less aggravation to simply write and stop casting pearls before the swine.


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

I wish I had a piece of frybread. I would tear into a bunch of pieces and give you each a piece. Then I'd send you to bed.


Select is a 90 day period when you agree not to compete against Amazon. It seems to me that Amazon realizes that they don't really have many perks left to continue to entice new authors into Select. Truthfully, after I typed this, I realized that this might belong in the Super Stars thread. Oh well. I'm lazy.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Joliedupre said:


> So have I, but not everyone is the same. And people who express themselves without hurling insults will have _other_ parts of their personalities or lives that aren't so perfect.
> 
> People are human and humans are not perfect. Whenever you bring a variety of humans together, you get a mixed bag. Expecting anything else is an exercise in futility unless you're dealing with a small group of people who share the same lives, personalities and backgrounds.
> 
> And I would hate that, by the way.


I know people are different. I'm a military brat yet I still get surprised at how different people are in certain situations, even in my own family. But as a member of this online community, I hope that I can speak out against incivility to help others here in creating a safe space for discussion and make it clear that certain things just won't go unchecked.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Maximillion said:


> Yea, I've been snarky once in a while as well... Reading this you sound like not being in Select and being in other places improves your bottom line I get that. But do you think that if the masses of indie authors joins Select, you will be affected somehow?


Well, on the one hand I'd have less competition on other sites. On the other, fewer choices for readers makes those sites less appealing and they'll have less incentive to bolster indies. In the grand scheme of things, if indies gravitate en masse into Select, I think it's a very bad thing. But we're not a flock of starlings flying in a murmation. It remains to be seen if Amazon will make Select/KU appealing enough over the long haul and for enough indies to really make the other retailers falter (they do that well enough on their own).

I know that I sleep better at night knowing that I'm diversified and should Amazon pull the rug out or turn up the frog pot, I've a chance to survive because I've made inroads elsewhere. In general, exclusivity is a troubling thing. Many of the all-stars are currently able to have their cake and eat it, too. This does the lower echelons no favors. Will it continue? Time will tell.


----------



## RipleyKing (Mar 5, 2013)

Being exclusive only works is you have the cash to promote yourself on Bookbub and other large Kindle only markets. For the little guy or gal, it has very little impact. As for the controversy, get a grip. Any opinion can have its good points. Gather everything together and make the choice that's right for you.


----------



## Nathan Elliott (May 29, 2012)

I'd just like to add my thanks to Hugh for his thoughts.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Nathan Elliott said:


> I'd just like to add my thanks to Hugh for his thoughts.


+1


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Joliedupre said:


> Drew, the thing is, I believe this forum would be worse, not better, if we didn't hear opinions like Vaal and Julie have.
> 
> If I disagree with Vaal, or if I disagree with Julie, then I say so. That's communication.
> 
> ...


And I'd choose a nice, honest person above them both!

(Ok ok, I swear I'm leaving now...)


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

RipleyKing said:


> Being exclusive only works is you have the cash to promote yourself on Bookbub and other large Kindle only markets. For the little guy or gal, it has very little impact.


Surely the little guys and gals have to be concerned about losing visibility on Amazon purely because they're not participating in KDP, right? Because that's the picture that we're getting. We've had lots of reports that suggest the algos give you a bump simply for opting into KDP. That's a huge promotion in and of itself, and you don't have to pay a dime.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

DianaGabriel said:


> And I'd choose a nice, honest person above them both!


If you can find one.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

Nathan Elliott said:


> I'd just like to add my thanks to Hugh for his thoughts.


Yep, Hugh's blog post really helped me with my decision about Select after that All-Stars email came out. Thanks Hugh!


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Hugh is considering a business decision, and he specifically said that his situation is very different from most self-pubbers. In fact, he even said that his choice may garner him less money but more readers. Let him do what he wants.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Joliedupre said:


> If you can find one.


There are plenty. We just keep driving them off.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

DianaGabriel said:


> There are plenty. We just keep driving them off.


+1


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Joliedupre said:


> Drew, the thing is, I believe this forum would be worse, not better, if we didn't hear opinions like Vaal and Julie have.
> 
> If I disagree with Vaal, or if I disagree with Julie, then I say so. That's communication.
> 
> ...


Didn't you say, just the other day...?




Joliedupre said:


> If it means Hugh is going into lurk now, I want people to shut-up so Hugh can keep talking.
> 
> Yeah, it's selfish. So sue me.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

DTW said:


> This. I rarely see the 'Pro-Amazon' crowd spouting off about how ADS inclined people are (insert whatever negative adjectives you care to here). But most anti-Amazon people -- starting 'at the top' with the directly connected Hachette and Authors United (definitely insert a negative adjective here) folks, and running on down to the kind of people on this board who have been piling on since mid-July with their venom and froth -- rarely just say "I choose a different path"; the message from that quarter is always "those who don't agree are (insert many negative adjectives)"
> 
> Telling, IMO.
> 
> ...


***Clapping*** Goodnight folks. I have the first season of Community and will end my night with that.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

DianaGabriel said:


> There are plenty. We just keep driving them off.


Well, to be fair, it's not just snark that drives people off. Russell Blake was super snarky, but he was one of the most intelligent authors at Kboards. He gave his very helpful opinions without the sunshine, roses and bunnies. He didn't leave because of the snark. He left because it was no longer safe for him to post here.

Others have left for the same reason.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

Monique said:


> Didn't you say, just the other day...?


Yep, I did. If there's anyone I don't want to leave, it's Hugh. That's why I'll defend him whenever I can in hopes that he won't disappear.

But Vaal and Julie are always mouthing off. So I think Hugh is used to that. It's when everyone is jumping down his throat that I start to worry.


----------



## RipleyKing (Mar 5, 2013)

> Surely the little guys and gals have to be concerned about losing visibility on Amazon purely because they're not participating in KDP, right? Because that's the picture that we're getting. We've had lots of reports that suggest the algos give you a bump simply for opting into KDP. That's a huge promotion in and of itself, and you don't have to pay a dime.


Not true. At least for me it isn't. I'm on Amazon, but I'm not exclusive with them. I did the select program for a year, and came to the conclusion that this is now a pay-to-play world of publishing, and those that can't pay, don't get to play. Ads are important to an author's growth. I get one or two sales per month, and I have yet to buy an ad. I'm on a fixed income. I came to the conclusion that pay-to-play has smothered the marketplace, and ghosting threads here has proved to me that money talks, and good writing, no matter what it is, can barely make a dent in today's marketplace. You have to pay to play, because that's where readers go to find their books. This is not sour grapes, but an old marketing man's take on the reality of the indie publishing industry today.

Twenty years ago the quality of your words meant something, author's helping authors was how this all worked, but now it's not like that. Here, authors do help authors. That's good. Where can I place the ads that have the most impact? I found that here.

The marketplace today, for the most of us, is all about how many dead presidents you can spread around. I have a hundred to two hundred authors each day read my blog posts, and come to read my latest offering. But buy? Blogging does not sell books. No name, no chance.

I'm a realist. I take what information I can find, and fit that to my needs. I'm new to these boards, but I've been out there for over two decades. I came to the conclusion that I have to pay, to play. I'm here to learn.

Hugh came to the same conclusion I would have in his place. However, the reader is paramount. With his money, I would consider the readers, first. You can only spend so much in one lifetime, and you can't take it with you.

In this business, readers always come first. Never forget that.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, 

it's 5AM (almost) here in London as I start this post...just finished reading the thread. (Though no doubt, more will be posted as I write this.)

It looks like I should have been reviewing this thread a bit more carefully and doing a bit more pruning--hard to do while I'm checking out Trafalgar Square....but I apologize for not being more on top of it.  I've been trying to keep up when I can but it's been difficult.

Strong feelings are acceptable, but they can and should be expressed respectfully.  Y'all are writers, for Pete's sake.  Use your words.

Elephants?  (The elephant, by the way, was executed at the request of the circus, and had nothing to do with the Edison-Tesla wars--it was long after AC had won that war.  But is a horrible story of animal cruelty, which started long before the elephant was executed. Big Tesla fan here BTW--when we went to NY the last time, we stayed in the hotel where he ended his days, though not in the room, which IS available to rent.)  But nice side-track--who doesn't love elephants?

We ask that people be civil here.  That's the atmosphere we strive for and sadly lose from time to time.  It's not just that we like the place to be nice (*cleans some crumbs from the coffee table*) but we ask for civility because it allows the discussions to continue and for valid points to be made and be responded to.  Otherwise, it becomes a war of personalities, as shown in this thread.

Instead of having a discussion about Hugh's blog post, with strong thoughts on both sides being expressed thoughtfully and carefully, it's turned to finger pointing and to be about personalities and about the forum itself.  Frankly, I don't see much point to leaving it open...though I will.  I'm going back to bed and hope for the best for the next couple of hours.  

Please, keep your feet off the furniture and be kind to each other.  It really works much better that way.

Betsy


----------



## S. Elliot Brandis (Dec 9, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> When you post in the helpful spirit Hugh does, I'll listen to you as much. I said if yesterday and I'll say it again. People who speak rightly--with respect and a helpful intention--are listened to more.


Bingo.

This isn't about opinions, it's about how we treat each other. Hugh is always respectful and constructive. So are many other posters -- you, Wayne, Jolie, etc.

Snark is just another form of rudeness. It's not something people should be proud if.

I respect people that respect others, regardless of their whether their opinions match mine.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Folks,
> 
> it's 5AM (almost) here in London as I start this post...just finished reading the thread. (Though no doubt, more will be posted as I write this.)
> 
> ...


Fair enough, Betsy. Snark doesn't help a forum, I accept that. But some of the sanctimonious comments I've seen by some of the posters are a turn-off also, for me at least

Anyhoo . . . I appreciate you and the other moderators keeping things on track.  (Lord knows I need it.)

(Jealous that you're in London, especially since it's one of my most favorite places.)


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> More on point, I think some people might be targeting Hugh when they're really angry at Hugh's supporters. I do think there was an interesting discussion developing here that got derailed by people who jumped in to automatically agree with everything that Hugh said, and then a bunch more people who reacted badly to that.


What bothers me about this is that it assumes that everyone who agreed with him did so because they were "Hugh supporters," as if they are mindless sheep who blindly follow and agree *only* because he is Hugh Howey. I prefer to think of them as intelligent adults, who are capable of making up their own minds, who just happen to agree with him.

I appreciated hearing his thoughts on the subject. A lot of what he said made sense to me. Some of the points he brought up applied to me, some didn't. I am capable of making those distinctions. I've never read a Hugh Howey novel, and unless he starts writing legal thrillers, I probably never will, so I didn't agree with him because I'm a groupie. I agree because, in some respects, I'm in a similar place, and his message resonated with me.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

This thread is a prime example of why this is my final post on this forum...ever. I know that doesn't mean anything to most of you, but it means a lot to me. I used to love this place, but all it does now is piss me off and want to punch a few people. (And you know who you are.)

Instead of being a place for people to share experiences and opinions, it has become a playground for the immature who wish to try and impress everyone with their pithy statements and self-proclaimed facts. There is no value in this for me.

For all of you who do NOT fall into the above category, I wish you all the best.

For the record, for anyone that cares, I have been exclusive to Amazon since day one, and I shall continue to be until such time as it no longer serves my needs. Those of you who think I'm wrong, well... Let's just say I wish I could show you make bank statements, because those are the only FACTS that matter to me.

Good luck everyone.


----------



## RipleyKing (Mar 5, 2013)

> This thread is a prime example of why this is my final post on this forum...ever. I know that doesn't mean anything to most of you, but it means a lot to me. I used to love this place, but all it does now is p*ss me off and want to punch a few people. (And you know who you are.)
> 
> Instead of being a place for people to share experiences and opinions, it has become a playground for the immature who wish to try and impress everyone with their pithy statements and self-proclaimed facts. There is no value in this for me.
> 
> ...


That's why you should stay. Tell us your facts. More stats mean more informed decisions. This isn't Amazon vs. others. This is opinions. Informed discussion. Ignore the crap, and tell us what you did, and why. Why did it work for you? What do you think?

Stay.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

Rykymus said:


> This thread is a prime example of why this is my final post on this forum...ever. I know that doesn't mean anything to most of you, but it means a lot to me. I used to love this place, but all it does now is p*ss me off and want to punch a few people. (And you know who you are.)
> 
> Instead of being a place for people to share experiences and opinions, it has become a playground for the immature who wish to try and impress everyone with their pithy statements and self-proclaimed facts. There is no value in this for me.
> 
> ...


Well . . . there's a number of passive/aggressive "this is my last post" stuff going on here at Kboards, too. Not sure how _mature_ that stuff is.

When I want to leave, I just leave. (I always come back, though. Ha Ha!)

Good luck to you, too.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Joliedupre said:


> Well . . . there's a number of passive/aggressive "this is my last post" stuff going on here at Kboards, too. Not sure how _mature_ that stuff is.
> 
> When I want to leave, I just leave. (I always come back, though. Ha Ha!)
> 
> Good luck to you, too.


I think it's important for the mods and everybody else to hear that pillars of the community are leaving, and that this is the reason. I'm not a pillar of anything, but when I left several months ago, it was because I didn't have time and wasn't engaged in publishing. Now it looks like I'm getting back in the game. There wasn't a relevant signal there, so of course it didn't merit a farewell post, just as you wouldn't merit one if you're just going to mosey back in the future.

This is different. This community is losing many of its most helpful, informative voices. That's a poor trade for the freedom to engage in vituperation, and I for one would like to see the trend reversed.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

Dolphin said:


> I think it's important for the mods and everybody else to hear that pillars of the community are leaving, and that this is the reason. I'm not a pillar of anything, but when I left several months ago, it was because I didn't have time and wasn't engaged in publishing. Now it looks like I'm getting back in the game. There wasn't a relevant signal there, so of course it didn't merit a farewell post, just as you wouldn't merit one if you're just going to mosey back in the future.
> 
> This is different. This community is losing many of its most helpful, informative voices. That's a poor trade for the freedom to engage in vituperation, and I for one would like to see the trend reversed.


Some of them have left for other reasons. I know if I ever become a special snowflake, it's going to take more than snark for me to do the diva walk. Some of them have had to deal with some truly crappy stuff that has nothing to with snark.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK, folks....it doesn't appear anything better has happened to this thread in my additional two hours of sleep.  Thread is now locked.  Sorry, it could have been a useful thread.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Betsy's locked the thread as I was writing this... I've reviewed most of this thread, and seen the various reports on it. It seems to be a topic that can be discussed, and is worth discussing, without us taking jabs at each other. Even if you feel heated about the issue, we expect that you express that opinion in a way that doesn't come across as a swipe at others.

In the future, please respect Betsy's appeal, and mine, for a little more kindness and a little less 'I'm-right-and-I'm-tough'. If that's hard for you, we'll help you out with a posting vacation just to give the forum a break and a chance to restore tone. 

In the meantime we'll leave the thread locked. Let's move on, good people.


----------

