# I wish the whole notion of permafree would go away



## Guest (Nov 29, 2016)

I have a permafree, and yes, it has helped get people to read my series, but a whole lot more just read the permafree. I wish all authors could join together and get rid of their permafrees and insist that they get some money, even if its a token amount, for that first book.

Don't get me started on folks who are selling the rest of their work for 99 cents.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Out_there said:


> I have a permafree, and yes, it has helped get people to read my series, but a whole lot more just read the permafree. I wish all authors could join together and get rid of their permafrees and insist that they get some money, even if its a token amount, for that first book.
> 
> Don't get me started on folks who are selling the rest of their work for 99 cents.


I'm sure all authors could join together and get rid of their permafrees if they wanted. But if they're not doing that, I think it's a safe bet that they don't want to.

A lot of authors get a lot of sales later in their series by making book one permafree. If they find it works for them, why should they stop just because you don't like permafrees?


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I'm sure all authors could join together and get rid of their permafrees if they wanted. But if they're not doing that, I think it's a safe bet that they don't want to.
> 
> A lot of authors get a lot of sales later in their series by making book one permafree. If they find it works for them, why should they stop just because you don't like permafrees?


Yep.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

I agree with the OP. I price my first-in-series at 99 cents. I'd be happy if Zon set a minimum price of 2.99. Sites such as D2D and Smashwords are silly to allow free books since they are providing services to authors and making nothing off of free books. But as long as the retailers allow it, authors will continue using it.


----------



## LindsayBuroker (Oct 13, 2013)

I love that I can make some of my books free. I can't easily get my work into libraries, where anyone can get trad published books for free. This is the indie alternative IMO.


----------



## PJ_Cherubino (Oct 23, 2015)

Out_there said:


> I have a permafree, and yes, it has helped get people to read my series, but a whole lot more just read the permafree. I wish all authors could join together and get rid of their permafrees and insist that they get some money, even if its a token amount, for that first book.
> 
> Don't get me started on folks who are selling the rest of their work for 99 cents.


I suggested this in a thread once and was told by a very prominent author here that I would get kicked hard in the testicles if I made an effort to tell that person or any other how to price their books.

Without touching on the sad threats of violence, it is safe to say that the permafree technique is highly valued. It is an open question whether the technique itself devalues the market as a whole. I suspect the loss leader principle works pretty much the same in all markets.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

brkingsolver said:


> I agree with the OP. I price my first-in-series at 99 cents. I'd be happy if Zon set a minimum price of 2.99. Sites such as D2D and Smashwords are silly to allow free books since they are providing services to authors and making nothing off of free books. But as long as the retailers allow it, authors will continue using it.


What difference should it make to you what other people price their books at?

They may make nothing from free books, but they certainly make money from the rest of the series . And even Amazon recognizes that with their five Select free days - they just prefer to use them as a bonus to rope people into exclusivity, rather than let people decide for themselves when to make something free.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I use the Select Free days occasionally because they sell books. If it didn't work, I wouldn't set books to free. I assume other authors do the same. 

If you don't want to do it, set your book to 99 cents instead and do your loss leader that way. Or enroll in Select and do the occasional free days. Or none of the above. I figure other authors test what works best for them and do that. I also figure retailers allow free books because they sell more paid books that way. 

The nice thing is that we get to choose our own pricing and do our own testing. The hard thing is...exactly the same thing.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

rmclean said:


> 100% agree. It's nothing more than a race to the bottom... with people praying that as they do so they are one of the lucky few who can generate enough readers that they can escape the very thing they are participating in.
> 
> I think a lot of this is driven by the severe economic strain a lot of consumers are currently under. If the economy and people's discretionary spending were better than it is then higher demand would allow authors to fight back against these trends.
> 
> That's just my hypothesis mind you. I noticed today that Blake Crouch has ALL his books in KU (except for his latest novel). I mean, that just blew my mind. There is zero reason for an author like that to be in KU, yet he is. It's clearly getting TOUGH as hell out there and even the big boys are feeling the pain and trying new methods to reach readers.


I would guess that rather than zero reason, he's found that he makes more money in KU than out of it. That's the criterion most authors use. It's possible to make a LOT of money from page reads, especially if you write long books.

I find it interesting that I've heard that "race to the bottom" thing since I've been in any author communities at all--almost four years now. And in that time, the average price for good-selling indie authors in my genre has gone UP, not down. So ... not sure how that works.

It's a loss leader. That's it. That's all. Common marketing practice.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

rmclean said:


> I noticed today that Blake Crouch has ALL his books in KU (except for his latest novel). I mean, that just blew my mind. There is zero reason for an author like that to be in KU, yet he is.


Any time someone with a lot of skin in the game makes a business decision you disagree with, assume they have a reason to which you're not privy.


----------



## Rob Lopez (Jun 19, 2012)

Out_there said:


> I have a permafree, and yes, it has helped get people to read my series, but a whole lot more just read the permafree. I wish all authors could join together and get rid of their permafrees and insist that they get some money, even if its a token amount, for that first book.
> 
> Don't get me started on folks who are selling the rest of their work for 99 cents.


Some authors let people read their stuff for free on Wattpad too. That must burn.

But I assume, since this was your 666th post, that you're just playing devil's advocate.


----------



## Rob Lopez (Jun 19, 2012)

rmclean said:


> I think a lot of this is driven by the severe economic strain a lot of consumers are currently under. If the economy and people's discretionary spending were better than it is then higher demand would allow authors to fight back against these trends.


I don't think it's that. It's just that, in a given population, most people don't read. It's easier to sell music or movies than a book. Writers have been told for decades not to expect to make a living from writing. Publishers have had to live with slim margins for just as long, and they've never gotten as rich as music or movie companies. We're a niche form of entertainment. Cheap ebooks may have more people reading than before (perhaps), but there are far more indie writers now. Writers have always struggled - it's virtually a tradition.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

LindsayBuroker said:


> I love that I can make some of my books free. I can't easily get my work into libraries, where anyone can get trad published books for free. This is the indie alternative IMO.


This. There are series I discovered in libraries (Robert Parker's Spenser, for example) that I went on to buy ALL the books in the series. And I'm doing the same thing with indie authors whose books I try for free (permafree or KU).

Betsy


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

LindsayBuroker said:


> I love that I can make some of my books free. I can't easily get my work into libraries, where anyone can get trad published books for free. This is the indie alternative IMO.


Exactly. I found Konrath via free. I just bought my 36th Konrath book. I've gone through the same process with numerous authors, from Hugh Howey to Bobby Adair.

Get me hooked with free and I'll be a lifelong customer.


----------



## Kristen Painter (Apr 21, 2010)

Putting book one in my PNR series free was a game changer. It boosted sales in a way that never would have happened even at .99. People want to try before they buy. It's a fact of life.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

How many more people will download a free book versus buy a book for 99 cents?


If 100 people buy a 99 cent book and 10% buy the next in series for $2.99, the author makes about $54.

If 300 people download a free book and 10% buy the next in series for $2.99, the author makes about $58.

All it takes is three times as many people to download a free book versus buying a 99 cent book for the author to come out ahead.

If you want to be really confident and think you can get 25% . . .


If 100 people buy a 99 cent book and 25% buy the next in series for $2.99, the author makes about $83.

If 300 people download a free book and 25% buy the next in series for $2.99, the author makes about $145.

The caveats are that you need (a) three times as many free downloaders as 99 cent buyers and (b) a retention rate of at least 10%.

What happens if you have a third book in the series?


If 100 people buy a 99 cent book, 10% buy the next in series for $2.99 and 10% of those buy the third, the author makes about $56.

If 300 people download a free book, 10% buy the next in series for $2.99 and 10% of those buy the third, the author makes about $64.

If, through marketing and the "stickiness" of your writing, you can achieve those two things (three times as many free downloads and a 10% or better reader retention rate), you can come out ahead by having the first book free in the series.

Of course, individual results will vary which is why some authors are wide and others aren't, some authors use permafree and others don't, some authors are in KU and others aren't and so on.

*For the math, I'm using a 35% royalty on the 99 cent sales and a 65% royalty on the $2.99 sales. Actual royalties will vary with outlet through which the books are sold.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2016)

As I said, I also have a permafree and it helps me get readers. I'm not saying it isn't effective, and I'm not telling people not to use it--I still plan to. It's just that I know the time and effort it takes to create a book or a short story, and I just wish that we didn't have to give our work away to people who have no intention of ever spending a penny on reading material.

I knew this post would get a mixed response. Someone even said that being a poor, abused writer is a tradition. How dare we go against that? Can't I wish that writers weren't exploited?


----------



## Renard (Jun 21, 2016)

ShayneRutherford said:


> What difference should it make to you what other people price their books at?


It actually makes all the difference. Permafree has become such a common technique that a very large subset of the marketplace now expects it. If an author doesn't wish to make a title free, they're going against the market paradigm that was established by those around them. The idea that any of us are operating in a vacuum is absurd. It very much affects everyone if the majority adopt a certain tactic.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

In before lock.


----------



## Rob Lopez (Jun 19, 2012)

Out_there said:


> Can't I wish that writers weren't exploited?


Yes. I wish it too. But, you know, reality.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> How many more people will download a free book versus buy a book for 99 cents?


I've run promos on my books both ways. I make *far* more money just giving the book away. Like, easily an order of magnitude more. I move thousands of free books every month. A significant portion of the people who download those - far more than I've ever achieved without permafrees - comes back and buys more.

This is not a one-size-fits all game. Readers in different genres often have different buying behavior. Hell, readers in different sub-genres have different buying behavior. You have to figure out what works with *your* readers and capitalize on that. That may mean using permafrees and writing long series around the same characters (urban fantasy/PNR/fantasy/space opera). It might mean writing longer, higher priced books in series based around connected characters and making yourself a part of the community (Regency/Jane Austen retellings). It might mean going wide because no one in KU seems interested. It might mean going all-in with KU because the readers there love your stuff and you make big, fat piles of money every month.

The people who read that permafree and never buy anything else from you are a lot like the pirates. They were never going to buy any of your books anyway, so you can't really consider them lost sales. Odds are that the only reason they gave you a shot at all was because the book was free. If it had been 99 cents or more, they would have passed right by it. In a world skewed by KU, writers tend to forget just how picky readers are when they have to put real money down on the table to buy a book - especially a book by an author that they don't know.


----------



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

Anarchist said:


> Any time someone with a lot of skin in the game makes a business decision you disagree with, assume they have a reason to which you're not privy.


Yes. I pay attention when that happens.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Rosalind J said:


> I would guess that rather than zero reason, he's found that he makes more money in KU than out of it. That's the criterion most authors use. It's possible to make a LOT of money from page reads, especially if you write long books.
> 
> I find it interesting that I've heard that "race to the bottom" thing since I've been in any author communities at all--almost four years now. And in that time, the average price for good-selling indie authors in my genre has gone UP, not down. So ... not sure how that works.
> 
> It's a loss leader. That's it. That's all. Common marketing practice.


Rosalind, I'm curious as to what you are considering your genre, as I've seen romance prices drop to .99 at an alarming rate in the last year or two. It may be that I wasn't paying attention before, but I feel that the change from KU1 -> KU2 led to many romance writers launching at .99 and stuffing their books with bonus content to capture page reads. My opinion on that strategy aside, it is very common. But I am looking more at new adult romance and romances that are marketed as super sexy, and I know your books are "older" contemporary romance and I can't say I pay attention to pricing in that niche, as those books never show up in my also-boughts. (That's mostly where I look). I'm still pricing at 3.99 but it's rough seeing my books surrounding by .99 titles.


----------



## Lu Kudzoza (Nov 1, 2015)

> How many more people will download a free book versus buy a book for 99 cents?
> 
> If 100 people buy a 99 cent book and 10% buy the next in series for $2.99, the author makes about $54.
> If 300 people download a free book and 10% buy the next in series for $2.99, the author makes about $58.


This isn't a real life example. Most authors get about a 10% sell through rate on free books because readers load their kindles with them and may never read the book. But, when a reader pays for a book they are much more likely to read it... and thus much more likely to buy the next book. This results in sell through rates near 75% if the book is good. So being generous, real life would be more like this:

If 100 people buy a 99 cent book and 50% buy the next in series for $2.99, the author makes about $130.
If 300 people download a free book and 10% buy the next in series for $2.99, the author makes about $58.

So in real life you need seven or eight times more free downloads to "break even" with the free strategy.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Out_there said:


> Can't I wish that writers weren't exploited?


No one is being exploited.

Permafree is a tool. It's up to the individual to decide whether to use it. Importantly, it's not a corequisite to success.

True exploitation isn't nearly as common as the feeling that one is being exploited.


----------



## Rob Lopez (Jun 19, 2012)

rmclean said:


> In the business world there are regulations against products from foreign markets that are subsidized so that they can sell it below cost (ie. at a loss - thereby driving their comp. out of the market) - there are rules to prevent that so that the market can remain competitive. They don't say "hey, it's just a loss leader." The fact that these rules don't apply to the ebook market, doesn't mean that's not what is essentially going on.
> 
> So we'll have to agree to disagree in terms of how we see the phenomena. I respect your view, but still see permafree as a race to the bottom (even if some authors, as you seem to be, benefit from the model). There many companies who have driven competition out of business because they can afford to predatory price longer than the others (and yes, drive sales to their others products as a result).


This is a compelling argument, but maybe such business rules (and I'm no expert) protect products that are consumed in a different way to ebooks. I mean, I look at what some major music bands are doing today, and I see that, when they have a new album out, they allow fans to download the first single free from their website, or host it on their own channel on YouTube (where it can be easily downloaded with the right software), but then enforce takedown notices on anyone who tries to upload the rest of the album. So the one song entices people to buy the rest. It's not like, say, buying washing powder. If I get a packet for free, it doesn't mean I will buy the rest of the company's products, because I only want washing powder, and if it's always free, I can have it again and again. But I wouldn't download a free book over and over, because there'd be no point.

And the software that lets people download off YouTube for free is itself free, put out by a developer who, I assume, will hope that you then buy an upgraded version, or other software from the same company. Anti-virus companies use the same model too, letting you have a basic model of their software, but then pestering you to upgrade. This is more like what we do with permafrees, I guess.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

rmclean said:


> Well, we disagree on loss leader versus predatory pricing (which is illegal). I'd say it leans more towards the latter than the former. A sale is a loss leader (or a sample is a loss leader... ie. a tiny bottle of shampoo)... constantly free? That is not a loss leader. It's a race to the bottom. Ironically, it's not Amazon doing this but the other vendors. I'm not saying authors shouldn't be able to give their work away for free... but not within a store marketplace. Please show me any store anywhere where you can walk in and get stuff for free? And in the rare instance you can, it's for a very limited time.
> 
> In the business world there are regulations against products from foreign markets that are subsidized so that they can sell it below cost (ie. at a loss - thereby driving their comp. out of the market) - there are rules to prevent that so that the market can remain competitive. They don't say "hey, it's just a loss leader." The fact that these rules don't apply to the ebook market, doesn't mean that's not what is essentially going on.
> 
> ...


I don't have any permafrees.  I have one book in one series priced at 99 cents. Almost all the rest are $4.99, including first books in several series. My highest-priced book is $5.99.

I think anybody can like or dislike any practice they choose, and can market any way they choose. I know successful writers who don't discount ANY books ever. That's a strategy that can work. For me, what works best and always has are periodic price promos (either a 3-to-5-day free offer or a Kindle Countdown Deal) supported by advertising, so that's what I do.

There's no NEED to have a permafree in order to sell. It's part of ONE type of wide strategy. If you don't like it, you might want to study authors who are successfully selling without it, and even without any price promo.

It's interesting to me that on my Montlake books, Amazon discounts ALL of them periodically. (To $1.99, usually.) The periods are generally short and defined. I think they segment the market. Some people will buy at full price; they are not price-sensitive. Some, especially in voracious genres (romance) are very price-sensitive and will ONLY buy at 99 cents or $1.99, except their favorite authors. And others are in between.

They also have my four books in my series at three different price points. (All about the same length.) $3.99, $5.99, $4.99, $3.99 (that one's still on preorder). I can only guess that they like to test. They commonly have the first book in a series at $3.99, even if the others are $4.99 or $5.99. To draw people into the series.

I figure they have the most data, so I pay attention to what they do around pricing, sales, etc.


----------



## Sonya Bateman (Feb 3, 2013)

Rob Lopez said:


> This is a compelling argument, but maybe such business rules (and I'm no expert) protect products that are consumed in a different way to ebooks. I mean, I look at what some major music bands are doing today, and I see that, when they have a new album out, they allow fans to download the first single free from their website, or host it on their own channel on YouTube (where it can be easily downloaded with the right software), but then enforce takedown notices on anyone who tries to upload the rest of the album. So the one song entices people to buy the rest. It's not like, say, buying washing powder. *If I get a packet for free, it doesn't mean I will buy the rest of the company's products, because I only want washing powder, and if it's always free, I can have it again and again. But I wouldn't download a free book over and over, because there'd be no point.*
> 
> And the software that lets people download off YouTube for free is itself free, put out by a developer who, I assume, will hope that you then buy an upgraded version, or other software from the same company. Anti-virus companies use the same model too, letting you have a basic model of their software, but then pestering you to upgrade. This is more like what we do with permafrees, I guess.


Great points here, Rob. Ebooks are a completely different animal from Hot Pockets and toothpaste and other products that use free samples to entice buyers. The bolded bit there (emphasis mine) is especially salient.

I love a good logical argument.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> Rosalind, I'm curious as to what you are considering your genre, as I've seen romance prices drop to .99 at an alarming rate in the last year or two. It may be that I wasn't paying attention before, but I feel that the change from KU1 -> KU2 led to many romance writers launching at .99 and stuffing their books with bonus content to capture page reads. My opinion on that strategy aside, it is very common. But I am looking more at new adult romance and romances that are marketed as super sexy, and I know your books are "older" contemporary romance and I can't say I pay attention to pricing in that niche, as those books never show up in my also-boughts. (That's mostly where I look). I'm still pricing at 3.99 but it's rough seeing my books surrounding by .99 titles.


Yeah, the authors who write more like me (Barbara Freethy, Marie Force in her non-NA stuff, Brenda Novak, etc.) have raised their prices. $4.99 or $5.99 is pretty common.

I know the 99-cent titles are really common also. Those seem to be more authors who write shorter, trendier books, more like erom and NA and so forth, and put them out super fast. I've got a couple interracial/multicultural books on the list right now, and I swear, almost every book is 99 cents! You're right--it's a different strategy, a KU strategy. I'm writing my books more for the "long haul," trying to write less time-sensitive re-readable stuff, so I price higher kind of to signal that, I suppose.

Who knows, maybe the other strategy would be smarter. But I also fear it could send the wrong signal to "my reader."


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Not Lu said:


> This isn't a real life example. Most authors get about a 10% sell through rate on free books because readers load their kindles with them and may never read the book. But, when a reader pays for a book they are much more likely to read it... and thus much more likely to buy the next book. This results in sell through rates near 75% if the book is good. So being generous, real life would be more like this:
> 
> If 100 people buy a 99 cent book and 50% buy the next in series for $2.99, the author makes about $130.
> If 300 people download a free book and 10% buy the next in series for $2.99, the author makes about $58.
> ...


One thing you can do with KU or a free book or whatever is try to present it and write it such that you increase the likelihood of people reading it right away. Hookiness of concept and writing really matters for that; also the cover and blurb. You want to go to the front of the line, and you want to KEEP them reading.

I do think it's possible to increase your chance of being read and increase your sell-through. I think though that sell-through is much higher if the next book(s) are in the type of "series" that is same story/characters. I write standalones in the same world, and that's a little trickier.

When I do a big free offer, my sell-through's more like 5% or even 3%, to be honest, but that's still really good if you're moving 40-95K copies and you have a bunch of other books to buy. It's the best tool I've ever found to increase visibility. Doesn't mean everybody will like the book, but at least more people will SEE the book. Whether they read any more of my books is on me & my book.


----------



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

I don't have permafree book 1s NOW, but I did for years and they were the bedrock of my business. Without them, I could never have gone full time. My book 1s are 99c now, and only because KU and the changes to the free list forced my hand.

If Amazon did not price match, I would still use Free in Kobo, Apple, Nook, and Google. Those place thrive on it. Amazon not so much since KU took the place of free in a lot of ways. Is free dead? Not by a long way, but it is diminished. I used to get 100s of free downloads at Amazon. Now if I try, I get a few dozen a day not 100s. At 99c I get a dozen or so per book. Tiny tiny tiny, but I hedge using free multi-author boxed sets.

Best of both worlds.

Also, I use constant rotating promos now. Where permafree was free promotion, now I pay for it. It amounts to the same thing in the end. If Amazon no longer price matched, I would use 99c book1s at Amazon, and free everywhere else.


----------



## Ariel Eaves (Oct 24, 2016)

I'm not entirely convinced that permafrees will continue to be the way to go.

For one thing, they require an arcane and slow price-matching procedure. I think either Amazon will eventually cave in and allow permafrees to be set normally, or the market will slowly shift to favour 99 cents.

Many authors who started pre-2016 swear by permafrees, but I'm seeing more and more new authors eschewing it in favour of 99 cent launches, where the price is bumped up after 30-60 days, or targeted sales/free periods.

There's also the issue that permafrees require semi-frequent 'watering', in the form of promotions, because after a while they can quite easily sink into low sales rank oblivion.

Ultimately it's very dependent on genre, and in KU-heavy genres such as romance, there is a definite advantage to strategic use of free books. But they don't necessarily need to be permafree from what I've seen.

Basically, I think permafree can be very lucrative if you have the marketing chops and money to back it up. But for those of us who don't, other tactics might prove more worthwhile. As someone who writes in a genre with a high-speed release schedule, I don't want to have to spend too much time doing admin on older books, and permafrees seem to be a lot of work in that respect.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Crystal_ said:


> Rosalind, I'm curious as to what you are considering your genre, as I've seen romance prices drop to .99 at an alarming rate in the last year or two. It may be that I wasn't paying attention before, but I feel that the change from KU1 -> KU2 led to many romance writers launching at .99 and stuffing their books with bonus content to capture page reads. My opinion on that strategy aside, it is very common. But I am looking more at new adult romance and romances that are marketed as super sexy, and I know your books are "older" contemporary romance and I can't say I pay attention to pricing in that niche, as those books never show up in my also-boughts. (That's mostly where I look). I'm still pricing at 3.99 but it's rough seeing my books surrounding by .99 titles.


A whole lot of people doing that are all in with KU and making the bulk of their money on page reads. The money they bring in from sales isn't nearly as important to them as getting more sales which will boost their ranks and get them a little more visibility in KU. They might get three times as many sales at 99 cents as at $2.99, and they make up for the loss on the sales with higher page reads as their ranks go up.


----------



## Lu Kudzoza (Nov 1, 2015)

> When I do a big free offer, my sell-through's more like 5% or even 3%, to be honest, but that's still really good if you're moving 40-95K copies and you have a bunch of other books to buy. It's the best tool I've ever found to increase visibility. Doesn't mean everybody will like the book, but at least more people will SEE the book. Whether they read any more of my books is on me & my book.


Agree. Another bonus is that maybe another 3% to 5% of people will eventually read the book (six months or a year from now). That adds some long term sell through.


----------



## Rob Lopez (Jun 19, 2012)

rmclean said:


> It's sort of like that. But that's more like "here's the first half of a book, upgrade for the rest of it".
> 
> What ebooks do is here's the premium version of product A...hopefully you like it and buy product B, C and D. Even the software folks don't do that.


Except that permafrees are used to sell a series, so that would be the product you upgrade to (to continue the analogy). A permafree standalone is not much use to anyone, so many don't do that.

I would agree that Amazon is more interested in pushing kindles than books. But then again, they only allow permafrees grudgingly. To get it, you have to go wide (to their competitors). So maybe they don't like it much either - they prefer people to take out a subscription for KU to read for free.


----------



## lincolnjcole (Mar 15, 2016)

Amazon is gradually shifting away from permafree and giving them reduced visibility, but other platforms just now got on board with permafree and are really driving it, so I don't think it's going away anytime soon.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

MarkFeenstra said:


> It actually makes all the difference. Permafree has become such a common technique that a very large subset of the marketplace now expects it. If an author doesn't wish to make a title free, they're going against the market paradigm that was established by those around them. The idea that any of us are operating in a vacuum is absurd. It very much affects everyone if the majority adopt a certain tactic.


I guess what I should have said is that, as long as I'm not breaking any rules or laws, it should be no one else's business what price I set for my books, because no one else is contributing to my pay cheque, or paying my bills, but me.

I notice a lot of 'we' getting tossed around by people. 'We should do this' or 'we shouldn't do that', but the truth is, there is no we. Of course none of us are operating in a vacuum, but that really has no bearing on each author's choices. We're not all in this together - we each succeed or fail on our own. And as long as that's the case, everyone is going to price their books in a way that works for them. Because, to put it bluntly, people are likely far more concerned with paying their own bills and providing for their families than they are with what someone else thinks of their pricing strategy.

If an author is making a book permafree, no doubt they're doing so because they make more money with a permafree than without. If an author doesn't want to do permafree, they don't have to. No one is forcing them. And in fact, I know of several people, just in my own circle of friends, who are doing quite nicely with no permafree, nothing priced lower than $2.99, and some stuff priced several dollars higher.


----------



## Rob Lopez (Jun 19, 2012)

lincolnjcole said:


> Amazon is gradually shifting away from permafree and giving them reduced visibility, but other platforms just now got on board with permafree and are really driving it, so I don't think it's going away anytime soon.


So maybe it's down to the other sites like Apple and B&N. The day they see it doing little for them is the day permafree ends.


----------



## Rob Lopez (Jun 19, 2012)

rmclean said:


> So yes, I would eventually expect Amazon to kill the permafree model.


How can Amazon kill the permafree model? It's their competitors that are running with it, not them. What would Amazon be able to do to kill it stone dead?


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

The more books I give away or sell for 99c, the more money I make.

Funny that.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

For those with a cash poor advertising strategy, they're still a godsend. I had my permafrees out there for a while before I began seeing any sell through. At this point, I'm pursuing a crock pot strategy, where I'm letting letting time do the work. The strategy hasn't made me rich yet, but it did earn out my new covers this year.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I guess what I should have said is that, as long as I'm not breaking any rules or laws, it should be no one else's business what price I set for my books, because no one else is contributing to my pay cheque, or paying my bills, but me.
> 
> I notice a lot of 'we' getting tossed around by people. 'We should do this' or 'we shouldn't do that', but the truth is, there is no we. Of course none of us are operating in a vacuum, but that really has no bearing on each author's choices. We're not all in this together - we each succeed or fail on our own. And as long as that's the case, everyone is going to price their books in a way that works for them. Because, to put it bluntly, people are likely far more concerned with paying their own bills and providing for their families than they are with what someone else thinks of their pricing strategy.
> 
> If an author is making a book permafree, no doubt they're doing so because they make more money with a permafree than without. If an author doesn't want to do permafree, they don't have to. No one is forcing them. And in fact, I know of several people, just in my own circle of friends, who are doing quite nicely with no permafree, nothing priced lower than $2.99, and some stuff priced several dollars higher.


Well said.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

If individual-you finds that your readers don't care whether they read your book or somebody else's book, you need to do more (voice, tone, concept) to differentiate your product. You need to write better. You need to write something that people can only get from you. 

Books aren't toothpaste or laundry soap. They're highly individual products (if that's how you work), and authors succeed  to the extent to which they can differentiate their books from others in their genre, to the extent that there's a readership for their particular type of book, and to the extent to which they can make that readership aware of their books. 

There are a number of strategies for doing the above. Alternatively, you can choose to write a less-differentiated product that slots into what's-hot-now, which makes you more like soap or toothpaste in a way. This is more the Harlequin (the skinny books) approach--where you're selling X reading experience (bad boy motorcycle gangs, stepbrothers, whatever it is for other genres), following more of a formula, rather than an Author X reading experience. That can work too. Lots of writers do that very successfully, especially if they write short and fast. 

(And re the "Amazon will stop permafree" idea--I've had a conversation about this with somebody who'd know (at KDP). Nope, not while their competitors are using it, they won't. Amazon would lose market share, and market share is their life.)


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

KelliWolfe said:


> A whole lot of people doing that are all in with KU and making the bulk of their money on page reads. The money they bring in from sales isn't nearly as important to them as getting more sales which will boost their ranks and get them a little more visibility in KU. They might get three times as many sales at 99 cents as at $2.99, and they make up for the loss on the sales with higher page reads as their ranks go up.


Oh I know the strategy really well, almost all my writers friends do it, but I don't think it works without the content stuffing. To say that I'm not a fan of adding "bonus books" to new releases would be putting it lightly. I wish I could just ignore the practice, but it's actually costing me money not adding bonus books because of the way the page rate and All Star bonuses are zero-sum.


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

Amazon can easily kill off permafree by moving consumers to KU, which is probably what they want.  Alternately they can make permafree only available for first in series, which kinda makes sense. And people can still borrow.

I agree that in general there is a race to the bottom / winner take all effect.


----------



## WestofCassy (May 29, 2016)

rmclean said:


> I noticed today that Blake Crouch has ALL his books in KU (except for his latest novel). I mean, that just blew my mind. There is zero reason for an author like that to be in KU, yet he is.


All the Harry Potter books are in KU. I don't see it as an 'I'm not making it I better put it in KU' so much as a 'the MILLION or so subscribers in KU will never buy books'. I would be foolish not to have books in KU. Imho.

*edited for clarity and because I'm a moron sometimes*


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Whether we're talking about permafree, the presumed 'glut' of 'low-quality' manuscripts from self-published authors, the 'tragedy of the commons' argument or any other critique of the current sales environment, it boils down to one thing: it's hard to sell books.

Any number of proximate causes can be targeted. The permafree one is "people expect free books but this strategy isn't working for all of us", which translated means, "this marketing approach doesn't work for me" which means "I'm finding it hard to sell books."

Because selling books is hard.

But that isn't because we've lowered expectations unreasonably by using the permafree model. It's because _selling books is hard._

BTW I have no permafree books. I did, for a while, but stopped when I no longer saw it as valuable, and don't believe it translated into success. I also don't have any regularly priced $0.99 books.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

555aaa said:


> Amazon can easily kill off permafree by moving consumers to KU, which is probably what they want. Alternately they can make permafree only available for first in series, which kinda makes sense. And people can still borrow.


As long as there are a) a good selection of books not in Select, and b) readers who like to 'buy' instead of borrow, moving consumers from permafree to KU probably won't work.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

WestofCassy said:


> All the Harry Potter books are in KU. I don't see it as an 'I'm not making it I better put it in KU' so much as a 'the MILLION or so subscribers in KU will never buy books'. *You would be foolish not to have books in KU*. Imho.


Well that's just a bit too hyperbolic.

I make more out of KU than I did in KU. You do you, I'll do me.


----------



## vanessawriter (Sep 14, 2016)

I published the first two books in my series in August, followed by book 3 in September. For the first month I had book 1 at 99c and made around $300 that month. Then I listed book 1 as a permafree when book 3 came out and things really took off. I booked some promos in the first couple of weeks and now it happily makes enough (1K per month) based on the sell through. 
Funnily enough I put my next two books up to 4.99 (from 3.99) only last week as I believe that is the price they're worth and I've had more sales as a result so I'm going to continue using the permafree model but price subsequent books (including all upcoming releases) at 4.99. I think it's a fair price.
One more thing about the permafree. A lovely reader from the US sent me an email saying times were tough but she found my free book and read it and absolutely loved it. It was such a lovely email and it really moved me and I got so much more from that email than all my sell throughs because it reminded me why I write and has honestly encouraged me to get stuck into my WIPs and that's priceless as I sometimes (like many others) doubt my writing.
So I do get what the OP is saying because we writers work so hard, but I think if the permafree model works to benefit the reader and the writer, then there's no harm done.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

I think permafrees should only be available to those in Select.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

NeedWant said:


> I think permafrees should only be available to those in Select.


That was a joke, right?


----------



## katherinef (Dec 13, 2012)

I wish KU would go away, so what?   I love my permafrees and my readers love them too, but they're all first books in a series, so of course I charge more for the rest. I'm definitely not going to put my books in KU so people could get everything for free. If Amazon wants to get rid of permafrees, they can, but then I'll just have to tell my readers to find my books elsewhere.


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

WestofCassy said:


> You would be foolish not to have books in KU. Imho.





GeneDoucette said:


> Well that's just a bit too hyperbolic.
> 
> I make more out of KU than I did in KU. You do you, I'll do me.


He couldn't tell if her comment was designed to inflame, or if she was just effing crazy. But it certainly got his dander up - and that wasn't all.

"You do you, I'll do me," he told her.

"Oh, baby," she replied, her desirous desire and her breathy breathlessness making it clear she wanted some wotchamakallit - the sort of wotchamakallit unavailable anywhere in the real world, but rampant in a particular type of book, mostly only available, ironically, in KU.

For him, it had been a long time - a loooooong, haaaaaaaaard time - since he'd felt this way, and he bit. And when he bit, oh baby, she liked it, she liked it a lot! Before long, the whizzle was zinging all about her fizzdingle, and the whozzle was zanging all about his fuzzdangle, and when it all ended flopshangled a few mistimed and disappointingly intimate incidents later, they decided to co-author a book about it, one that detailed their experience in a somewhat believable and far too emotional and physically impossible way. And of course - it goes without saying, but I often tell when I should show, so I'll just say it anyway - they titled the book *"You Do You, I'll Do Me!"*

And yes, what a hit it would have been, for it was indeed a great work of artistry, technique, and detailed description of tingly, spindly, fancifully wangly bodyparts that would have appealed to pretty much everyone. But alas, the greatest book ever co-authored was destined to remain on their hard drives - well, technically, his wasn't a hard drive, but an SSD. But as an SSD is in fact slightly harder than a hard drive... (Hey, they should have put that bit in the book really, shouldn't they?)

Anyway, _in the end_ (_THAT_ bit _WAS_ in the book, seventeen times) they never published the book, and the whole beautiful project was flangelzapped - and all because they never could manage to agree on whether or not to put it in KU.

But at least they'd always have KBoards...


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

ShayneRutherford said:


> That was a joke, right?


No.

If I was running Select there would actually be benefits to being exclusive!


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

NeedWant said:


> No.
> 
> If I was running Select there would actually be benefits to being exclusive!


Well, being in Select gets you five free days, so that is a benefit.

But the thing is, the fact that Amazon still allows permafree tells me that they're getting some benefit out of it (i.e. making lots of money). And as long as they are making money, they're not going to stop.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

NeedWant said:


> No.
> 
> If I was running Select there would actually be benefits to being exclusive!


Well, it does get you access to the second largest indie ebook marketplace after Amazon.com's storefront.


----------



## WestofCassy (May 29, 2016)

GeneDoucette said:


> Well that's just a bit too hyperbolic.
> 
> I make more out of KU than I did in KU. You do you, I'll do me.


You are also a far more established writer than me. I really didn't intend to offend, or tell people how they aught to be. Perhaps I should have put *at my level* next to IMHO. And yes, Gene, I do tend to the dramatic. I'm a writer, after all! <3


----------



## Pam771771 (Sep 24, 2016)

With my reader head on, the last 4 series of  books I got hooked on and downloaded, was from reading the first in the series permafree. I then loved the authors so much I've gone on to buy their other books (which have all been full price).

Permafree is definitely a good marketing tool to get customers like me hooked (and I'm sure that there is lots of us out there).


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I wish every other book ever would go away so that only my books were out there to buy. Wait... no I don't. What would I read? Darnit.

Perma-free still works to make money. When/if it stops working, then it will likely go away as people stop using it and start doing whatever else makes them money.  Ranting about it isn't going to help much.

If someone is doing something you don't want to do, don't do it. If they are getting results you want by doing that thing? Maybe think about your reasons and if they are actually reasonable. I used to think high prices and never free or cheap was the way to go. That thinking almost killed my career. It was only when I was able to let go of ego and bad reasoning and truly look at what was working for others and why that I was able to turn things around.

A pro poker player once talked about playing offense or playing defense. When something changes or someone is doing something you aren't and getting results... you can play defense or offense. Defense is to sit tight and do what you are doing harder in the hopes the new thing is a fluke and will go away. Offense is to start figuring out why the new thing is working and how to make it work for you.

As a writer... I try to play offense. If I feel resistant to something, I try to think about if that is just me hating change and having to do more work, or if there's a legit reason I don't want to do something (like it goes against my morals or it really won't work for my genre or it's illegal or whatever).


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2016)

Hmmm

Let's extend this discussion to our labor laws.
Minimum wage has been bumped to $15 an hour.
So McDonald's is rolling out an automated burger ordering machine that eliminates the minimum wage counter clerk.

Let's consider making each day's first hour of labor free.
Surely the boss would be so impressed with our free hour that he would keep us for the next 7 hours.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Okey Dokey said:


> Hmmm
> 
> Let's extend this discussion to our labor laws.
> Minimum wage has been bumped to $15 an hour.
> ...


Then I guess they would start selling permafries. I wish the whole notion of permafries would go away.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Permafrees are the equivalent of having a rep hand out slices of your brand of pizza that the local supermarket. Most people are going to eat the slice and promptly forget about it. Make it good enough, though, and a few of them will go and snag a couple of your pizzas on their way to the beer aisle. If they like it enough, they'll continue buying your pizzas every time they go to the store.

The best form of advertising is always going to be giving people a taste of a good product, just enough to make them want more. It's why practically every single company that makes an actual product gives away free samples.

Worrying about permafrees screwing up the market is just as silly as worrying about all those free samples screwing up the physical goods markets. Why should anybody buy anything when they can just go collect the free samples? Why should anyone buy my pizza for $9.99 when they can get a shrinkwrapped El Cheapo pizza for $1.99?

That's just not how things work. Sorry.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

I wouldn't take seeing Blake Crouch books in KU to mean sales are hurting. In the past, Amazon has allowed some of the big sellers to be in KU and not be exclusive. Since a ton of his books are on B&N, maybe that is the case here.

I think we all worry too much.


----------



## BellaJames (Sep 8, 2016)

KelliWolfe said:


> Permafrees are the equivalent of having a rep hand out slices of your brand of pizza that the local supermarket. Most people are going to eat the slice and promptly forget about it. Make it good enough, though, and a few of them will go and snag a couple of your pizzas on their way to the beer aisle. If they like it enough, they'll continue buying your pizzas every time they go to the store.
> 
> *The best form of advertising is always going to be giving people a taste of a good product, just enough to make them want more. It's why practically every single company that makes an actual product gives away free samples.*
> 
> ...


Yep I worked for a media company for a very short period and we sampled different media related products such as headphones, music, games and even new drinks. Good publicity and all.

Stores who let you sample a product especially food or a new drink. Great idea.

It works if you can impress, engage, entice people very quickly.

Write engaging, addicitive books and have one for free or at the lowest price possible and then tempt readers in to buy more of your collection. It makes sense.



Crystal_ said:


> Oh I know the strategy really well, almost all my writers friends do it, but I don't think it works without the content stuffing. To say that I'm not a fan of adding "bonus books" to new releases would be putting it lightly. I wish I could just ignore the practice, but it's actually costing me money not adding bonus books because of the way the page rate and All Star bonuses are zero-sum.


There are a lot of stuffers but I could list a few new adult, erotic romance and contemporary romance authors I read who seem to be doing great in KU and they are not stuffing. Some write shorter books and they all write addictive reads that get good reviews from most of my Goodreads 'friends' (some are top reviewers) and a few book bloggers I follow.

I am starting to see more negative reviews about authors who stuff in bonus books. You will often see the reader say, t_his book ends at 56% and then there are other books in the back. 
_ Some feel cheated that they thought they were buying one longer book but they got a novella and two more stuffed in. 
I'd prefer an author to be honest and clear and just say, l_ook this book ends here and I've added two more stories for your reading pleasure. These books are related like this....._

Some authors who don't stuff.  Some include the first chapter or a small excerpt of their next book but not a full bonus book.

Jenika Snow (the new book in a new series does contain a bonus book but the rest do not)
Penny Wylder
Alexa Riley
Madison Faye
Tess Oliver
Brittany Cherry
Melanie Harlow
Staci Hart
Whitney G (or Whitney Gracia Williams)
Jessica Sorenson
Kandi Steiner

I could list at least 20 more authors


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

ShayneRutherford said:


> Well, being in Select gets you five free days, so that is a benefit.


I would say that's more a restriction than a benefit.



KelliWolfe said:


> Well, it does get you access to the second largest indie ebook marketplace after Amazon.com's storefront.


That's about all it does give me. But with what I'm giving up (permafree, selling on other platforms) I need more than just that to make me feel like I'm not being taken advantage of.



Spoiler



Not that I hate Select. I actually love it, just wish it had more perks for those of us in it.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

NeedWant said:


> That's about all it does give me. But with what I'm giving up (permafree, selling on other platforms) I need more than just that to make me feel like I'm not being taken advantage of.


We also get massive preferential treatment in Select by having borrows treated equally or better than sales in the Amazon store. That means that the reader who snagged the book on a whim and is going to return it unread next month gave you the exact same rankings boost as the fan who dropped $3.99 for a copy. Since there's no financial penalty associated with making a bad choice like there would be if the reader bought a crappy book, readers will pick up books in KU that they would never spend money on. This leads to a market distortion that radically favors KU books in the store rankings, and was exactly why Amazon split out the free lists from the paid lists back in 2012.


Nancy G said:


> This thread convinced me to go permafree with book 1 from the people who've endorsed it here. I'm in the process now, already sent Amazon my Kobo link to match and excited.


Amazon rarely price matches based off of Kobo alone. You'll probably need to get the book up and free on iTunes and Google Play before they'll do it.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

KelliWolfe said:


> We also get massive preferential treatment in Select by having borrows treated equally or better than sales in the Amazon store. That means that the reader who snagged the book on a whim and is going to return it unread next month gave you the exact same rankings boost as the fan who dropped $3.99 for a copy. Since there's no financial penalty associated with making a bad choice like there would be if the reader bought a crappy book, readers will pick up books in KU that they would never spend money on. This leads to a market distortion that radically favors KU books in the store rankings, and was exactly why Amazon split out the free lists from the paid lists back in 2012.


You say that like it's a bad thing. It's one of the reasons why I'm still in Select. I don't think KU books are any more worthless than wide books, though.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Forge your own path. If you don't like a certain practice then don't do it. There are multiple avenues of success and not all of them involve following conventional / popular wisdom. 

I tried permafree for a while. Didn't work for me. So I don't do it. I instead focus on being better in other areas of marketing. But it works for others. So be it. More power to diversity.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

NeedWant said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing. It's one of the reasons why I'm still in Select. I don't think KU books are any more worthless than wide books, though.


It's a good thing if you are in Select and you make most of your money from page reads. If you make most of your money from sales and/or you are not in Select, then it is a very bad thing. Your book sales have to compete with KU borrows for rankings - and it's far easier to get a borrow than a sale because there is no financial penalty associated with the borrow to induce readers to be more prudent about the books they choose.

We all know how much easier it is to convince somebody to download a free book than it is to make a full-price sale. A KU borrow is effectively no different than that free download. The flip side of this is that there is far less incentive for a reader to finish a mediocre KU borrow than there is for a reader who just paid $3.99 for a book. They don't have any financial investment in the book, so they can return it as a DNF and go on their way. But it isn't the read that triggers the rankings jump, it's the borrow. So the distortion still gives books in KU an advantage.

Either way, it's a strong perk to being in Select.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Out_there said:


> As I said, I also have a permafree and it helps me get readers. I'm not saying it isn't effective, and I'm not telling people not to use it--I still plan to. It's just that I know the time and effort it takes to create a book or a short story, and I just wish that we didn't have to give our work away to people who have no intention of ever spending a penny on reading material.
> 
> I knew this post would get a mixed response. Someone even said that being a poor, abused writer is a tradition. How dare we go against that? Can't I wish that writers weren't exploited?


Hm. I suspect that most people who use permafree, like people who use any other strategy, are using it to try to be a RICH writer who gets to set his or her own terms. That's what I base my own decisions on, and what I figure most people, except those who are just writing for love or fun, are doing.

If it's not getting you there, try a different strategy--or look at your books with a hard eye to see what isn't grabbing hard enough. Most folks I know who are in the 7 or 8-figure club seem to have permafrees, so it definitely CAN work! Readers just have to like that free book.


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

Can't you just hire someone and their bot army to get you to #1 in the free store? That seems like one of the problems that needs to get solved. Even when its just a promo site. Just don't look too hard there.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

KelliWolfe said:


> It's a good thing if you are in Select and you make most of your money from page reads. If you make most of your money from sales and/or you are not in Select, then it is a very bad thing. Your book sales have to compete with KU borrows for rankings - and it's far easier to get a borrow than a sale because there is no financial penalty associated with the borrow to induce readers to be more prudent about the books they choose.
> 
> We all know how much easier it is to convince somebody to download a free book than it is to make a full-price sale. A KU borrow is effectively no different than that free download. The flip side of this is that there is far less incentive for a reader to finish a mediocre KU borrow than there is for a reader who just paid $3.99 for a book. They don't have any financial investment in the book, so they can return it as a DNF and go on their way. But it isn't the read that triggers the rankings jump, it's the borrow. So the distortion still gives books in KU an advantage.


We'll have to agree to disagree that a KU book is equivalent to a free book. As a KU subscriber, I'm very aware that I pay monthly for the privilege. Every time I borrow a book I have to return another because I always have ten titles borrowed.

Right now I make half my money from paid sales and half from page reads, so I guess I'd be somewhere in the middle.



> Either way, it's a strong perk to being in Select.


A fair one in my opinion.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Out_there said:


> I just wish that we didn't have to give our work away to people who have no intention of ever spending a penny on reading material.


In reality, you are not giving anything away.

When you actually give something away, like a print book or a piece of pie, you don't have it anymore.

What you are doing is allowing someone to download a copy of your work. That's it. If you think of it this way, which is the objectively true way, it doesn't matter one bit whether that person who will not spend any money on reading material obtains a copy or not. That person will never put a farthing in your pocket, either way. It's absolutely irrelevant, except if you let it affect your emotional state.

The only thing that matters, objectively, to your bottom line, is whether you can use permafree to make more money. That's it. Anything that does not affect your bottom line is irrelevant, unless you choose involve your own emotions. If you do, that's not optimal business practice. It's something else. Call it ego, or art, or principle. But it's not business, and it doesn't have anything to do with sales or commercial success--except as in interferes with your ability to be commercially successful. Worrying about that is 100% downside, zero upside.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Okey Dokey said:


> Hmmm
> 
> Let's extend this discussion to our labor laws.
> Minimum wage has been bumped to $15 an hour.
> ...


Yes...this is called interning or apprenticeship, a time-honored practice.

If it gets you the job and makes you money in the long run, who cares what you call it or how it's accounted for?


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

I have a ton of perma-frees but I've never fallen in love with it. Particularly as the market grows, a large subset of readers just jump from one free book to another because they don't ever have to pay for anything. I also think that it's hard to ever "break out" with a series when you're stuck with the rankings you can get only on the sell-through from a free first book.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

I didn't sell anything on Amazon outside of kU until I started doing permafrees, so no.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Nancy G said:


> This thread convinced me to go permafree with book 1 from the people who've endorsed it here. I'm in the process now, already sent Amazon my Kobo link to match and excited. So many great things were said about it. I think everyone should do what feels right to them. I did decide to go wide a few weeks ago as I just don't like being exclusive anymore. I got out of Select early as Amazon graciously allowed me. I'm excited for 2017 and what it'll bring, hoping to try for a Bookbub at some point.
> 
> I'm sure the OP did not want to hear this as they want permafree gone, sorry!


I don't think they match for Kobo. I send them my ibooks or Barnes and Nobles link when I go permafree. Ibooks seems to work fast.


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

Anarchist said:


> Any time someone with a lot of skin in the game makes a business decision you disagree with, assume they have a reason to which you're not privy.


Big, big "Bingo" right there!


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> How many more people will download a free book versus buy a book for 99 cents?
> 
> 
> If 100 people buy a 99 cent book and 10% buy the next in series for $2.99, the author makes about $54.
> ...


This is a great analysis!

Of course some people won't listen to or agree with it because it contains mathematics and statistics and all of that stuff is just too hard to deal with.

Others won't agree with it because it doesn't support their world view and that is just too hard to deal with.

Still others will not like it because their sales are already low and the idea of setting something for free is just too hard to deal with.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

NeedWant said:


> I think permafrees should only be available to those in Select.


Permafree isn't really what I consider available to an author. It's really just about Amazon not wanting to price higher than their competitors. I always assumed Amazon matched the price because you can give away as many as you like on ibooks and B&N, so if they refused and insisted the writer raise their price, an author still has the option of publishing free books just for those sites. Amazon's goal is to get as many exclusive books as possible, not drive titles away from them. Plus they make money off of the books the permafree pushes, so they don't have any reason not to let it slide.


----------



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

Joe Lallo whips his spreadsheets out and goes DEEP into his permafree etc.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Permafree is just a tool. You can use it and make money with it....or not. I don't get why people are upset about how others choose to run their businesses though? Permafree is just one of many strategies and if you don't use it, why do you care if others do? 

When you do a free promo or permafree, it's simply a loss leader. A way to introduce your writing and hope that a percentage will like it enough to go on and buy more. Some never will, they might not like it or might be the very small group that won't pay for books. So what? Free downloads are all about volume.....for every hundred downloads on iBooks, it's the 10 on average that go on to buy the next book in the series and the one after that that I care about.

It's a tool you can use to go wide....to roll a bunch of books out of of KU and onto all the other platforms and use a Bookbub on one of them to jumpstart sales on the others. 

When I think of permafree, I think of money made....not money lost.


----------



## 5ngela (Sep 7, 2015)

I think for author who want to get the benefit of permafree and also get paid for their work, they should join Kindle Unlimited. That way, both the authors and readers get the benefit. But of course, every business decision have their own pros and cons.


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

PamelaKelley said:


> When I think of permafree, I think of money made....not money lost.


EXACTLY!

When you look at the reports from places like RWA, Author Earnings, and Smashwords, they ALL agree that for indies, series that have a permafree lead-in earn more than those that don't.

Can't really argue with the numbers.


----------



## Renard (Jun 21, 2016)

PamelaKelley said:


> Permafree is just a tool. You can use it and make money with it....or not. I don't get why people are upset about how others choose to run their businesses though? Permafree is just one of many strategies and if you don't use it, why do you care if others do?


As I said a couple of pages ago, it matters because it creates a market expectation. If a critical mass of indie authors uses permafree, it creates a subset of the market that won't pay for a first book by a new author.

Example: Here on kboards, I've seen new or struggling romance authors be told in no uncertain terms that they must have a permafree title in their series, that no books should be priced higher than $3.99, and that you have to have at least one title on sale at any given time. Whether or not that advice is sound is another matter, but the authors using this strategy over the last few years have created a market paradigm where this is considered standard practice. If an author was ideologically opposed to this strategy (as is their right), they now have to go against the established norms to try to compete with everyone around them using a business practice they don't agree with.

I'm not commenting on whether or not I think permafree is or is not a good thing, but can we please stop with the idea that a selling technique as widely used as permafree has absolutely no effect on the indie publishing community as a whole? *Everyone* who sells in a market space is responsible for the state of that market. If you sell on Amazon, you should have a vested interest in how others are using the same ecosystem. If the market seems to be moving in a direction you don't like, you should have the courage to speak up to start a discussion about reversing a potentially negative trend.

Not that a conversation is going to get anywhere in this case. Even if permafree was the worst possible thing for the long term health of the independent publishing industry, the conversation here will never move past _"It works for me, so who cares?"_


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

I went from making $8900 in February 2015 to making $22,000 in March 2015 when I left KDPS and went wide with my three series. I put three of my series starters to permafree and the sell through to the rest of the series was phenomenal. You can't argue with results. Setting three books to permafree led to the sale of the other 8. 

If permafree doesn't work for you, either in terms of sell through or psychologically/ethically, then don't do it. It's a marketing technique that is well known and loved for its potentially great results. Not all tactics work as well for every author. Do what works for you. Leave the rest of us to do the same.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> Even if permafree was the worst possible thing for the long term health of the independent publishing industry, the conversation here will never move past "It works for me, so who cares?"


I think that permafree is one of the best things for the indie publishing community; price is one of the only ways we can compete with trad publishers, and although many trad-pubs will use $1.99 they seldom use free.

Ta-da! Indies you are absolved.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Nobody else is paying my bills. So, no, as long as I'm operating within the country's laws and Amazon's rules, I don't see how it's anybody's business to tell me how to sell books or to talk about "the good of the industry." Even if I accepted that having a first book at a low price or free was bad for bookselling (I don't--in the old days before indie books, KU, ebooks, romance readers traded books or got them at the library--for which authors got nothing but, yep, visibility), I'm not dumb enough to think that authors will act against their own self-interest. 

Others' business strategy is none of my business.

By the way--I'm a romance writer. I've had one permafree for one short time. I don't release every month--more like every 3 months. Almost all my books are over $3.99. I have one book out of 5 series at 99 cents. I've been a six-figure author since Year 1, and I didn't come into this with any platform or any more knowledge than anybody else, so...there isn't "one way." There are lots of ways. None of them but my own way is my business.

But yes, romance readers expect a FIRST book from a romance author, unless it's coming loaded with reviews from trusted sources or being talked up all over the place, to carry no/low price, so they don't waste their time and money. There are a lot of subpar books out there. Yes, there used to be gatekeepers. Now there aren't, and romance is the preferred home of the scam artist, the ghostwritten-in-India-in-two-days book, the plagiarized book, the un-proofread book. Readers want to check out that the author is decent. I can't tell you how many readers talk about how hard it is to find well-written indie books in romance. There's so much pressure to put them out fast.


----------



## Renard (Jun 21, 2016)

C. Gockel said:


> I think that permafree is one of the best things for the indie publishing community; price is one of the only ways we can compete with trad publishers, and although many trad-pubs will use $1.99 they seldom use free.


And here I am thinking about moving my prices up in the future to distance myself from the permafree crowd


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

MarkFeenstra said:


> As I said a couple of pages ago, it matters because it creates a market expectation. If a critical mass of indie authors uses permafree, it creates a subset of the market that won't pay for a first book by a new author.
> 
> Example: Here on kboards, I've seen new or struggling romance authors be told in no uncertain terms that they must have a permafree title in their series, that no books should be priced higher than $3.99, and that you have to have at least one title on sale at any given time. Whether or not that advice is sound is another matter, but the authors using this strategy over the last few years have created a market paradigm where this is considered standard practice. If an author was ideologically opposed to this strategy (as is their right), they now have to go against the established norms to try to compete with everyone around them using a business practice they don't agree with.
> 
> ...


I think part of the issue is that for many writers it is difficult for them to separate their art from the business side of publishing. They take the business choices of others personally----it's not personal, it's just business.

The reality is that pricing is all about supply and demand, what the market will bear. You can price above the market, go above the $3.99 in romance for instance and it might work for you. There are plenty of Indie authors getting $4.99 or even $6.99 or $7.99...because readers think they are worth it--the demand has been set by the marketplace. That could be because the book is phenomenal, the writing or story somehow resonates in a way that it will sell well at that price...or they've built up a reader base or spend tons on FB ads....though you still need a good book for continued sales.

If you're new and unknown, pricing either by staying in the sweet spot for your genre, such as 3.99 or below with romance, or using permafree.....is all about visibility....enticing readers to take chance on a new to them author.

It is what it is. A free marketplace. You can either complain or adapt and profit.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

MarkFeenstra said:


> As I said a couple of pages ago, it matters because it creates a market expectation. If a critical mass of indie authors uses permafree, it creates a subset of the market that won't pay for a first book by a new author.
> 
> Not that a conversation is going to get anywhere in this case. Even if permafree was the worst possible thing for the long term health of the independent publishing industry, the conversation here will never move past _"It works for me, so who cares?"_


Yes, but there is no proof that permafree harms the industry. In fact, I would suggest that it helps the industry by allowing more readers to read voraciously. This claim that 99c books or permafree books harm the industry is just that -- a claim. There is no evidence to back it up. It's a claim made by people who don't seem to do well with permafrees, or don't even have enough books out to do permafree and benefit from it. In fact, the indie publishing industry is doing quite well.

If I followed the advice to price >$2.99, and get rid of my permafree, it would mean I would _lose_ money and a whole lot of other authors would as well. Why should we lose money to satisfy someone's dislike of permafree? Why should we lose money based on claims that have no evidence?

People can claim that it would be for the better if someone else decided at what price we could sell our books, but there is no proof -- just theories and claims.

I know and many of my fellow indie authors know that permafree makes us more money. In the short and long run. That's real evidence.

A thing to remember -- authors use permafree and low prices because we are responding to the market forces we experience. Permafree _works_ as a marketing strategy. Why? Customers like to sample a new author so they can see if they like the work without taking the risk of buying a piece of crap book. They then go on to read the rest of the series. We authors are responding to that in our customers. That's smart -- especially if it broadens our audience and makes us more money.

Indies have huge margins. We have very little overhead compared to trad publishers. We are not encumbered by the limits of the trad publishers, re: coordinating a large number of releases, editing, covers, etc. We are nimble. We can become millionaires selling books for 99c. We can become millionaires selling books for $2.99 a pop. We can become six-figure earners with permafree books and fast releases. We can become millionaires in KU.

We are competing with music and games and movies and TV for entertainment consumers. We have to do what works. Right now, permafree works. As long as it does, indies will use it. If it stops working, we will stop using it. It's simple.


----------



## Stephanie Marks (Feb 16, 2015)

MarkFeenstra said:


> As I said a couple of pages ago, it matters because it creates a market expectation. If a critical mass of indie authors uses permafree, it creates a subset of the market that won't pay for a first book by a new author.
> 
> Example: Here on kboards, I've seen new or struggling romance authors be told in no uncertain terms that they must have a permafree title in their series, that no books should be priced higher than $3.99, and that you have to have at least one title on sale at any given time. Whether or not that advice is sound is another matter, but the authors using this strategy over the last few years have created a market paradigm where this is considered standard practice. If an author was ideologically opposed to this strategy (as is their right), they now have to go against the established norms to try to compete with everyone around them using a business practice they don't agree with.
> 
> ...


PREACH!!

So many people can't distinguish between the FACT of cause and effect of business practices within an ecosystem and the OPINION about those practices. They are two completely separate yet often intermingled arguments like we've seen in this thread.
I mean if we were being perfectly honest and understood the concept, a response would more likely look like "Yes, when a mass amount of authors adopt a practice such as permafree it does shift the landscape of reader expectations. But as this practice benefits me and many others I will continue to persue it, even though it has created a HUGE new population of readers that expect to be able to get all first in series free."

We are not islands. Yes we each have our own business but when a group of people do something EN MASS the landscape shifts. Isn't that how indie publishing got to where it is today in the first place? A bunch of people shifting their view of the publishing industry and switching their publishing practices in huge amounts. Now readers expect to see Indy books all over the place.

How can we do something like that one minute and then say, "oh what i do doesn't effect anyone or anything else" the next?

If every author decided that their cheapest book would now be $2.99 what do you think would happen? Would readers just... stop reading? No they would adapt to the expectations that WE created for them. Just like we created the expectation of $0.99 romance and permafree being the norm. People are conditioned to their expectations. And so often indie authors seem to forget that we're the ones doing the conditioning.

This post isn't about whether or not permafree is good or bad, it's strictly about science and the reality of cause and effect.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

To get back to the topic, I think permafree is overrated as a 2016/2017 strategy, especially on Amazon. I'm in KU, so no permafree, but I have done many Select free runs. Those can work well if you have a cliffhanger or a BookBub, but the overall sellthrough is always low. Usually, there's a substantial increase in page read to make up for it, but lately that has been an issue. I think KU has made free books less powerful on Amazon.

Generally, I think it's good strategy to run sales to bring people into your series, but I don't think you need to have a perma .99/free funnel if you are in KU, and I don't think pricing all your books at .99 is a good long term strategy, even if it helps you increase your pages read. You're training your readers to only buy .99 books and that is going to make it hard for you to ever leave KU or raise prices. I can't begin to tell you how many times romance authors have asked me how I manage to sell at 3.99. They can't conceive of the possibility of pricing about .99 and selling.


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

PamelaKelley said:


> I don't get why people are upset about how others choose to run their businesses though?


They get upset when someone else offers something that appears to be similar or exactly the same as what they offer, but that someone offers it at a huge discount (and one has to admit that "free" is a pretty huge discount!).

That can be shoes, or computers, or TV's, or... books. So, until you have captured your potential customers with a unique position---your TV has features that no one else's has, or your first book in a series is so compelling that your readers are eager to continue with the sequels---you are competing with dozens, hundreds, thousands of other sellers that appear to a casual shopper to be just like you, and that can make you feel completely powerless.

That's what marketing is for: separating you from the pack. Not everyone does it, and, of those that do it, not all of those do it well, mostly because they don't understand how... how to do it and how it works.

This is a difficult business in which to achieve financial success. It always has been, whether historically or nowadays.

It's easy to publish; it's tough to make money at it.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Stephanie Marks said:


> PREACH!!
> 
> So many people can't distinguish between the FACT of cause and effect of business practices within an ecosystem and the OPINION about those practices. They are two completely separate yet often intermingled arguments like we've seen in this thread.
> I mean if we were being perfectly honest and understood the concept, a response would more likely look like "Yes, when a mass amount of authors adopt a practice such as permafree it does shift the landscape of reader expectations. But as this practice benefits me and many others I will continue to persue it, even though it has created a HUGE new population of readers that expect to be able to get all first in series free."
> ...


First, you will never get all authors to set their minimum price to $2.99. Just won't happen. The only way it would happen is by force via the retailers making it a necessity. However, Apple and the Big 6 (5) already tried to set prices for eBooks. Guess what? They were sued by the US Government for price fixing.

So, since you will never get all authors to agree to sell their books at a minimum of $2.99, the question is moot. It ain't gonna happen.

Indies compete primarily via price because we have such low overhead. We have to compete with trad publishers and price is the primary way.

Expectation is not only created by publishers though. Customers also create market expectation through their behaviour. They look at a marketplace full of books of different prices and lengths and quality, and they choose. They have spoken and they like permafree and 99c books. Authors are responding to them.

They buy more 99c books and they download more free books as a way to try out a new author. When they do, they find authors they like and buy up all their other books at regular prices.

There is a myth out there that 99c and permafree harm the book business by training readers to expect free or 99c.

That's false. My books all sell for $4.99 a pop except for my permafree series starters. So having permafree books has not trained my customers to only download free books. They still buy my books at $4.99 a pop, in enough quantity that I have a nice six figure income from book sales.

Why? Because they know they already like my books and so feel comfortable spending their money on the rest at $4.99 or my boxed sets at $9.99.

It's price competition and it works. It's a loss leader pricing tactic and it works. It may not feel fair to those who can't compete using price, but that's the reality of a freer market. We have freedom to price as we choose and customers have freedom to respond, and vice versa.

Permafree and 99c as pricing tactics, far from harming the market, open up the market for new readers, for discount readers, and for readers in general.


----------



## truc (Apr 2, 2015)

MarkFeenstra said:


> As I said a couple of pages ago, it matters because it creates a market expectation. If a critical mass of indie authors uses permafree, it creates a subset of the market that won't pay for a first book by a new author.


I think that part of the market probably wouldn't have paid for a first book by a new (indie) author anyway. Readers buying from a traditional publisher think that they are getting an edited, proofread, vetted book.

Readers buying from a new indie author have no idea what to expect. The book could be edited and as high quality as a trad-pubbed book, but frequently it isn't. A permafree proves that the indie author has chops.

It's akin to grabbing a free sample at the mall food court. If you really enjoy that teriyaki chicken on a toothpick, you might just buy a meal, and you might just become a regular customer.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

MarkFeenstra said:


> And here I am thinking about moving my prices up in the future to distance myself from the permafree crowd


Pricing high for genre as a quality signal is certainly one strategy.

With one book out in a very hot genre, though, and almost 6 months ago, your biggest issue is probably visibility. You're already priced high for your genre.

It's pretty hard to talk about pricing strategies globally, as they do vary by genre. Thriller writers, for example, which is a genre still pretty dominated by tradpub, are probably best advised to price higher--more like $4.99/5.99 or even more. The audience doesn't buy as voraciously as romance/mystery readers, so they aren't as price-sensitive. They're also more likely to equate price with quality.

That equation holds up less well for romance, where there's much less "judgment" on a book for being lower priced, and where the audience actively seeks out ways to read for less, since their reading habit can otherwise get very expensive. In romance, it's probably easier for a new author to get traction by pricing a first book lower/free.

By contrast, I started my own publishing career with three books at $3.99--at that time high for contemporary romance. I did that to send a quality signal. This was pre-KU, and the books sold well--BUT they did it because I kicked off with a three-day free offer on Book 1. That's what started me off. And then I did a couple more small free runs in the next couple months. My books took off when I--yep. Had a free offer on Book 1 for 5 days, then dropped the price to 99 cents. That's the month I broke out. Since then, I've experimented with raising the price to $2.99, figuring that I had (at the time) something like 800 reviews on the book, so nobody was buying a pig in a poke. Nope. Huge difference. SUBSEQUENT books (including in other series) did no better or worse at $3.99 or $4.99 than $2.99, so they're all $4.99. But that first book had to be 99 cents to catch eyes and readers.

That's my own experience in my own genre. Presumably when you have 3 or 4 books out, you'll do your own experimentation and find out what works for you, which may be something entirely different. Authors and books aren't the same, even in the same genre.

I think urban fantasy is somewhere between thriller and romance, by the way, though I'm no expert. Veering more toward romance though in terms of voracious readers and price sensitivity, though (since lots of them are women, for one thing). My own impressions only. Like I said, it's not my genre.


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

Crystal_ said:


> I don't think pricing all your books at .99 is a good long term strategy, even if it helps you increase your pages read. You're training your readers to only buy .99 books.


I believe that this is true. I have no data to back it up but it seems logical, human nature being what it is. Note that we're speaking here of "your readers" not "all readers." "All readers" is not a homogenous group with identical behavior and buying habits. You have to find "your" readers and figure out what they want and are willing to pay for and for how much.



Crystal_ said:


> I can't begin to tell you how many times romance authors have asked me how I manage to sell at $3.99. They can't conceive of the possibility of pricing above $.99 and selling.


What you sell---what we _all_ sell---is "perceived value." What those $3.99 sales tell me is that the people who buy your books at that price---and continue to do so---think that they are worth that price.

That idea is a tough one to swallow for people who do not achieve those kinds of sales. It means that they are doing something wrong. Most often it means that they are not a good enough writer to engender continued purchases from first-time customers and/or word-of-mouth enthusiasm from their readers.

That can hurt... if they are even willing to concede that it might be true. Many (most?) can't.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

What I wanna know is where all those romances are that are suppose to be all 99 cents. I'd be saving some money there. 
Big publishers put them out at 5.99-6.99 and the medium publishers are in the 3.99-4.99 from what I see as a voracious reader. Some even have digital only lines for 2.99. New book prices. I snapped something up today for 2.99 like a cat on catnip as it was just released first time in ebook at 6.99 and now on sale. 

I am probably not reading those romance subgenres were everything is 99 cents as I don't see it that much. I'll snap up a sale if I see one for that, happens once in a while. But its not the usual price I see on romances. 

Now historical mysteries on the other hand make me grumble often with their very high prices. So instead of spending anything, I get those at the library. Unless your name is Ashley Gardner(Jennifer Ashley), who sells her mysteries at 2.99. Snap em up I do.  

I read urban fantasy too, love it, seems to run in the higher prices also. Every time there is a new "Fever" book out its like 12.99. Nope, sorry. I'll get it at library instead. And that is like one of my favorite UF series of all time. I read a lot, I like to pay decent prices for my books or I can't afford to read. Permafrees have gotten me started on many series. I continue the series if I can afford the prices, or if not, get it at library. Otherwise I'll read something else.


----------



## Stephanie Marks (Feb 16, 2015)

sela said:


> First, you will never get all authors to set their minimum price to $2.99. Just won't happen. The only way it would happen is by force via the retailers making it a necessity. However, Apple and the Big 6 (5) already tried to set prices for eBooks. Guess what? They were sued by the US Government for price fixing.
> 
> So, since you will never get all authors to agree to sell their books at a minimum of $2.99, the question is moot. It ain't gonna happen.
> 
> ...


Your first line showed you missed the point completely. I even put a disclaimer at the end. It's cause and effect. It has NOTHING to do with the likelihood of whether or not all authors will do it. It's about if they were to what would the reaction be. Your saying that it's not likely so it's a moot point is like telling your math teacher there is no point in learning how to figure out the formula "if a train leaves Vancouver at 3 o'clock and traveling at 50km/hour and a monkey leaves New York at 2 o'clock traveling a 0.6m/hr how long until the monkey get flattened by the train."

It's not about the likeliness of it happening it's about the fact that actions have reactions.

So what would be the reaction is $0.99 and permafree COMPLETELY disappeared? People wouldn't just stop reading. They would adapt to the new norm.

I'm not saying that permafree is good or bad or it works or it doesn't work. I'm saying that it's a norm because we made it a norm.


----------



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

katrina46 said:


> Permafree isn't really what I consider available to an author. It's really just about Amazon not wanting to price higher than their competitors. I always assumed Amazon matched the price because you can give away as many as you like on ibooks and B&N, so if they refused and insisted the writer raise their price, an author still has the option of publishing free books just for those sites. Amazon's goal is to get as many exclusive books as possible, not drive titles away from them. Plus they make money off of the books the permafree pushes, so they don't have any reason not to let it slide.


The one problem with that argument is that Amazon is not getting exclusive content out of the way it does permafree--it's forcing authors to go wide so that they can get Amazon to price match. If the idea is to maximize the number of titles in Select, Amazon would indeed offer permafree first in series as a Select benefit.

My (admittedly highly speculative) theory is that Amazon lets people price match down to permafree because it doesn't want the hassle of telling them they can't. The TOS clearly gives Amazon the right to insist that an author raise a book's price on the other outlets to match its Amazon price. Is Amazon worried people will take the first book in a series off Amazon and just give it away from other outlets? Probably not. Amazon has something like 80% of the US ebook market. Is that permafree first book going to be as effective if a reader has to go off Amazon to find it? Many customers will never even notice the permafree book that way. I'm sure some people would do it anyway, but there would be a significant downside, and I think Amazon knows that.

If permafree really is a good sales tactic in some cases, then it would be nice if Amazon built it into the system instead of making people go in through the back door to get it.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

MarkFeenstra said:


> As I said a couple of pages ago, it matters because it creates a market expectation. If a critical mass of indie authors uses permafree, it creates a subset of the market that won't pay for a first book by a new author.
> 
> Example: Here on kboards, I've seen new or struggling romance authors be told in no uncertain terms that they must have a permafree title in their series, that no books should be priced higher than $3.99, and that you have to have at least one title on sale at any given time. Whether or not that advice is sound is another matter, but the authors using this strategy over the last few years have created a market paradigm where this is considered standard practice. If an author was ideologically opposed to this strategy (as is their right), they now have to go against the established norms to try to compete with everyone around them using a business practice they don't agree with.
> 
> ...


It sounds like you're advocating that indie authors unionize. And heaven help the scabs willing to continue with permafree.

My business perspective boils down to this: adapt or die.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Stephanie Marks said:


> Your first line showed you missed the point completely. I even put a disclaimer at the end. It's cause and effect. It has NOTHING to do with the likelihood of whether or not all authors will do it. It's about if they were to what would the reaction be. Your saying that it's not likely so it's a moot point is like telling your math teacher there is no point in learning how to figure out the formula "if a train leaves Vancouver at 3 o'clock and traveling at 50km/hour and a monkey leaves New York at 2 o'clock traveling a 0.6m/hr how long until the monkey get flattened by the train."
> 
> It's not about the likeliness of it happening it's about the fact that actions have reactions.
> 
> ...


I didn't miss the point. I'm disagreeing with your point. I'm arguing that your point is wrong _and_ moot.

You seem to suggest that the producer determines the price. Well, they do, in one respect in that they can charge whatever they want for their book. However, the market responds. Customers respond. There is a give and take. Customers buy or don't buy based on whether the book is desirable.

If an author charges $9.99 for a paranormal romance, they may sell books, but they may also sell no books. It all depends on how much in demand their books are in the marketplace. Newbie Shifter Author cannot charge the same for their books as J R Ward and expect to have the same sales results. Why? Because J R Ward's books are in demand! Newbie Shifter Author's books are not yet in demand! When they are, s/he can charge more and still get sales. Hence, permafree series starters and 99c series starters are ways for Newbie Shifter Author to get his/her books read in the first place so that some day, s/he may be able to charge $4.99 or even $6.99 and earn a living.

I have indie friends who charge $6.99 for each book -- why? Because they _can_. There are other indies who would see their income fall to zero if they charged $6.99 for their books. Why? Because they can't charge that much. There is no demand for their books if they are priced at $6.99. The market will not stand it. That's not because of someone else charging 99c or having a permafree, but because that author's books are just not in demand enough to charge a higher price!


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

Permafree is really a tool that Amazon uses to beat down the competition. Amazon loves (should love) permafree because it has evolved to the point where authors use the other distributors merely to host free books, not books in series. I would really, really hate to be an e-book provider nowadays because I'd be constantly being pestered by authors who want to make their book free, or take it off sale, or put it back on sale, all in a very short time span, in order to take advantage of Amazon's rules. There's zero chance anymore of any company smaller than Amazon entering the ebook market because this is the expectation.

If permafree was intended to meet customer desires, then you'd be able to be free and exclusive to Amazon. It is NOT customer-centric.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> And here I am thinking about moving my prices up in the future to distance myself from the permafree crowd


Whatever works for you. If your book is in KU (and since you only have one, it should be) it might drive up page reads.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Out_there said:


> As I said, I also have a permafree and it helps me get readers. I'm not saying it isn't effective, and I'm not telling people not to use it--I still plan to. It's just that I know the time and effort it takes to create a book or a short story, and I just wish that we didn't have to give our work away to people who have no intention of ever spending a penny on reading material.
> 
> I knew this post would get a mixed response. Someone even said that being a poor, abused writer is a tradition. How dare we go against that? Can't I wish that writers weren't exploited?


The way I'd approach this problem of feeling bad about giving away one's hard work is to think of *the series *as the product, rather than the individual book. What you want to do is help each of your series generate its highest possible income. Some series might earn $11,000/year by selling 4,000 copies of Book 1 at $2.99 and 1,000 copies of Books 2 through 4 at $4.99. Another series might earn $15,000/year by giving away 500,000 copies of Book 1 and selling 5,800 copies of Book 2. If the second series's first book were raised to $.99 and its total generated income fell to $6,500 because of lost visibility, that author would be devaluing her hard work on the entire series through a poor pricing decision on Book 1.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

Stephanie Marks said:


> Your first line showed you missed the point completely. I even put a disclaimer at the end. It's cause and effect. It has NOTHING to do with the likelihood of whether or not all authors will do it. It's about if they were to what would the reaction be. Your saying that it's not likely so it's a moot point is like telling your math teacher there is no point in learning how to figure out the formula "if a train leaves Vancouver at 3 o'clock and traveling at 50km/hour and a monkey leaves New York at 2 o'clock traveling a 0.6m/hr how long until the monkey get flattened by the train."
> 
> It's not about the likeliness of it happening it's about the fact that actions have reactions.
> 
> ...


They might not stop reading altogether, but they would buy less books. And they'd be less likely to try out new authors or authors that are "new" to them. So yes, cause and effect. Higher prices cause less buying. Loss leaders benefit indies. I mean it might not benefit every indie, but as a whole, it does.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

sela said:


> I didn't miss the point. I'm disagreeing with your point. I'm arguing that your point is wrong _and_ moot.
> 
> You seem to suggest that the producer determines the price. Well, they do, in one respect in that they can charge whatever they want for their book. However, the market responds. Customers respond. There is a give and take. Customers buy or don't buy based on whether the book is desirable.
> 
> ...


You said it better than I did.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

People are arguing that permafree is going to make readers expect all first in series to be free, but as long as there's trad pub, I can't ever see that happening. Because trad pub can't afford to give books away for free.

Among indies, there's an us-versus-them mentality when it comes to trad pub. But as long as a book has good editing and a professional looking cover, most readers (who are not also writers) likely can't tell the difference. And as long as the book is good, I'd dare say most wouldn't care, either. So as long as there are trad pubs pricing their books at well above free, there is always going to be at least a segment of the book-buying population that does not, in fact, expect books to be free.

My takeaway from that would be that if you don't want to do permafree, make your books fit in with the trads of your chosen genre, in both looks and price, and most readers won't even know the difference.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

I would use permafree if it worked. I would price my first book at .99 if I thought it would make me more money overall. But I wouldn't just make books free. I would only do it with my series starter. I do sometimes run .99 and even free sales on later books, and they work well if timed with the release of a new book in the series. But I have found that free/.99 buyers have so much lower sellthrough than 3.99 buyers that it isn't worth it the loss of royalties to keep the prices lower or to do sales too often.

Of course, I get most of my new readers from a combination of Facebook ads and the visibility they create on Amazon, so other authors may have a different experience. I couldn't afford to spend the money I do on Facebook ads if my entire series retailed for a lower price (it's 19.95 for all five books, so about $14 of royalties) or had less total pages (about 2700 total KENPC, so $10-14/full read depending on the borrow rate).


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

ChrisWard said:


> I have a ton of perma-frees but I've never fallen in love with it. Particularly as the market grows, a large subset of readers just jump from one free book to another because they don't ever have to pay for anything. I also think that it's hard to ever "break out" with a series when you're stuck with the rankings you can get only on the sell-through from a free first book.


You're right about the break-out, but probably by the time you make a first-in-series permafree, perhaps when you have 3-4 books or more, the chance for a breakout in the traditional manner is sllm to none.

As for the freeloaders, they do not hurt you. So what if they obtain a copy of your book and don't buy anything more. You have lost nothing. You have also gotten a free rankings boost. And a few of those freeloaders will like your book so much they will go ahead and pay. They are kind of like the looky-loos at a shop, except it's impossible for them to actually shoplift or break anything.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

PamelaKelley said:


> Permafree is just a tool. You can use it and make money with it....or not. I don't get why people are upset about how others choose to run their businesses though? Permafree is just one of many strategies and if you don't use it, why do you care if others do?


I can tell you why, from the many comments on KBoards:

1. They mistakenly think it's devaluing or otherwise cheapening the writing and selling of books. This is rather like believing cheap street tacos or the cheap hot dogs at the gas station or free food at the shelter devalues the restaurant biz, but that's what they seem to believe.

2. Based on their false belief in (1) above, they are angry that people are making money with this strategy, and...

3. They have created a dilemma of cognitive dissonance with their false assumptions, by which they cannot allow themselves to do what makes sense, which is to embrace a tool that works, for fear of causing themselves psychic pain. In short, they can't do what they have arbitrarily decided is immoral.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

MarkFeenstra said:


> As I said a couple of pages ago, it matters because it creates a market expectation. If a critical mass of indie authors uses permafree, it creates a subset of the market that won't pay for a first book by a new author.
> 
> Example: Here on kboards, I've seen new or struggling romance authors be told in no uncertain terms that they must have a permafree title in their series, that no books should be priced higher than $3.99, and that you have to have at least one title on sale at any given time. Whether or not that advice is sound is another matter, but the authors using this strategy over the last few years have created a market paradigm where this is considered standard practice. If an author was ideologically opposed to this strategy (as is their right), they now have to go against the established norms to try to compete with everyone around them using a business practice they don't agree with.
> 
> ...


Your underlying assumption is that the long-term result of too much permafree is negative.

But what if the result is actually positive?

It appears to me that even if that critical mass you speak of is reached or exceeded, the overall results might be good.

Having lots of free books drives ereader sales. The fact that they are available makes getting readers and apps attractive, which increases long-tail ebook sales (possibly at the expense of print). This should, logically, help indies and others willing to compete on price.

It also democratizes the publishing process. It allows more authors to have a chance to get their work to readers, in the same way that any product that becomes extremely inexpensive opens up opportunities for competition. It benefits the consumer, but also the independent author. If people get used to cheap ebooks, including the knowledge that in most cases they can safely try out a new author or new series without monetary risk (all they risk is their time) they will increasingly turn to ebooks instead of print, and ebooks represent the single best opportunity for the indie author to compete with traditional publishers on on a level playing field--or even a playing field that's slanted in their favor.

By analogy, this is like the transition from expensive handcrafted clothing to factory-manufactured clothing--it is bad for a few individuals but good for the majority, including those who choose to automate.


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

Rosalind J said:


> If individual-you finds that your readers don't care whether they read your book or somebody else's book, you need to do more (voice, tone, concept) to differentiate your product. You need to write better. You need to write something that people can only get from you.


Didn't I say that? I thought I said that. 

Even if I _didn't_ say that, I agree with it, absolutely, 100 percent! Nothing could be truer.


----------



## doolittle03 (Feb 13, 2015)

Adaptation is happening on both ends of the spectrum. The idea that digital equals "no cost to content provider" which equals "why should I pay for it" is a powerful one and I've fallen for it as a reader. My thinking has changed around buying books and I wasn't even aware of it until this subject reared its head again.

I understand the rationale behind offering a lot of books for free (and I mean A LOT) and possibly the economic value, but the way this model has worked on me as a reader is I don't buy books anymore. It's actually more work to buy books than it is to open my email and download the free offers. 

I'm sorry. I'm being completely honest. I realize I sound like I'm living up to my name...

I don't need KU because I already have unlimited reading. Free of charge and no hassle. I don't even have to drive to the library. (Libraries pay for their books. Publishers make good money on sales to libraries.) So, I have adapted as anarchist says. I spend nothing on books. I bought one book in 3 years: Libbie Hawker's Take Off Your Pants. It's excellent. It cost me 2.99.

One thing that gets bandied about a lot is the notion that free downloaders weren't going to buy our books anyway. Based on my experience, I wonder if it's more likely that buyers are turning into free downloaders. At the very least, I think we risk losing those readers who buy indie titles only to see the dang thing go up for free a few days later. We are devaluing them as customers when that happens. 

I don't really think about free for my business. I used it last year and it made little difference because my readers didn't shop in the free bins. On my pen name, also little difference. Pricing at 0.99 for short work introduced my style and tone. The best success came with writing something they wanted to read and I wanted to write and being consistent with price.  

Anyway, food for thought. I'm older and I've already read a lot of books since kindergarten so maybe I'm a prime candidate for becoming a non-buyer.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

doolittle03 said:


> Adaptation is happening on both ends of the spectrum. The idea that digital equals "no cost to content provider" which equals "why should I pay for it" is a powerful one and I've fallen for it as a reader. My thinking has changed around buying books and I wasn't even aware of it until this subject reared its head again.
> 
> I understand the rationale behind offering a lot of books for free (and I mean A LOT) and possibly the economic value, but the way this model has worked on me as a reader is I don't buy books anymore. It's actually more work to buy books than it is to open my email and download the free offers.
> 
> ...


This is interesting. Do you normally just read standalone books? Or does no series really hook you enough to keep reading in it? I think a lot of this is genre specific as well. I'm not sure what genre you typically read, but I could see romance readers being less likely to buy book two if it centers on a different couple.

For me, once I find an author I like or series I like, I devour all the books regardless of price. Then again I predominately read fantasy (both epic and urban) and a lot of my favorites are traditionally published. However it's been years since I've tried a new trad-pubbed author. I've tried hundreds of indies though because of free, 99 cents, and KU.

All readers are different and a lot of our strategy depends both on our genre norms and the type of reader we want to reach.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

doolittle03 said:


> Adaptation is happening on both ends of the spectrum. The idea that digital equals "no cost to content provider" which equals "why should I pay for it" is a powerful one and I've fallen for it as a reader. My thinking has changed around buying books and I wasn't even aware of it until this subject reared its head again.
> 
> I understand the rationale behind offering a lot of books for free (and I mean A LOT) and possibly the economic value, but the way this model has worked on me as a reader is I don't buy books anymore. It's actually more work to buy books than it is to open my email and download the free offers.
> 
> ...


There are no doubt readers who only get free books for economic reasons. I completely understand that. I have friends who are very impoverished and they read free books simply because it's free or nothing. I feel bad for them that they can't read more books, but honestly some of them can't even afford KU. So, I don't mind if people read my free books and don't go on to read others because they can't afford it.

However, there is clear evidence that a consistent percent of my free readers go on to buy almost all of my other books.

Here's a table of my daily sales for Jan - May 2015 when I went from KDPS and KU 1.0 to wide distribution and a permafree series starter for each of my three series:



You can see the change from February, when I had most of my books in KDPS and KU 1.0 to March when I pulled my books out of KDPS and went wide. More than doubled _almost tripled_ my revenues. Then, I started to advertise using Facebook in April after learning how from Mark Dawson. Immediate impact on my sales via advertising my boxed sets. You can even see the day I started -- April 19th. Finally, in May, you can see the effect a free Bookbub had on my sales. Doubling again in May vs. April.

Here's the summary table:



I post this not to brag but to show how permafree seriously increased my revenues over being exclusive in KU 1.0. Now, KU 2.0 (or is it 3.0 now?) is better for authors like me with longer higher priced books, but there can be no doubt that for me, permafree and going wide was the difference between good and great sales.

Can this be applied to other authors? It depends. I was able to get Bookbubs for my permafrees and I also advertised my boxed sets on Facebook. Combined, these tactics really made a big difference to my income as you can see.

People can "feel" that permafree is bad or that it might harm the industry, but feelings are not nearly as good as hard evidence.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

doolittle03 said:


> Adaptation is happening on both ends of the spectrum. The idea that digital equals "no cost to content provider" which equals "why should I pay for it" is a powerful one and I've fallen for it as a reader. My thinking has changed around buying books and I wasn't even aware of it until this subject reared its head again.
> 
> I understand the rationale behind offering a lot of books for free (and I mean A LOT) and possibly the economic value, but the way this model has worked on me as a reader is I don't buy books anymore. It's actually more work to buy books than it is to open my email and download the free offers.
> 
> ...


I think this leads back into what Rosalind said about people buying 'your' books vs people buying just anyone's books. If people don't care whose books they're buying, maybe that's because the books they're reading don't stand out from one another.

Speaking as a reader, I don't consider books fungible. I have my favorite authors, and I always go back to those authors, because they tell good stories about memorable characters who I enjoy spending time with. My reading time is rather limited lately, but when I do read a novel for pleasure - as opposed to research - I always go back to one of my favorites, because I know there's much less chance of my time getting wasted by a crappy book.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Interestingly, I had the opposite experience to Sela. I put my (very long--up to 120K) books in 2 series wide gradually over a 6-month period, had something like 5 BookBubs during the wide period, had a permafree first-in-series for each, and my income went DOWN dramatically, despite help from iBooks and Kobo in the form of various promos. 

My sixth month wide, I made about $15K--a big, frightening drop. Only $2K was from non-Amazon sources! (In Month 1, it was $10K).

My first month back in Select (I experimented with 3 books at first, and they just boomed back in KU--they'd done very little wide), I made about $60K. Four times as much!

I attribute the difference in my results vs. Sela's to the very different kinds of books we write. We both write contemporary romance, but she writes the more erotic, higher-octane variety, I believe, and I write sort of "low-intensity, grown-up, feel-good books" with steamy scenes, but not erotic romance. I have very much an Amazon (and Barnes & Noble audience)--moms and grandmothers who shop on Amazon a lot for household stuff, who like steamy scenes but who prefer realistic romance with a lot of humor and sweetness--that's my specialty. I also, except for one three-book series, write all standalone books within series, so there isn't necessarily the sell-through you get when you write the erom or NA-type trilogies or whatever--same characters and story over several books. 

I got flat NOWHERE on Google or All Romance eBooks--I definitely don't have that audience. People say you should go wide if you have an international audience, but my NZ books DO appeal strongly to a non-US audience. Even there, they do much better on Amazon than they did wide. (I've sold a lot of books in Germany; for November, my German KDP income will be greater than my US KDP income.)

You could say I didn't give it enough time, and maybe that's true. What I saw, though, was a steady and strong drop in my wide sales despite almost monthly BookBubs and going from 4 books wide to 12 books wide over the 6 months. That writing was on the wall for me. 

I also, since then, have started writing for Montlake, which also gives me more visibility on Amazon. That factors into my own personal decision. I should note that I started publishing well before KU, so for the first couple years, virtually all my sales were indeed sales. Since KU, the ratio has shifted dramatically, and that's worrisome to a point, but on the other hand, my books can be up to 700 KENPC, which means I make as much on a borrow as a sale at $4.99. 

Another thing that was HUGE for me, that I never considered enough, was that I would lose my precious spot on the also-boughts of some very big Montlake authors when I went wide--because it was my first in NZ series, which became permafree, that was always on there. I lost enormous visibility on Amazon with that change, and I haven't recovered it. (Amazon doesn't show free books in the also-boughts, or at least it lowers their visibility greatly. I didn't realize that at the time.)

All individual factors that made it a failed experiment for personal-me. 

My point is NOT to convince anybody of who's "right." Nobody's "right." The truth is, authors and books are not the same and have different audiences. Even if you're in the same genre with somebody else, you won't necessarily benefit from the same path. You have to try things and see, and understand who your audience is and where you'll most likely find them.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Rosalind J said:


> Interestingly, I had the opposite experience to Sela. I put my (very long--up to 120K) books in 2 series wide gradually over a 6-month period, had something like 5 BookBubs during the wide period, had a permafree first-in-series for each, and my income went DOWN dramatically, despite help from iBooks and Kobo in the form of various promos.
> 
> My sixth month wide, I made about $15K--a big, frightening drop. Only $2K was from non-Amazon sources! (In Month 1, it was $10K).
> 
> ...


As with all advice, YMMV.

I posted my data not to argue that EVERYONE should go wide and use permafree series starters. I posted it to show how permafree really worked for me, in addition to going wide, getting Bookbubs and advertising on Facebook. It was to show that those free books lead to sales of the other books in the series.

Of course, some people will do better exclusive on Amazon than wide. Books are different and readers are different.

However, you never know until you try. I was exclusive to Amazon for the first 3 years of my career and did very well. KU 1.0, with its $1.30 a borrow was a bust for me because my books are priced at $4.99 and so I lost out on each sale. Now, in KU 2.0, a borrow and full read of my books almost equals a sale, but unfortunately, the increase in KENP does not quite make up for the loss of sales on other retailers. I've never gone all in before for 90 days so I am not sure how well my books would do if I went exclusive once more. It's hard to give up that audience I have on Apple iBooks, Barnes & Noble and Kobo. Bookbub boosts sales on those retailers for a nice long time in my experience.

However, I am willing to keep reviewing results and will adapt to changing circumstances.

Interestingly, my average readers are older and are moms, too. Just moms who like it a bit more explicit, I guess.


----------



## doolittle03 (Feb 13, 2015)

Felicia Beasley said:


> This is interesting. Do you normally just read standalone books? Or does no series really hook you enough to keep reading in it? I think a lot of this is genre specific as well. I'm not sure what genre you typically read, but I could see romance readers being less likely to buy book two if it centers on a different couple.
> 
> For me, once I find an author I like or series I like, I devour all the books regardless of price. Then again I predominately read fantasy (both epic and urban) and a lot of my favorites are traditionally published. However it's been years since I've tried a new trad-pubbed author. I've tried hundreds of indies though because of free, 99 cents, and KU.
> 
> All readers are different and a lot of our strategy depends both on our genre norms and the type of reader we want to reach.


Well, I think this is it. As I said, I've been reading heavily for over 50 years so my experience won't be the same as the 30-something reader who is still exploring. I prefer standalones but I have no problem reading a first in series. The first is usually really well-done. As for genre--well, that's the exciting bit. When I bought books I stuck to my tried-and-true genres and rarely went to fantasy or science fiction. But now I sample from a wide range.

As yet, I haven't found a series that's hooked me but that's on me and not the author. Time is short and with so much on offer, I am easily distracted by the next freebie. But as I said, I have read many, many books and my favourite authors are on my shelves at home in print. I'm old.

I'm also not guided by "feeling" as Sela points out. I'm guided by what I _used_ to do as a reader and what I do now. There could be a lot of reasons this happened but since my disposable income is higher than it was five years ago, I'm chalking it up to convenience and zero cost to me to read. I don't worry about downloading books that are not to my liking and I don't leave bad reviews. They're free. I appreciate a good book that's free. As others have said, free does not equal bad quality.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

sela said:


> As with all advice, YMMV.
> 
> I posted my data not to argue that EVERYONE should go wide and use permafree series starters. I posted it to show how permafree really worked for me, in addition to going wide, getting Bookbubs and advertising on Facebook. It was to show that those free books lead to sales of the other books in the series.
> 
> ...


Yep. I think the point is--you kinda have to try and see. Everybody wants a path to follow, and we'd all love a formula, but there really isn't any one-size-fits-all.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I have my favorite authors, and I always go back to those authors, because they tell good stories about memorable characters who I enjoy spending time with. My reading time is rather limited lately, but when I do read a novel for pleasure - as opposed to research - I always go back to one of my favorites, because I know there's much less chance of my time getting wasted by a crappy book.


Same here.

I usually discover new-to-me authors via free or $0.99. If I like their stuff, I buy everything they write. It's a safer investment.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Rosalind J said:


> I attribute the difference in my results vs. Sela's to the very different kinds of books we write. We both write contemporary romance, but she writes the more erotic, higher-octane variety, I believe, and I write sort of "low-intensity, grown-up, feel-good books" with steamy scenes, but not erotic romance. I have very much an Amazon (and Barnes & Noble audience)--moms and grandmothers who shop on Amazon a lot for household stuff, who like steamy scenes but who prefer realistic romance with a lot of humor and sweetness--that's my specialty. I also, except for one three-book series, write all standalone books within series, so there isn't necessarily the sell-through you get when you write the erom or NA-type trilogies or whatever--same characters and story over several books.


Steamy and more "NA-type" romance does very well in KU. It takes up a huge amount of the Contemporary Romance bestseller chart, and most of the readers are moms 35+, though I suspect there are more 18-35 year olds reading NA than there are reading Contemporary. My not very accurate stats suggest that I have an equal amount of 25-35 year old women readers and 35-45 year old women readers.

I expect it has more to do with you already having built a huge base of readers in Select and Sela already having built a huge base of readers wide. It takes a long time to build readers on different platforms.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> Steamy and more "NA-type" romance does very well in KU. It takes up a huge amount of the Contemporary Romance bestseller chart, and most of the readers are moms 35+, though I suspect there are more 18-35 year olds reading NA than there are reading Contemporary. My not very accurate stats suggest that I have an equal amount of 25-35 year old women readers and 35-45 year old women readers.
> 
> I expect it has more to do with you already having built a huge base of readers in Select and Sela already having built a huge base of readers wide. It takes a long time to build readers on different platforms.


I don't think so--I started 2 years pre-KU, and virtually all my sales were...well, sales. It's only recently that I've had so many borrows. I got out of Select...gosh, less than a year into KU.

I'm not saying that steamy romance & NA don't do well in KU. I'm not saying that 35+ readers don't read erom and NA. I said that MY kind of romance (which is actually read by a lot of non-romance readers as it's a bit genre-bendy, pretty women's-fiction-y) does best on Amazon and Barnes & Noble. I did very well at B&N. Not so much iBooks and Google Play. I write quite steamy scenes, to the point of kink, but sex is not a big plot point, and it's usually 3-6 sex scenes in 100-150K. It's just a different kind of book and a different reader. It's actually not so much about sex (as I write more erotic stuff than some "erotic" writers), as it is about family, friends, and the tension level. I write low-key feel-good books that are as much about the individual people and their families as the couple.

Sela said she went from Select to wide and almost immediately started doing better wide. I had the opposite experience despite a $1K/month ad spend and a BookBub almost every month--I was doing LESS well wide each month despite more books and more ads. I think that's significant. That's my personal experience, and Sela had hers, so...shrug. It is what it is. I do what makes me the most money, and I expect others to do the same. That won't always be the same thing.

I'm also as I noted a Montlake author, and Montlake authors were always my main also-boughts, even before I started writing for them--I mean, I was also THEIR also-boughts. I have that same audience. It's an audience that's less attracted to shirtless-guy romance covers.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

The idea of banning permafree or even 99 cent books comes up often and it's almost always from someone who made thier bones _with permafree or KU, which is worse than permafree in terms of what it does to the pricing environment_.

And to be honest, whether they know it or not or acknowledge it or not, it's just another case of 'F you, go mine'. People who manage to find success always try to close the door to make sure others can't follow them up. IT's a natural if terrible attitude, but I just wish the excuses held more water than the idea of harming price points or whatever. If you look at apps, if you look at games, it becomes quickly obvious that that's not the case because somehow people are still buying Pokemon Sun and Moon for $50+ when they could have Go for free.

Price how you want to price and stop conjuring boogie men to shut others out.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> The idea of banning permafree or even 99 cent books comes up often and it's almost always from someone who made thier bones _with permafree or KU, which is worse than permafree in terms of what it does to the pricing environment_.
> 
> And to be honest, whether they know it or not or acknowledge it or not, it's just another case of 'F you, go mine'. People who manage to find success always try to close the door to make sure others can't follow them up. IT's a natural if terrible attitude, but I just wish the excuses held more water than the idea of harming price points or whatever. If you look at apps, if you look at games, it becomes quickly obvious that that's not the case because somehow people are still buying Pokemon Sun and Moon for $50+ when they could have Go for free.
> 
> Price how you want to price and stop conjuring boogie men to shut others out.


Funny; I see exactly the OPPOSITE response from the most successful authors I know. They're among the most generous with sharing their advice and experience.

If you think people who find success "always" try to close the door to others ... uh ... well, I'd disagree, put it that way. I see too much of the opposite attitude every day.

What I DO see is that SOME people, regardless of success level, are convinced that their opinion, their way of how to succeed is the only way. (Note that is NOT Sela. She shared her experience in the generous spirit above, I am very sure--to say, hey, this worked for me, and here's how I did it. She explicitly said that it's a YMMV thing.) This is not a business of manufacturing widgets, and nobody's path is "right" IMHO. Beyond actually breaking terms of service and doing underhanded stuff, anybody's way is as legit as anybody else's. I'm sure sick, personally, of how being in KU or using permafree or insert-other-strategy is "wrong" and hurting other writers. I just want to write my books and publish them in the easiest, most profitable way. I'm constantly looking at what that is for me, and I use many tactics including those outside of KDP.

I may make mistakes. Heck, I'm SURE I've made mistakes. But I've also learned about what works and doesn't work for individual-me.

Lots of paths out there. Find yours and don't worry so much about other people's, that's what I'd say. The fact that others use permafree with great success isn't an indictment of my own path. Why would it be? I'm doing pretty well last I checked. Some people think being in Select would be harmful to them long-term. Maybe they're 30 or 40 years old and are looking at a career path of 30 years. Maybe they just think their books will do better wide. That's cool.

There's no one-size-fits-all. There's no formula.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

Not sure why anyone would be bothered about another author using permafree as a marketing tool if it is within what Amazon allow. We all have our own ways of marketing. But for those who use it, Note: as Amazon keep saying after email requests to set a book as permafree... "permafree is not a right, it is at their discretion."

I used it many years ago on a short story to promote my compilation and it worked great in the UK.... that is until one December, Amazon UK decided to stop price matching many books. Tried for months to get it back on free, but failed, so I kept it off free but learned a valuable lesson. Make hay while the sun shines, because if Amazon decide to rain on your parade there is nothing you can do about it.

I can't say that I think free or 99c is out of hand like it used to be in the downward spiral of prices of 2011/12, when every Jack, Jane, and their dog were promoting 99c to try and emulate the success of Konrath and others, and then everyone was lauding free as the new 99c to promote books when 99c stopped working for the masses. Luckily Amazon stepped in to save us indie authors from ourselves when it got out of hand. KU helped with the free five days to help wean authors from permafree, together with hiding visibility of free charts. As I said, the UK became notorious for taking books off permafree at the time, plus many other algo changes across Amazon made free less effective. It didn't take long for $2.99 to become the norm which is really where Amazon at least want us to be. The royalty structure shows us that.

At the moment I struggle to use my free days since the introduction of sponsored ads as they actually produce sales. These ads don't really suit ebooks at less than $2.99 unless you have deep pockets. I suspect others are finding the same. I also think less authors are using free promo sites, because many of them are just not effective. Also,with Amazon threatening to pull the plug on some of these sites if they didn't get the balance with paid sales right, the trend has been to include discounted prices for promos. When free days are used without promo, the results are a waste of time. 

And so for the punch line if you get this far.....The result is that some free cat ranks have more permafrees in the ranks, (usually 1st book in series), and so they seem to be growing, whereas I doubt they are. I think it is more to do with authors not using promo sites for free ebooks as much.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> The idea of banning permafree or even 99 cent books comes up often and it's almost always from someone who made thier bones _with permafree or KU, which is worse than permafree in terms of what it does to the pricing environment_.
> 
> And to be honest, whether they know it or not or acknowledge it or not, it's just another case of 'F you, go mine'. People who manage to find success always try to close the door to make sure others can't follow them up. IT's a natural if terrible attitude, but I just wish the excuses held more water than the idea of harming price points or whatever. If you look at apps, if you look at games, it becomes quickly obvious that that's not the case because somehow people are still buying Pokemon Sun and Moon for $50+ when they could have Go for free.
> 
> Price how you want to price and stop conjuring boogie men to shut others out.


I really don't get an f-you sense from the OP. I hear frustration that she feels forced to rely on an approach that seems (to her) to devalue her work. It's not a reaction I have, personally, but I think it's a reasonably common frustration and not at all connected to wanting others to fail.

As I said upthread, I think considering the "work" to be the series overall might help get rid of that feeling. In other words, you don't have (say) four books priced $0.00, $2.99, $3.99, and $3.99; you have a series priced $10.97. A work that generates $7+/read through is quite valuable, and readers' willingness to pay $11 for it is an indication of its quality.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> The idea of banning permafree or even 99 cent books comes up often and it's almost always from someone who made thier bones _with permafree or KU, which is worse than permafree in terms of what it does to the pricing environment_.
> 
> And to be honest, whether they know it or not or acknowledge it or not, it's just another case of 'F you, go mine'. People who manage to find success always try to close the door to make sure others can't follow them up. IT's a natural if terrible attitude, but I just wish the excuses held more water than the idea of harming price points or whatever. If you look at apps, if you look at games, it becomes quickly obvious that that's not the case because somehow people are still buying Pokemon Sun and Moon for $50+ when they could have Go for free.
> 
> Price how you want to price and stop conjuring boogie men to shut others out.


Funny, but I'm constantly doing exactly the opposite. I try to convince people to try permafree because it worked so well for me. I can't guarantee it will work for you, but I say, at least try it.

But people sometimes slam me, and then they slam the door on their own selves, and complain that I've somehow devalued their environment.

In the days of mass market paperbacks we saw the same arguments advanced--cheap paperbacks were driving down prices and supposedly corrupting the environment (and our youth, ha ha). But what really happened was an explosion in reading and in access to reading material. It was good for everyone--even the publishers, once the publishers came down off their high horses and began to publish paperback editions.


----------



## anotherpage (Apr 4, 2012)

Out_there said:


> I have a permafree, and yes, it has helped get people to read my series, but a whole lot more just read the permafree. I wish all authors could join together and get rid of their permafrees and insist that they get some money, even if its a token amount, for that first book.
> 
> Don't get me started on folks who are selling the rest of their work for 99 cents.


You will always have your FREELOADERS. Nature of the beast. Folks who don't like to pay for squat.

But a percentage will go on to book 2 if its good.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Rosalind J said:


> Funny; I see exactly the OPPOSITE response from the most successful authors I know. They're among the most generous with sharing their advice and experience.
> 
> If you think people who find success "always" try to close the door to others ... uh ... well, I'd disagree, put it that way. I see too much of the opposite attitude every day.


1) When I say all, I mean all the people trying to close the door, not all the people who have succeeded.

2) However there is this psychological imperative for people to block the way behind them. It's an evolutionary thing to make sure you and yours are the ones to survive and the 'competition' doesn't. And we need to grow out of it. Many have. Plenty of people resist it, but it's important to identify the tendency to discourage it both in this environment and in the larger world.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

The Tragedy of the Commons:


> The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where individual users, acting independently according to their own self-interest, behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting that resource through their collective action.


I suppose the race to the bottom was inevitable because - humans, and it didn't take us very long to get here. And no, it wasn't due to supply and demand, or a market response to e-books or dedicated readers, neither did it have anything to do with the internet or technology in general. Least of all, it definitely wasn't Amazon's fault, they tried really hard to point us in the right direction.

Amazon and Apple gave us the keys to Daddy's Porsche and we took one huge collective [crap] in it. In less than three years we were able to utterly devalue a centuries old industry. This is the market "we" created...Indies did this. (The collective and faceless "we", not the specific genre writer "you".)

For now, perma-free is part of the e-book landscape, and the Strategy of Cheap is here to stay. Sadly, it's having serious, pervasive and far reaching effects on art and creators and their relationships with consumers and fans, which doesn't mean people aren't making money, they clearly are, but I wonder what the long term consequences of our revolution will be.

It reminds me of the old joke:
Two older women are having lunch at a diner. One of them turns to the other and says, "The food here is terrible." The other lady responds, "And such small portions."


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

P.J. Post said:


> The Tragedy of the Commons:
> I suppose the race to the bottom was inevitable because - humans, and it didn't take us very long to get here. And no, it wasn't due to supply and demand, or a market response to e-books or dedicated readers, neither did it have anything to do with the internet or technology in general. Least of all, it definitely wasn't Amazon's fault, they tried really hard to point us in the right direction.
> 
> Amazon and Apple gave us the keys to Daddy's Porsche and we took one huge collective [crap] in it. In less than three years we were able to utterly devalue a centuries old industry. This is the market "we" created...Indies did this. (The collective and faceless "we", not the specific genre writer "you".)
> ...


Well, I think more than anything that Kindle Unlimited has been more of a disruption than permafree. Permafrees generally are first in series books, designed to introduce a reader to an author and generate sales of the books that follow.

Kindle Unlimited really has changed the landscape in a more disruptive way. When it was first introduced I feared this would happen and it has--more than anything KU has created the perception and expectation with readers that digital books should be free.

It's a blessing and a curse. I buy a ton of books, but I also have a KU membership and I like getting books for free in it. I also have some books in it, and I like the money earned from page reads. Sigh.

Thing is, KU and permafrees are not going anywhere. We just have to adapt and see what works best for our business.


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

P.J. Post said:


> The Tragedy of the Commons:
> I suppose the race to the bottom was inevitable because - humans, and it didn't take us very long to get here.


There was never "a race" to the bottom. From the very beginning of the revolution Indies priced, as low as they could go--at the bottom. That was 99 cents for the 35% royalty and $2.99 for the 70% royalty. This is also where the $1.99 is a black hole meme came from.

$1.99 wasn't low enough of a price (even though it was sandwhiched between the other two prices)--because it wasn't _the_ lowest price.

Also this was still during the war faze of the revolution. Indies were the minority by a large margin and they were getting hammered by the traditional supporters. Publishers ignored Indies and spoke down to what they were doing. Writers split--those who wanted the prestige of being selected--against the revolutionaries who they claimed weren't good enough or patient enough to succeed in the traditional model.

IT WAS UGLY!

Writers put each other down. Trad writers would point at Indie books--laugh at the ugly covers, the unedited spiel thrown on the page, the pathetically low prices Indies set for their work, the fact that Indies only published e-Books and not real books with their wonderful paper technology and bindings and incredible, engaging smells.

Flame wars occurred on blogs, on forums, on ezines, and in publishing news journals (which reported every thing in favor of trad publishing). Who was right--who was wrong--and why--were constantly fought over. It was polarizing and the idea of a writer even daring to think publishing themselves made sense was laughed at. The war seemed to go on for years (and still does sometimes).

When a group is attacked they will often stand together for comfort and security. That's what Indies did. They banded together--AS ONE! "WE ARE INDIE!"

$2.99 is the sweet spot. That was our cry. We were together--no one doubted it, no one questioned it. We were one.

$2.99 is the sweet spot we whispered. Word spread. $2.99 is the sweet spot. And it grew and was passed down.

A strange thing begin to happen. Slowly Indies made strides. If a writer had an awesome cover--THEY STOOD OUT. If they had great editing, or writing that was true, or could not be found in trad publishing--they were noticed.

The list of outliers began to grow. First it was only one--John Lock sold a million copies for .99 cents. ("I don't have to prove I'm better than them," our hero said, "They have to prove their 10X better than me). And the 99 cent price point became the thing--YOU CAN SELL 6x more at .99 and make more profit than a book at $2.99.

99 cents was the thing.

The outliers grew and they were mentioned in the battles that took place.

John Lock and Amanda Hocking.

And they grew some more: John Lock, Amanda Hocking, Hugh Howey.

And they grew some more: John Lock, Amanda Hocking, Hugh Howey, JA Konrath.

The Indies knew all their names--they were our heroes, our role models, our shields against the attacks of the trad empire and their cronies.

FREE became a thing when Indies learned that by utilizing Smashwords to distribute free books to other retailers they could then pressure Amazon to price match. Once that happened Indies began to appear on all of the list--the trads never priced anything for free. The Indies began to learn. They started to become business people. Started testing. Always sharing the new information they had found.

Then the Indies split. The business people talked about great covers, editing, and good story telling. The others talked about good enough--it's good enough it doesn't need all that other stuff. Because Indies had mastered free, had learned to be business people--they began to push the trads in the list.

The trads were upset. "How dare they!"

We need new lists. Lists that don't have those horrible free books on them. But the free books had gained customers attention. Indies appearing on the famed lists with the trads had an impact. The business Indies were able to kick tail.

They started making a living--not just the outliers who had made millions. Indies were quitting their jobs even though they were not top sellers. They could survive at the $2.99 price point because they didn't have middle men mucking things up.

Trad writers began to talk about how awful and wasteful and deadly the trad model was.

Dean Wesley Smith led the way! "You don't need an agent!" and "Here are the myths of the traditional model."

Strange things begin to happen as the revolution grew. Now Indies were laughing at trad writers for being so stupid. They joked them on the blogs, they joked them on the forums, they questioned and ridiculed the news sources that were only the mouth pieces of trad publishers--How could they be so blind? How could they be so stupid? You can't trust an agent! You can't trust a publisher because they are using the produce model!

The wars over now. Indies won. But they no longer need the protection of the group--the victory protected us all. Yet, once we no longer needed the support and protection of the group--we could really, truly begin to question the memes we had repeated unquestioned during the battle.

We tested. We asked. We questioned. And experimented.

I'm going to try $3.99....

It's the sweet spot!

The revolution is over. So now people are concerned with what's best for them.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Dammit I had "No sooner than page 7" for someone bringing up the Tragedy of the Commons as a serious argument.

Ten buck down the drain.

(a short play)

Amazon: Hey we have this new thing called a Kindle!

Big publishing: Cool toy, we're not interested.

Amazon: We can still sell these things without you.

Big publishing: Hahahahaha

Self-published authors: So let me explain a thing.

Big publishing: Who said that?

(later)

Amazon: Look at all the Kindles we sold!

Self-published authors: Look at all the content we have!

(Amazon and Self-published authors break into song)

Self-published authors: We seriously have no overhead here and are pushing things out as fast as possible, and we just figured out the best way to move things in a market with low volume and high demand is to lower our prices. Cool?

Amazon: Yeah, all right.

Big publishing: They are devaluing the entire industry by taking advantage of the thing we summarily ignored because we have the progressive business acumen of goat cheese! Our lack of success in this changing industry we no longer understand is the fault of Amazon and the authors we actually didn't think were real! Also, here's a smart-sounding thing called the Tragedy of the Commons to make the point for us!

Amazon: We literally just proved that in an unfettered marketplace the buyers dictate the prices, instead of the seller, and that more books get bought that way. That isn't the tragedy of the commons, that's proof you guys were killing your own industry by jointly pricing books too high.

Big publishing: LalalalalalalalalalaIcan'thearyou!

(end scene)


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

How many people here want to make their audiobooks free?


----------



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

> The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where individual users, acting independently according to their own self-interest, behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting that resource through their collective action.


Selling books on Amazon is not a limited resource or a community property. Amazon is not a benevolent entity created to supply book-buying readers equally to all authors of the world. The book-buying reader population isn't a limited communal resource that every author is entitled to equally share. Readers are not in danger of extinction, and readers are a constantly renewable resource because they buy books over and over. It's not like a pond running low on fish due to overfishing by some community members with the rest of the community starving. It's more like big fishermen use bait that attracts more fish in an infinite digital sea of readers. Little fisherman still have the potential to catch the same renewable resource reader/fish. Selling books is more of a capitalist system if anything.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

ebbrown said:


> Selling books on Amazon is not a limited resource or a community property. Amazon is not a benevolent entity created to supply book-buying readers equally to all authors of the world. The book-buying reader population isn't a limited communal resource that every author is entitled to equally share. Readers are not in danger of extinction, and readers are a constantly renewable resource because they buy books over and over. It's not like a pond running low on fish due to overfishing by some community members with the rest of the community starving. It's more like big fishermen use bait that attracts more fish in an infinite digital sea of readers. Little fisherman still have the potential to catch the same renewable resource reader/fish. Selling books is more of a capitalist system if anything.


Nailed it.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

GeneDoucette said:


> Dammit I had "No sooner than page 7" for someone bringing up the Tragedy of the Commons as a serious argument.
> 
> Ten buck down the drain.
> 
> ...


Bravo!

Nailed it.


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

Rosalind J said:


> You have to understand who your audience is and where you'll most likely find them.


And that, right there, is the key to success and also the most difficult hurdle to pass. It is what Traditional Publishers have always tried to do, with varying degrees of success. Their experience with doing that is one of the things that they promote when they speak about the advantages of publishing with them.

Whether any of you believe it or not, Traditional Publishers really do _not_ just "throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks." They really _do_ want their books to succeed on some level. And, face it, they have more experience publishing titles that any of us do. They have seen which books make it and which don't. A busy editor might shepherd more than a hundred books in a year. A maniacally busy self-publisher might get to twelve.

The fact that Traditional Publishers, on a percentage basis, seem to be no more successful than the best of us only goes to show the truth of Rosalind's statement:

*You have to understand who your audience is and where you'll most likely find them.*


----------



## George Saoulidis (Feb 2, 2016)

GeneDoucette said:


> Dammit I had "No sooner than page 7" for someone bringing up the Tragedy of the Commons as a serious argument.
> 
> Ten buck down the drain.
> 
> ...


Pretty much this.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

GeneDoucette said:


> Big publishing: They are devaluing the entire industry by taking advantage of the thing we summarily ignored because we have the progressive business acumen of goat cheese! Our lack of success in this changing industry we no longer understand is the fault of Amazon and the authors we actually didn't think were real! Also, here's a smart-sounding thing called the Tragedy of the Commons to make the point for us!
> 
> Amazon: We literally just proved that in an unfettered marketplace the buyers dictate the prices, instead of the seller, and that more books get bought that way. That isn't the tragedy of the commons, that's proof you guys were killing your own industry by jointly pricing books too high.
> 
> Big publishing: LalalalalalalalalalaIcan'thearyou!


This.

And let me reiterate: this is not the tragedy of the commons (TOC). Tragedy of the commons would be if somehow this resulted in a desolate wasteland for the consumer because of overuse of some commonly held asset.

For example, everyone trying to watch Netflix at 9pm and nobody being able to do so because the internet is clogged is a form of TOC.

This is not TOC. This is a market that's been suddenly freed from the monopoly stranglehold the big publishers have had, a stranglehold both on the market, and on consumers' access to all the content they so clearly desire. Within that free market, Darwinian principles will apply. Railing against it will not change it.


----------



## Malicia Paine (Dec 1, 2016)

GeneDoucette said:


> Dammit I had "No sooner than page 7" for someone bringing up the Tragedy of the Commons as a serious argument.
> 
> Ten buck down the drain.
> 
> ...


Brilliant!

I'd say, having thoroughly enjoyed the short play you just wrote, that has to be the best damn $10 you ever lost!

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

David VanDyke said:


> This.
> 
> And let me reiterate: this is not the tragedy of the commons (TOC). Tragedy of the commons would be if somehow this resulted in a desolate wasteland for the consumer because of overuse of some commonly held asset.
> 
> ...


Yeah, the tragedy of the commons concept doesn't work here. If every reader could only read a limited number of books in their lifetime -- magically dropping dead as they reach the end of their 1,000th book, or something -- then you might be able to think of them as a commons. But barring something like that, I don't see how the analogy works.

I think it's great the books are way cheaper. I'm just finishing up reading _Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire_ to my kids. I'm reading out of the hardback I bought in 2001, and it has a $29.99 price tag on the back. That's ridiculous. Prices like that make reading a socioeconomically sensitive leisure activity, and that should not be the case. Reading is good for people, and books should be available to everyone -- readily available, not "add yourself to a fifty-name waiting list at the library" available. A system in which readers pay much less and authors make much more and have far more access to the market is the best of all worlds, IMO.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> I think it's great the books are way cheaper. I'm just finishing up reading _Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire_ to my kids. I'm reading out of the hardback I bought in 2001, and it has a $29.99 price tag on the back. That's ridiculous. Prices like that make reading a socioeconomically sensitive leisure activity, and that should not be the case. Reading is good for people, and books should be available to everyone -- readily available, not "add yourself to a fifty-name waiting list at the library" available. A system in which readers pay much less and authors make much more and have far more access to the market is the best of all worlds, IMO.


This is what some indie authors that have not yet made it (or never will, possibly) forget: the digital disruption has helped both the customer (in lowering prices and increasing access) and authors (in providing many more routes to possible success).

If you're running a marathon with 10,000 people in the race, complaining that there are too many people in your way, or complaining that the shoes they wear are unfair or against your principles, will not win you the race. And frankly, you are not truly competing against other authors until you reach the rarefied atmosphere of the top 100, or the top 10 in your genre. So, complaining about what other authors do to the market is pointless.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

David VanDyke said:


> This is what some indie authors that have not yet made it (or never will, possibly) forget: the digital disruption has helped both the customer (in lowering prices and increasing access) and authors (in providing many more routes to possible success).
> 
> If you're running a marathon with 10,000 people in the race, complaining that there are too many people in your way, or complaining that the shoes they wear are unfair or against your principles, will not win you the race. And frankly, you are not truly competing against other authors until you reach the rarefied atmosphere of the top 100, or the top 10 in your genre. So, complaining about what other authors do to the market is pointless.


*Raises a glass* Here, here.


----------



## TheLass (Mar 13, 2016)

Becca Mills said:


> Yeah, the tragedy of the commons concept doesn't work here. If every reader could only read a limited number of books in their lifetime -- magically dropping dead as they reach the end of their 1,000th book, or something -- then you might be able to think of them as a commons. But barring something like that, I don't see how the analogy works.


It works if you consider the commons to be the pool of buying readers. *If* the culture of permafree results in 'buying readers' converting to mainly 'free downloaders' (and new readers the same) then the pool will deplete.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

TheLass said:


> It works if you consider the commons to be the pool of buying readers. *If* the culture of permafree results in 'buying readers' converting to mainly 'free downloaders' (and new readers the same) then the pool will deplete.


Some of us who used to bring in tons of money before KU will tell you the pool is already depleted. The only hope is that those who toss their books into KU write such bad books, readers will soon take another look at those outside of KU. Well, I can hope anyway.

Permafree is my best friend. So far this year I've given away over 100k free books. That's 100k readers I wouldn't have been able to reach. It's all about tempting readers. If there was another way, I would have found it by now.


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> I think it's great the books are way cheaper. I'm just finishing up reading _Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire_ to my kids. I'm reading out of the hardback I bought in 2001, and it has a $29.99 price tag on the back. That's ridiculous. Prices like that make reading a socioeconomically sensitive leisure activity, and that should not be the case. Reading is good for people, and books should be available to everyone -- readily available, not "add yourself to a fifty-name waiting list at the library" available. A system in which readers pay much less and authors make much more and have far more access to the market is the best of all worlds, IMO.


While agreeing to SOME of this, I must completely disagree with part of it. And I think, Becca, I can talk you around.

There's nothing ridiculous about a $29.99 price tag on a hardback. A hardback is a premium product. First access to the book, for one thing - and many people queued up all night outside book stores for the Harry Potter ones, yes? (What an adventure, and something that most of those people will never forget, and also, it will have firmly entrenched something magical into their feeling about reading.)

But also, it's a hardback! A few years from now, when the computers and various reading devices of today have been replaced with new technology, and you're wondering how you might be able to access those ebook thingies you had so you can read one of the thousand or so "books" you "own", you'll turn around and notice your bookshelf. And the hardbacks will be there, patiently waiting, requiring no technology to open them. And despite it being something done to death, cliched, whatever, I'm still going to say it, because it's true - that hardback will feel wonderful and substantial and real in your hands. In a less and less substantial world, where most everything seems to happen on a screen, what a wonderful thing a paper book is, and will always be.

More too. No mongrel can change its text on the sly. Let's not even go there.

Plus, it's art, right? A beautiful object to display, by itself or with others, in all sorts of arrangements and situations.

Also, I think we here all know how important, or at least how lovely it is, for children (and young adults, and old adults) to have reading in their lives. A file on your computer doesn't do much to spark it back up, not unless you were thinking about it first. But a lovely, colourful book on a bookshelf, or sitting on a nightstand, a coffee table, a chair, a ladder, a dog kennel, stacked up on top of a car, and inside it, and... okay, that's too much, and I should tidy up. Just saying - if a child can SEE and NOTICE a book sitting there, their mind and their fingers might wander toward it, they might just pick it up, and they might let the magic begin all over again. And I'd pay a lot more than $29.99 just to see it.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

TellNotShow said:


> While agreeing to SOME of this, I must completely disagree with part of it. And I think, Becca, I can talk you around.
> 
> There's nothing ridiculous about a $29.99 price tag on a hardback. A hardback is a premium product. First access to the book, for one thing - and many people queued up all night outside book stores for the Harry Potter ones, yes? (What an adventure, and something that most of those people will never forget, and also, it will have firmly entrenched something magical into their feeling about reading.)
> 
> ...


I think you're right that paper books are good for kids, at least up to a certain age. If nothing else, they ensure that what kids are doing with the thing in their hands actually is reading, not whatever else the device is capable of doing. And I do like the look of a well stocked, colorful bookshelf full of memories and potential.

But I'm not convinced by the rest. Today's paper books are actually quite ephemeral. If you head into the special collections department of a research library, you'll probably find that many of the 17th century books are in better shape than the 19th century ones. That's because paper became far less durable with the switch to wood pulp. It darkens and becomes brittle relatively quickly. Will ebooks last forever in their current form? Probably not. But I imagine new devices will allow today's files to be converted to new formats, so people who keep their collections up to date, formatwise, will still be able to access them a century from now, assuming the companies that license them continue to do so (there is a risk there).

It's true that a pristine hardback is a nice item, assuming you have the space to store it and are able to hold it. (My copy of _Goblet of Fire_ is hardly pristine: I spilled a cup of coffee on it. Also, at 700 pp., it makes my hands hurt to hold the darn thing up for any length of time -- my phone is so much easier on my middleaged joints.) But the item itself doesn't need to cost $30. That includes a great deal of money for the middlemen. As POD tech improves, hopefully we'll be able to produce beautiful hardbacks for those who want them at a much lower price.

I guess the best of all worlds is to have luxury items available for those who want them, but also to have cheap versions available for those who can't.

As for the thrill of lining outside a Borders for hours to snag _The Goblet of Fire_ at midnight on release day, all I can say is I'm glad my kids postdate these books. Good lord. Sorry to be all grinchy, but just thinking about it makes my feet hurt! I like the idea of books showing up on my Kindle at 12:00:01, thank you very much. How about a release party where you gather with other fans in someone's comfortable living room, eat and drink and talk, get your devices out at 11:59, cheer when the file arrives, and start reading together? There are always ways to reinvent communal events to match a changing world.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

TheLass said:


> It works if you consider the commons to be the pool of buying readers. *If* the culture of permafree results in 'buying readers' converting to mainly 'free downloaders' (and new readers the same) then the pool will deplete.


Good point. But it really seems much more likely to me that free and cheap books will enlarge the total pool of readers. Even those who only *ever* read free books will help promote a culture of reading.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Becca Mills said:


> I like the idea of books showing up on my Kindle at 12:00:01, thank you very much. How about a release party where you gather with other fans in someone's comfortable living room, eat and drink and talk, get your devices out at 11:59, cheer when the file arrives, and start reading together? There are always ways to reinvent communal events to match a changing world.


Now, that's my idea of a party.

(And, Becca, don't spill coffee on your Kindle!)

Betsy


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Now, that's my idea of a party.
> 
> (And, Becca, don't spill coffee on your Kindle!)
> 
> Betsy


_Someone _tends to keep her Kindle in a ziplock ...


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

TellNotShow said:


> A few years from now, when the computers and various reading devices of today have been replaced with new technology, and you're wondering how you might be able to access those ebook thingies you had so you can read one of the thousand or so "books" you "own", you'll turn around and notice your bookshelf.


Sorry, that dog won't hunt. I've got documents on my computer going back to the 80s, and there are publicly available readers or conversion utilities for every single one of them. There's not a single major document format that has been "lost" the way you're talking about, and PDF/EPUB/MOBI are some of the most ubiquitous file types that have ever existed. They're not just going to magically go away.

Oh, and those files are also in much better shape than most of the hardbacks I bought back in the 80s. The dust jackets are crumbling, the pages are getting yellow and brittle, and the cheap pasteboard covers start to warp if they're exposed to even moderate humidity now. I've started buying ebooks of as many as I can to avoid further wear and tear on the physical ones. I'm just glad it's not like the 90s when my only option was to scan them into an OCR app a page at a time before they fell completely to pieces.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

TellNotShow said:


> A few years from now, when the computers and various reading devices of today have been replaced with new technology, and you're wondering how you might be able to access those ebook thingies you had so you can read one of the thousand or so "books" you "own", you'll turn around and notice your bookshelf.


There's a recent thread here in the WC about someone's books who were eaten by some kind of pest...so no guarantees there...

Betsy


----------



## LadyG (Sep 3, 2015)

I love my hardcovers and paperbacks, too. I've even got a few that have been signed by some of my favorite authors. But I actually got my first e-reader (a Nook) as a gift to help occupy my mind while I was recovering from a car accident. I was poor, out of work, and stuck in a giant brace that went from stem to stern; I couldn't get out to go buy books -- which was okay because I couldn't afford them and I was too badly hurt to hold a heavy book anyway. Over the next few months, I downloaded a LOT of free and .99 cent books.

I guess that's just my roundabout way of saying that I don't look for freebies or .99 cent specials because anyone _taught _me to do so. I do it because I'm still poor (and I don't have room in my tiny apartment for more "real" books). I get my freebies and specials because they help me figure out which authors and which series are worth spending my very limited money on. I can't afford to take a huge risk and spend a lot of money on someone I've never heard of, and I don't expect my potential readers to do anything I won't do myself. No, I don't do permafree because I don't have enough books out yet, but I always use my 5 free days and I keep my first-in-series at .99 cents.

I've discovered some of my new favorite authors because I was able to try their work for free or very cheap (or through KU), and yes, I've gone on to pay full price for their other books if I enjoyed the freebie/cheapie. On the flipside, there are a lot of terrific authors out there that I will never try because I just can't justify paying full price if I'm not familiar with their work.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

The first superstars on Kindle were authors who sold their books for 99c. Indie author Meredith Wild's book _Hard Limit_ was a #1 NYTimes bestseller in eBooks priced at $6.99.

99c books and permafree books do not stop indie authors from hitting the NYTs, USAT or the top of the bestsellers lists on Amazon. Or making six and seven figures with books priced at 99c -- $6.99.


----------



## SerenityEditing (May 3, 2016)

Becca Mills said:


> Also, at 700 pp., it makes my hands hurt to hold the darn thing up for any length of time -- my phone is so much easier on my middleaged joints.


Part of the reason I eventually overcame my purist's love of "REAL BOOKS ONLY PLEASE" (hahaha) was because of this. I have a chronic pain condition which makes it difficult if not impossible to hold some of the heavier, thicker books. And on days when I'm having a bad pain flare, sitting at a table and keeping the book down flat to read is a nice option for my hands, but not for my back, my hips, my ribcage, my shoulders, my neck, my...

So I got something like this: Pagepal Page Holder
Except mine looks nicer, came from either Croatia, Lithuania, or Romania, and cost like $7 for three of 'em (since I knew the cats would abscond with at least one - which they promptly did.)

Not a perfect solution if you have general joint pain in the hands - mine was worst in the thumb, and now that the thumb is mostly taken care of I'm feeling the strain in the supporting fingers behind the book instead - but definitely well worth the cost IMO.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

SerenityEditing said:


> Part of the reason I eventually overcame my purist's love of "REAL BOOKS ONLY PLEASE" (hahaha) was because of this. I have a chronic pain condition which makes it difficult if not impossible to hold some of the heavier, thicker books. And on days when I'm having a bad pain flare, sitting at a table and keeping the book down flat to read is a nice option for my hands, but not for my back, my hips, my ribcage, my shoulders, my neck, my...
> 
> So I got something like this: Pagepal Page Holder
> Except mine looks nicer, came from either Croatia, Lithuania, or Romania, and cost like $7 for three of 'em (since I knew the cats would abscond with at least one - which they promptly did.)
> ...


Now that is a cool item! Thanks for the recommendation!


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

The tragedy of the commons is not Godwin's Law, or other internet meme, it's an actual thing.

The concept relates to communal grazing land, and while it is often used when discussing actual "things", the metaphor still applies to similar business environments; additionally, the current efficacy of a strategy has no relevance upon the historic evolution of that strategy or the market conditions that framed its origins.

In our example, the shared resource within the digital book market (the grazing land) is reader expectations vis a vis price elasticity.

Gene's play had a dismissive truthiness about it, but in the end, while it was fun, it was also mostly fiction - sorry Gene. Big publishing did not ignore digital. And the emerging digital market was characterized by high demand relative to supply, which puts upward pressure on pricing, not downward. Big publishing was selling e-books at unit prices of around $15, KDP put a $9.99 soft cap on Indies to both insure we had a healthy competitive advantage to compensate for our perceived lack of credibility, and to keep us from getting greedy, but Indies went the other way, all of the way down to 99 cents for no rational reason. There was no data to support higher grosses at 99 cents over $3.99 or any other price point. There was no data at all.

The bottom line is that the majority of Indies followed the only marketing strategy they understood - and that was ultra-cheap pricing. This devalued the market, dramatically changing consumer expectations relative to price and content. This is borne out by analyzing e-book retail prices over time relative to volume, see AE reports.



David VanDyke said:


> And let me reiterate: this is not the tragedy of the commons (TOC). Tragedy of the commons would be if somehow this resulted in a desolate wasteland for the consumer because of overuse of some commonly held asset.


Sorry...that's not really what it's talking about, see below...



Becca Mills said:


> Yeah, the tragedy of the commons concept doesn't work here. If every reader could only read a limited number of books in their lifetime -- magically dropping dead as they reach the end of their 1,000th book, or something -- then you might be able to think of them as a commons. But barring something like that, I don't see how the analogy works.
> 
> I think it's great the books are way cheaper. I'm just finishing up reading _Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire_ to my kids. I'm reading out of the hardback I bought in 2001, and it has a $29.99 price tag on the back. That's ridiculous. Prices like that make reading a socioeconomically sensitive leisure activity, and that should not be the case. Reading is good for people, and books should be available to everyone -- readily available, not "add yourself to a fifty-name waiting list at the library" available. A system in which readers pay much less and authors make much more and have far more access to the market is the best of all worlds, IMO.


Sorry Becca and David: the Tragedy of the Commons has nothing to do with the consumer, it's a supply chain concern effecting operations and profitability. If the grazing land were nibbled dry, the Tragic Farmer would still need to feed his sheep, but they would have to pay for it, thus ensuring that the market still gets sheep products, but at an inflated price because of the increase in cost. If the market has other suppliers not affected by the Tragedy and the associated new cost to feed their sheep, then they will have a competitive advantage. For our Tragic Farmer to remain competitive, they will have to match market prices, paying for the feed cost out of the non-improved profits, thus narrowing their margins. So, for as long as the Tragic Farmers have to pay additional fees for feed, they will have less and less reinvestment funds available, be it for wagons, increasing the size of their flocks or expanding to more markets. The Tragedy of the Commons has put those effected farmers at a serious disadvantage in producing their products at a fair and competitive profit.

As far as consumers benefiting, what does it matter if I can buy lots of cheap books if I don't want to read them. How does this new paradigm insure great literature? And yes, genre novels can still be great literature. At lower prices, writers need to churn out more and more books to earn out. And, because so many writers are committing to this strategy, the result is a "good enough" market place mentality, shared by both writer and reader, which lowers the bar for literature. At higher prices, that need is reduced, or at least mitigated.

Regardless, I think there is a happy medium between price and sales that satisfies maximum demand, in fact, economists gave it a name: Market Equilibrium, where demand equals supply at a specific price per unit.

So now we find ourselves in a rapidly maturing market, where prices should be feeling the effects of downward market pressure, but there's nowhere for them to go. If we break books down into widgets and work out some price per block of content, we find the solution to the equation. If price is fixed, then the only way to increase value is by adding additional blocks of content. The result is box sets, 10 full novels for 99 cents (and even free), or 10 cents per book. I know the reason is primarily for promotions: funnels and bestseller status, but that's still pretty close to free, which is reinforcing this maximum content for minimal outlay mentality, as opposed to great content that is worth paying a premium for, like a lot of traditionally published authors.

___

I think my original post was misunderstood somewhat. I was not complaining about where we find ourselves today, rather I was trying to explain how I believe we came to be here in the first place, and why perma-free and Cheap had become not only inescapable market expectations, but conditions. That genie is out, so now we have to work with what we have.

*$2.99 is the "sweet spot" because that's the 70% royalty cut off, and the sheer volume of books at that price skew the data, not because of any reader preferred price point. If Amazon had set the number at $3.99, then that would be the sweet spot. We cannot use data from a perma-free and ultra-cheap market and use it to draw conclusions about any other market pricing scenario, because the underlying causation isn't applicable.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

I largely agree with the downward-pressure dynamic you're pointing out, P.J. I just don't see the tragedy of the commons as the best way to describe it. The point of the TotC is the paradox of it -- what maximally benefits an individual user of a resource will destroy the resource if every individual user chooses to pursue her or his maximum benefit. It works best with simple situations, I think. For instance, it is most beneficial for me to cut across a big lawn on the way to work because it will save me several minutes' walking time. But if every walker cut across the lawn, the grass would eventually die, leaving a muddy mess no one can walk across. So walkers have to agree to *usually* stick to the sidewalk, only taking the shortcut on rare occasions, so that total use of the shortcut doesn't exceed what the grass can bear. But no one walker has any particular incentive to stick to the agreement, so we'll probably end up with the mud field (unless the university hedges off the grass, or something). It makes reasonably good sense if the "resource" is a shortcut or grazing lands -- something simple and concrete. But if you try to make it something complex, like shoppers' attitudes toward book pricing, it doesn't work so well. Shoppers' attitudes are subject to many influences, and they can change in complex ways, rather than being either managed to stasis or destroyed, which are the two possible states of the commons.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

Becca Mills said:


> I largely agree with the downward-pressure dynamic you're pointing out, P.J. I just don't see the tragedy of the commons as the best way to describe it...


I'd never come across the expression before, it was pointed out to me a couple of years ago while having this same discussion, but I think it's important not to get sidetracked by a semantic debate.

The bottom line is that self-publishers (collectively) utilized pricing strategies that:

1. Catered to their own self-interest without regard to the market as a whole (_welcome to capitalism_, I get it)
2. Were diametrically opposed to common business practice: buy low - sell high
3. Were incompatible with supply and demand derived pricing
4. Created artificial price sensitivity (non-market derived)
5. Resulted in a significantly devalued market.
6. Have increased the difficulty for writers to earn a reasonable return (Indie and Traditional)
7. Exacerbated the demise of the Traditional mid-list, and the contentiousness between publishers and distributors
8. When lumped together with what's happening with the visual arts, music and even journalism, I see a very troubling enviroment for creatives, one where consumers increasingly believe that "creative content" should be free because - entitlement?
9. And all of the things I'm not thinking of right now

I think we should seriously take note that Patreon created a fan patronage platform to address this shortcoming in artist earnings. That the need was there at all, as we look to the future, is extremely disturbing in itself.

We, collectively, should take responsibility for our actions. It wasn't the Big 5, we did this; and we should try to learn from our mistakes, which in this case, means trying to find other ways to promote besides massive content bundles and ultra-cheap pricing, or maybe raise the price of the non-funnel/promoted books, something. On the other hand, there's been talk of making books free, and then having embedded paid content, such as advertising, included as an alternative revenue stream. And we know that sucks because that's what the internet is now. Nothing like a Chevy advertisement to improve dramatic tension. _Will she say yes? Will he stay? I'm not sure, but at least we know he's Chevy tough._ What does selling advertising space have to do with being a writer? I've said this before, monetizing art always comes with unacceptable compromises.

I think entitlement is diametrically opposed to the ideals of sacrifice and temperance and cooperation, and, sadly, entitlement is a powerful force in the world today. I'm pretty sure it's the fifth horseman of the apocalypse.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

The bottom line is that self-publishers (collectively) utilized pricing strategies that:

1. Catered to their own self-interest without regard to the market as a whole (welcome to capitalism, I get it)

--True, self-evidently.

2. Were diametrically opposed to common business practice: buy low - sell high

Not true. Indie authors buy low (digital goods are cheap) and sell high (make more than they expend in expenses).

3. Were incompatible with supply and demand derived pricing

Not true. Digital goods created infinite supply and increased demand. They altered the equation, but supply and demand still exists.

4. Created artificial price sensitivity (non-market derived)

Not true. With infinite supply and non-infinite demand, prices will inevitably fall (market derived).

5. Resulted in a significantly devalued market.

Only for certain individuals, and on a per-book basis. Overall, the market has expanded in value, especially for the consumer, who can read more for less. Also, more money is going into indie authors' pockets and less into the publisher chain. The fact that publishers, especially those that went public, choose not to pay most of their authors a living wage is due to other factors.

6. Have increased the difficulty for writers to earn a reasonable return (Indie and Traditional)

Not true. It's far, far easier for indies to earn a living using all the tools available.

7. Exacerbated the demise of the Traditional mid-list, and the contentiousness between publishers and distributors

True. And good riddance. Disruption is inevitable. Change is inevitable. Consumers have benefitted. As a reader, I have 20 times as many good books to read in the niche genres I like, and no gatekeepers making sociopolitical decisions on who gets published.

8. When lumped together with what's happening with the visual arts, music and even journalism, I see a very troubling enviroment for creatives, one where consumers increasingly believe that "creative content" should be free because - entitlement?

I see enormous opportunities for creatives. It used to be that you were either a starving artist, or you'd "made it". Now, this binary state, or cliff, has become a much smoother slope that's far easier to climb simply by continuing to produce content and improve marketing and business acumen.

And never underestimate the positive psychological effect of expanding the sheer number of creatives making money at their chosen craft or art. Personally, I never considered writing as a second career because it seemed so unlikely to ever get my foot in the door (through a traditional publisher).


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

All I'll say is this: For those who think freebie-loaders wouldn't have bought the book had it been priced, you're wrong, at least for some of us. If I've downloaded a free book, I almost certainly would have bought it. So that author just missed out on a sale. It's that simple. I don't freebie-hoard, and I don't waste my time with books I'm only partially interested in. My time is far too valuable for that.


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

KelliWolfe said:


> Sorry, that dog won't hunt. I've got documents on my computer going back to the 80s, and there are publicly available readers or conversion utilities for every single one of them. There's not a single major document format that has been "lost" the way you're talking about, and PDF/EPUB/MOBI are some of the most ubiquitous file types that have ever existed. They're not just going to magically go away.


But where are your e-books? They're not really yours, and the format that gets downloaded into your Kindle is proprietary. You can't give your e-books to your heirs, or re-sell them. But your personal computer files are ip that you can pass on or transform to other forms for backup, but for most people, I don't think they strip out the DRM from their files so that they can keep them forever on secure backup. If people do that for KU then you can't get page reads.

I do have lots of files I can't read anymore. I have some old Photoshop files from the PowerMac days that I can't read, I have Macromedia Director files, I have files stored on my old Zip drives, and I even have files on 9 track tape.

I was just thinking about free today when I opened Firefox and went to Wikipedia, and both of them, which have put paid services out of business, are now pleading for some money to keep going. That's the business model of today - saturate before using.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

P.J. Post said:


> I'd never come across the expression before, it was pointed out to me a couple of years ago while having this same discussion, but I think it's important not to get sidetracked by a semantic debate.
> 
> The bottom line is that self-publishers (collectively) utilized pricing strategies that:
> 
> ...


I don't see what happened as an artificial manipulation of the market. The number of books on the market greatly increased when Amazon made publishing available to everyone. That means supply skyrocketed while demand remained reasonably static (though hopefully the presence of cheap books will, over time, encourage more people to become readers). When supply increases vis-a-vis demand, prices drop as product-producers compete with one another to attract buyers. Textbook capitalist market function, from my POV. It's the price we pay, collectively, for the opening up of slots for so many more producers. If anything, traditional publishing represented an artificial market intervention: by controlling the amount of product entering the market, it kept prices artificially high. It was like ... the OPEC of books.

Fortunately, the huge increase in suppliers of product coincided with cutting out the middlemen, so author incomes have actually gone up, not down.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

P.J. Post said:


> Gene's play had a dismissive truthiness about it, but in the end, while it was fun, it was also mostly fiction - sorry Gene.


Thank you for your submission.

Unfortunately, we are only accepting rebuttals in dialogue form at this time.

Nonetheless, we thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Gene


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Lady Vine said:


> All I'll say is this: For those who think freebie-loaders wouldn't have bought the book had it been priced, you're wrong, at least for some of us. If I've downloaded a free book, I almost certainly would have bought it. So that author just missed out on a sale. It's that simple. I don't freebie-hoard, and I don't waste my time with books I'm only partially interested in. My time is far too valuable for that.


People with your outlook exist, of course. However, given the effectiveness of permafree, the people who think differently outnumber people like you--and that's what matters, commercially. If by using a certain tool or strategy I gain more than I lose (positive ROI), I have won.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

Becca Mills said:


> I don't see what happened as an artificial manipulation of the market.


We may have to agree to disagree, I recall the supply of e-books during the Locke years of self-publishing lagging significantly behind demand. I remember the huge Christmas spikes as people were filling up their first readers. Even if the publishing industry had been operating under defacto collusion, market expectations were still positively predisposed to higher prices. It was artificial because prices were not reduced in response to market forces, writers reduced pricing voluntarily in contrast to market conditions. We only need to review Amazon's royalty system to realize that they never intended KDP authors to settle in at the 99 cent price point.

Over time, yes, supply has buried demand, just as you suggest, which is why we have seen the expansion of content to compensate for the inability to lower prices further.

As for author incomes increasing, I don't think we can conclude that just because revenues are being enjoyed by more writers that they are necessarily earning more meaningful income. Regardless, I'm still very concerned about the long term ability for creatives to support themselves through their art.



GeneDoucette said:


> Thank you for your submission.
> 
> Unfortunately, we are only accepting rebuttals in dialogue form at this time.
> 
> ...


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

P.J. Post said:


> We may have to agree to disagree, I recall the supply of e-books during the Locke years of self-publishing lagging significantly behind demand. I remember the huge Christmas spikes as people were filling up their first readers. Even if the publishing industry had been operating under defacto collusion, market expectations were still positively predisposed to higher prices. It was artificial because prices were not reduced in response to market forces, writers reduced pricing voluntarily in contrast to market conditions. We only need to review Amazon's royalty system to realize that they never intended KDP authors to settle in at the 99 cent price point.
> 
> Over time, yes, supply has buried demand, just as you suggest, which is why we have seen the expansion of content to compensate for the inability to lower prices further.
> 
> As for author incomes increasing, I don't think we can conclude that just because revenues are being enjoyed by more writers that they are necessarily earning more meaningful income. Regardless, I'm still very concerned about the long term ability for creatives to support themselves through their art.


I think your involvement in the indie world predates mine, P.J. I entered post-Locke, so I wasn't around for the mass downloadfest you're referring to. That said, I don't think it's correct to separate suppliers' "voluntary" pricing choices from market forces. People and companies do make conscious choices on how to respond to markets. Those choices are generally (not always) predictable because people and companies tend to respond in similar ways to similar pressures. So, you're publishing an ebook in 2011, and you're aware that your book may not look quite as flashy and professional as the traditionally published books that make up most of Amazon's stock (early indie covers were not like the ones we see now). How will you compete with those gorgeous things?? Well, you can go cheap. A bunch of other people have the same idea: you may not shine on the packaging level, but it can shine on price. This is a response to market forces, so far as I can tell -- an effort to seize and exploit a competitive advantage (low production costs). It's led to the universal downward pressure on prices you've described, especially now that indie books can look as flashy and traditionally published ones.

I do think more authors are making more money, especially when we keep in mind that many authors are making money who wouldn't have been able to publish at all, under the old regime. I count myself in that number, since my books are a little weird, genrewise.

You mentioned Patreon upthread. Keep in mind that it's not a new idea. During the period I studied in grad school, almost all art was patronage-based. The public theater that gave us Shakespeare's and other Renaissance plays was an early exception to that rule (though Shakespeare also seems to have had or pursued patrons). Perhaps it has not been this way all around the world, but in Anglo-U.S. culture, art has usually been wrapped up with money. It's an uncomfortable and difficult mating of different worlds, but you can't argue that it hasn't given rise to some fantastic work. Perhaps the tension between creating art (often idealized as pure and beautiful) and making a living off art (often demonized as manipulative and sell-out-y) is, in fact, energizing and productive.


----------



## Harriet Schultz (Jan 3, 2012)

Not Lu said:


> But, when a reader pays for a book they are much more likely to read it... and thus much more likely to buy the next book.


I don't know if I'm a "typical" reader, but once I've added a book to my Kindle, I have no idea what I've paid for it unless it's one I begin to read as soon as I've downloaded it. Otherwise it becomes one of many on the TBR list.


----------



## Mike Stop Continues (Oct 21, 2015)

Has anyone had marked success with a few prequel short story/novelette/novella and a full priced first-in-series novel?


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

The whole fallacy that underlies the "we train readers to expect books for free" argument is that it assumes all books are equal, that you can swap out a book with a random other book, even within a genre. 

If my ereader was full of SF books, because that's what I like to read, these books are all different (duh!). Therefore, their value is not the same to the reader looking at those books. As creators of those books, some people seem to think that someone else's books (that can be had for free) are competition. They're not, because they're not *your* books. The trick is not how to get as many downloads as possible, but how to get readers to want to read *your* books specifically.

This thread has touched only marginally on the view from the other side: the reader. 

For the sake of an experiment, I tried to read only free books a while back. Has anyone else tried this? Well, I have to say that you've got to be pretty much extremely broke to want to continue doing this. The fact that the free books are loss leaders is plainly obvious. All the other books in the series or by that author are paid. You get verrrryyy sick of reading only first books in series and prequel novellas etc. Really, really sick. So yeah, you can get a lot of free books if all you want is to read and you don't care what, and you are never going to care what. I suspect that the people who fall in that category are an extremely small subset and they were never going to buy your books anyway.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

This is an accurate summary of the last six years. Entertaining, too!



A.R. Williams said:


> There was never "a race" to the bottom. From the very beginning of the revolution Indies priced, as low as they could go--at the bottom. That was 99 cents for the 35% royalty and $2.99 for the 70% royalty. This is also where the $1.99 is a black hole meme came from.
> 
> $1.99 wasn't low enough of a price (even though it was sandwhiched between the other two prices)--because it wasn't _the_ lowest price.
> 
> ...


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Here's the problem I see with the whole "tragedy of the commons" analysis of eBook pricing. I think we are much better served to look at indie publishing and ebooks as disruptive technology and a disruptive industry.

eBooks are a whole different commodity than print books, and indie publishers and a whole different kind of business than trad publishers. eBooks and online retailers like Amazon and indie publishing are disruptive.

That affects how we indies derive a price for eBooks.

I am not an expert, but from what I have gathered over the years, if you are a trad publisher, you see eBooks as just a part of your overall publishing business. You don't look at them as separate from the cost of producing and publishing a print book. The manuscript is the commodity, and the various formats are just that -- different formats. Hence, you price eBooks to fit in with the price of other formats, despite the very low cost of production of an eBook. There is no paper, no additional editing, there may not even be any more cover design, since the cover could be simply derived from the print cover. All there is to do is format for eBook, ePub in other words, or Mobi. The costs involved in creating an eBook is minimal, even for a trad pub, whereas the overall cost of publishing a particular book -- print/digital etc. is high -- advance, editing, formatting, cover design, promotion, shipping, printing, etc. You also don't want the eBook to compete with the print book, hence, higher pricing for the eBook or a different release schedule so you can take advantage of those willing to buy hardcopies, etc. You factor the cost into the overall cost for the publication of the book. You have to factor in the whole overhead to the business as well -- the Manhattan offices, the staff, etc.

In contrast, most indies have very little overhead. They have very few production costs. Editing, cover, promotion, formatting. A really savvy author can do it all themselves and do well if they are talented. They can keep their day job while they write their book and so they don't need an advance in order to write or produce it. So, they can price the eBook RILLY RILLY LOW compared with the trad publisher and still become a millionaire. $9.99 is _high_. $6.99 is usually limited to certain genres and authors who are successful. $2.99 - $4.99 is the range for most eBooks. 99c and permafree are used selectively as a promotion tactic.

Indies, in other words, are a whole other kettle of fish compared to trad publishers. Our costs are different. Our overhead is different. Our production schedules are different. Even though our books may sit on the same virtual shelf as trad publishers, and be indistinguishable from their eBooks, our prices CAN be very different.

Hence, you can't really look at prices for print books or even trad publisher eBooks and say that indies are pricing in a predatory manner. They are pricing according to their costs of production, etc. I have always charged $4.99 for all my full-length books, and $9.99 for a boxed set. I have my books pro edited, and I get pro covers. I pay for some promotion when I have a new release. Total costs: $800 (editing) + $105 (cover) + $50 (promo). Total cost: $955 for my first book. I made that back in the first 3 months. For my fourth book, my best seller, I made it back in the first few days after release because I sold 5000+ in the first month after release. That series went on to sell several hundred thousand copies. It's ALMOST ALL PROFIT. I wrote those books while I was still employed. I quit my day job in November 2013 and have lived off the avails of that series, and the spin off series, ever since.

So the trad publisher and the indie publisher have completely different cost structures, even though we do pay for some of the same things, such as editing, covers, promotion. If indies priced the same way as trad publishers did, we would probably not have been able to compete with trad publishers at first. But we didn't have to.

We could price MUCH MUCH lower and still be successful.

It wasn't cheating. It wasn't predatory pricing. It was the reality of indie publishing. It was a disruptive technology and industry. It has its own reality.


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

sela said:


> It wasn't cheating. It wasn't predatory pricing. It was the reality of indie publishing. It was a disruptive technology and industry. It has its own reality.


The problem with your post is that it makes WAY too much sense.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Lady Vine said:


> All I'll say is this: For those who think freebie-loaders wouldn't have bought the book had it been priced, you're wrong, at least for some of us. If I've downloaded a free book, I almost certainly would have bought it. So that author just missed out on a sale. It's that simple. I don't freebie-hoard, and I don't waste my time with books I'm only partially interested in. My time is far too valuable for that.


Yes, but would you have _found_ my book if I hadn't been using the promo tools that are only available to free and 99 cent books? I'll take the 'hit' when my calculations say every 'loss' of $3 makes me $15 in downseries sales.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Lady Vine said:


> All I'll say is this: For those who think freebie-loaders wouldn't have bought the book had it been priced, you're wrong, at least for some of us. If I've downloaded a free book, I almost certainly would have bought it. So that author just missed out on a sale. It's that simple. I don't freebie-hoard, and I don't waste my time with books I'm only partially interested in. My time is far too valuable for that.


I download freebies. I vet them first, I don't just download freebies willy-nilly. Or is that willie-nillie? I think very few people do. Our time IS too valuable to download books *just* because they are free. But if I see a free book by an author that I don't know, and it looks interesting and well done in a genre that I read, I *will* download it. Because my money is valuable, too, and there are SO many books out there and so many authors to try.

But here's the thing. I'm a series reader. Love me a good series. If the first book grabs me, I'll get the other ones in the series. But, because I'm also a voracious reader, it helps to test drive the series first.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I download freebies. I vet them first, I don't just download freebies willy-nilly. Or is that willie-nillie? I think very few people do. Our time IS too valuable to download books *just* because they are free. But if I see a free book by an author that I don't know, and it looks interesting and well done in a genre that I read, I *will* download it. Because my money is valuable, too, and there are SO many books out there and so many authors to try.
> 
> But here's the thing. I'm a series reader. Love me a good series. If the first book grabs me, I'll get the other ones in the series. But, because I'm also a voracious reader, it helps to test drive the series first.


Yes this. I think the mistake is to try to stuff us readers into the "freeloading" drawer. Are there some folks that just download anything free in sight? Sure, for a while. Then they see their cloud on their devices and it takes a long time to load by cover view and if you have any collections it takes forever. Many of us have had a phase where we just grabbed stuff. Especially in the early days as we weren't used to free books wherever we looked. OMG freeeeeeeeeeeee. Then we woke up and deleted 100's, often 1000's of books of our accounts. Most readers don't just get freebies. Most readers have a variety of ways to get books. Most readers know what they want and have authors they like and genres they like. And not everything I want to read if free, never will be.

And I want to read what I want to read, not just read something because its free. But if something I want to read is free, sure I'll grab it. And then I buy the others in a series or by that author. I don't know any author that just reads a first in a series all the time and never reads any further. Unless they didn't like it of course, but if one likes something, one reads the next.

I am not a special snowflake reader, I am pretty average I think when it comes to voracious readers. I buy, I borrow. Whatever it takes to read the books I want to read. No, I don't expect everything to be free, but if I don't know an author, even if its the right genre and I like the blurb, its nice to get the first book free in a series. Or a standalone by an author. Less pain to try something new. Then if I like it I go on and buy the rest. I have a pretty big list of stuff I read where a book or first in series was free and I went on to buy/read more. I hear this from many of my fellow readers.

I have to say though I am a bit insulted by the term freeloader I keep reading. I didn't make the books free, the publisher did. They are there, free. Nobody forced anyone to put it up free, so lets not use such terms that just sound like a put down to readers. Everyone has a different budget for books. When one reads a lot and has favorite authors, one has to do what one has to do.

I vet free books the same as I do any other book. I don't download just to download. I know what I like and what I don't. Something being free isn't going to change my tastes and wants. Its just a nice way to try something without too much risk of money.

Once books are on my kindle, they are not listed with a price. Everything is mixed together and sorted in my collections. Its all equal at that point. Of course I have to sift something out of the depth of my tbr well first. That is why I have collections.


----------



## Lefevre (Feb 1, 2014)

I have used perma free since 2013 with great results, but I think the market is showing signs of maturity. Unfortunately, perma free is so widespread that you don't even need to buy a book anymore.


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> As for the thrill of lining outside a Borders for hours to snag _The Goblet of Fire_ at midnight on release day, all I can say is I'm glad my kids postdate these books. Good lord. Sorry to be all grinchy, but just thinking about it makes my feet hurt! I like the idea of books showing up on my Kindle at 12:00:01, thank you very much. How about a release party where you gather with other fans in someone's comfortable living room, eat and drink and talk, get your devices out at 11:59, cheer when the file arrives, and start reading together? There are always ways to reinvent communal events to match a changing world.


I hope the books you write have a more adventurous spirit than that, Grinchy!

Shielding ourselves from life by sitting inside staring at our devices together instead of battling the elements in the real world? Really? 
No thanks. I'll take the real world, and enjoy my suffering along with the rest of it. That's what being ALIVE is.

You may want the world to change into that, but I'll stick to living outside a lot, having adventures I can't completely control, and feeling very frolicking much alive, thank you.



Betsy the Quilter said:


> There's a recent thread here in the WC about someone's books who were eaten by some kind of pest...so no guarantees there...
> 
> Betsy


Yes. And there are also threads about Amazon completely deleting people's entire libraries that they paid for.

But it hardly makes either thing normal.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

TellNotShow said:


> I hope the books you write have a more adventurous spirit than that, Grinchy!
> 
> Shielding ourselves from life by sitting inside staring at our devices together instead of battling the elements in the real world? Really?
> No thanks. I'll take the real world, and enjoy my suffering along with the rest of it. That's what being ALIVE is.
> ...


Geez. What a crappy thing to say.

People have different personalities and experience things differently. Otherwise every book and every person would be the same, and wouldn't that be boring.


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

brkingsolver said:


> I agree with the OP. I price my first-in-series at 99 cents. I'd be happy if Zon set a minimum price of 2.99. Sites such as D2D and Smashwords are silly to allow free books since they are providing services to authors and making nothing off of free books. But as long as the retailers allow it, authors will continue using it.


What a shock.

A KU All The Way self-pubber who'd like to get rid of permafree, and says D2D and Smashwords are SILLY to allow it, and - you know what? 
Maybe I'll write a post titled, "I wish the whole notion of allowing non-KU-exclusive authors to comment on KBoards would go away," and hope the idea catches on.
Then the KU flagwavers could all just get on with KBoarding together without any of our "silly" ideas. Because, after all, diversity's a horrible thing, and life's immeasurably better when everyone thinks the same, right?



Patty Jansen said:


> The whole fallacy that underlies the "we train readers to expect books for free" argument is that it assumes all books are equal, that you can swap out a book with a random other book, even within a genre.
> 
> If my ereader was full of SF books, because that's what I like to read, these books are all different (duh!). Therefore, their value is not the same to the reader looking at those books. As creators of those books, some people seem to think that someone else's books (that can be had for free) are competition. They're not, because they're not *your* books. The trick is not how to get as many downloads as possible, but how to get readers to want to read *your* books specifically.
> 
> This thread has touched only marginally on the view from the other side: the reader.


Yes, EXACTLY. Reading many people's KBoards posts and comments, it seems like they think all our books are widgets, all of them equal and interchangeable, rather than beautifully different explosions of thought,their light all refracted and alchemically bottled, made into stories that've never before, in the history of language, existed.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

TellNotShow said:


> I hope the books you write have a more adventurous spirit than that, Grinchy!
> 
> Shielding ourselves from life by sitting inside staring at our devices together instead of battling the elements in the real world? Really?
> No thanks. I'll take the real world, and enjoy my suffering along with the rest of it. That's what being ALIVE is.
> ...


Hey, parties and/or indoor reading with friends count as "real" activities! True, they're not outdoor activities ... though I suppose they could be, were the weather pleasant enough. Regardless they're _life_, as is everything else we do. And the possibilities for excitement and companionship seem pretty rich to me. But hey, if standing in line for hours to buy something strikes you as more adventurous, uncontrolled, and vital, that's cool.

P.S. There's a reason urban fantasy tends to be about young, energetic people, not chunky, overworked middle-aged people with bad backs.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> Hey, parties and/or indoor reading with friends count as "real" activities! True, they're not outdoor activities ... though I suppose they could be, were the weather pleasant enough. Regardless they're _life_, as is everything else we do. And the possibilities for excitement and companionship seem pretty rich to me. But hey, if standing in line for hours to buy something strikes you as more adventurous, uncontrolled, and vital, that's cool.
> 
> P.S. There's a reason urban fantasy tends to be about young, energetic people, not chunky, overworked middle-aged people with bad backs.


Off to write chunky, overworked middle-aged w/bad back urban fantasy


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

Rosalind J said:


> Geez. What a crappy thing to say.
> 
> People have different personalities and experience things differently. Otherwise every book and every person would be the same, and wouldn't that be boring.


So, about this "crappy thing" I said.

Would that be the bit where I jokingly called Becca Mills the same name she called herself?

Or the bit where I stated my own preference for battling the elements outside in the real world, being adventurous instead of sitting inside looking at a screen?
Because &#8230; oh, hang on, I'll just quote this thing I recently read somewhere: "People have different personalities and experience things differently. Otherwise every book and every person would be the same, and wouldn't that be boring."

You also quoted something I said on a completely unrelated matter, which makes it look like I said it as part of the same thing, and completely twists its meaning. Not cool.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

TellNotShow said:


> What a shock.
> 
> A KU All The Way self-pubber who'd like to get rid of permafree, and says D2D and Smashwords are SILLY to allow it, and - you know what?
> Maybe I'll write a post titled, "I wish the whole notion of allowing non-KU-exclusive authors to comment on KBoards would go away," and hope the idea catches on.
> Then the KU flagwavers could all just get on with KBoarding together without any of our "silly" ideas. Because, after all, diversity's a horrible thing, and life's immeasurably better when everyone thinks the same, right?


Let's give the bitter, sarcastic tone a rest, eh? Plenty of non-KU authors have posted on this thread, including big sellers like Patty, Sela, Annie, and Kristen. No one has called them silly or suggested they don't belong here. In fact, the discussion has been quite civil. Until now.


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> Hey, parties and/or indoor reading with friends count as "real" activities! True, they're not outdoor activities ... though I suppose they could be, were the weather pleasant enough. Regardless they're _life_, as is everything else we do. And the possibilities for excitement and companionship seem pretty rich to me. But hey, if standing in line for hours to buy something strikes you as more adventurous, uncontrolled, and vital, that's cool.
> 
> P.S. There's a reason urban fantasy tends to be about young, energetic people, not chunky, overworked middle-aged people with bad backs.


Haha, Becca, no wonder I never see characters like me in Urban Fantasy. I'm about as chunky, overworked and bad-backed as it gets.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

TellNotShow said:


> Haha, Becca, no wonder I never see characters like me in Urban Fantasy. I'm about as chunky, overworked and bad-backed as it gets.


Careful! Gene is probably now planning an urban fantasy where two chunky, overworked, bad-backed heroes/heroines team up to save the world, armed with a magic cattleprod filched from Betsy .


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> Careful! Gene is probably now planning an urban fantasy where two chunky, overworked, bad-backed heroes/heroines team up to save the world, armed with a magic cattleprod filched from Betsy .


Adding magic cattle prod. Please stand by.


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> Let's give the bitter, sarcastic tone a rest, eh? Plenty of non-KU authors have posted on this thread, including big sellers like Patty, Sela, Annie, and Kristen. No one has called them silly or suggested they don't belong here. In fact, the discussion has been quite civil. Until now.


So I quote someone calling D2D and Smashwords "silly" for allowing permafree - and I'm the one being chewed out.

I'm not "bitter" - though I was certainly "sarcastic."

And I wasn't the one who accused others of being silly.



Becca Mills said:


> Careful! Gene is probably now planning an urban fantasy where two chunky, overworked, bad-backed heroes/heroines team up to save the world, armed with a magic cattleprod filched from Betsy .


I hope he makes me the villain! I mean, it'd be fairer if the villain was chunky etcetera too. And I seem to have been born for the role, reading through some of the reactions to what I've said in this thread!

He can call me SuperTell, the Silliest, Sarcasticest, Bitterest Beeatch this side of the Amazon Exclusive 0.5 cents a read KU Program. I can't wait to find out what my superpower will be... something stinky, I imagine.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

TellNotShow said:


> I hope he makes me the villain! I mean, it'd be fairer if the villain was chunky etcetera too. And I seem to have been born for the role, reading through some of the reactions to what I've said in this thread!
> 
> He can call me SuperTell, the Silliest, Sarcasticest, Bitterest Beeatch this side of the Amazon Exclusive 0.5 cents a read KU Program. I can't wait to find out what my superpower will be... something stinky, I imagine.


There are no villains, only misunderstood anti-heroes.


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

GeneDoucette said:


> There are no villains, only misunderstood anti-heroes.


Haha, nice one, Gene.

Although maybe, just maybe, the anti-heroes just aren't trying hard enough.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

I don't play the perma free game. I price at 99 cents on Amazon what is free elsewhere. They are already price matched as both are set at the lowest possible price.

I do play the game of pedant:

Not really owning an ebook only works for a cloud connected service without downloads that can be turned off. I'm still reading books bought on Peanut Press in 2001, which are DRM, but because they got bought by Palm Digital Media who got bought by eReader,com who got bought by Fictionwise who go bought by Barnes and Noble I can still read them. If Barnes and Noble disappear I just fire up the ereader.com reader software.

Trade publishers were not all selling at $15. Peanut Press and its subsequent owners had a policy that trade publishers had to sell at less  than the print price - a policy maintained by the iBook store. The books I still read from Peanut Press are the likes of Jonathan Kellerman. 

Lots of people walking on a lawn does not create muddy mire they create a compacted path. The paths circling hills are usually worn down over the decades by sheep.

The best Tragedy of the Commons connection would be Amazon allegedly downgrading Bookbub offer books in the algos. The tragedy for Amazon was that briefly the way to succeed on Amazon was for suppliers to pay a company other than Amazon.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

TellNotShow said:


> So I quote someone calling D2D and Smashwords "silly" for allowing permafree - and I'm the one being chewed out.
> 
> I'm not "bitter" - though I was certainly "sarcastic."
> 
> And I wasn't the one who accused others of being silly.


Calling D2D and Smashwords silly for allowing permafree is not the same as calling you and me silly for using it. Let's move on.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

GeneDoucette said:


> There are no villains, only misunderstood anti-heroes.


90% of antiheroes ever are just villains the universe fails to recognize as such.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Jeff Tanyard said:


> Lol... I had the exact same thought as soon as I read Becca's comment.


<prepares to one-click>


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

I'm surprised this thread's still going on. I don't really like permafree, but it's been around for a long time, it has it's purposes, and so there we are. Seems like we should move on to something else. Urban Fantasy meets Columbo.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

555aaa said:


> I'm surprised this thread's still going on. I don't really like permafree, but it's been around for a long time, it has it's purposes, and so there we are. Seems like we should move on to something else. Urban Fantasy meets Columbo.


I'd love to see a moderator prohibition on stepping into threads only to tell people they shouldn't be posting in this thread. To me, that's the true disrespect and hypocrisy.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

I would take issue with the statement that there never was a race to the bottom.

Konrath and Locke mostly started it with Amanda Hocking and others following close on their heels.

Konrath was a trad-published author who had some kudos from that situation when he decided to self-publish. He didn't start out at 99c, but he was one of the pioneers to try it and sold millions, especially, as it turned out, with the success of his blog and self-marketing skills. Most authors hung on his every word at the time, with many trying to emulate him.

Locke was a marketing expert in his previous life, and saw the potential of the 99c price point at the time. He was so successful he got a publishing. contract. He also had great success with a book on marketing, which many authors bought and looked upon it as a publishing bible. Then he fell out of favor later when it was discovered he bought his reviews as a marketing tool and he had failed to mention that in his marketing book.

Amanda Hocking followed on from them as a kindleboarder at the time, and was so successful at the 99c price point, she got a publishing contract,  and others followed her. J. Carson Black was another previous published author who hung around on kindleboards. She set 99c as the price point  for her book The Shop and sales took off to the extent that Amazon's own imprint gave her a contract for the book.

There was another couple who published a book wide at 99c, and  at the time Apple used to round 99c down to 49c. Amazon price matched to 49c That book was so successful at that price, Harper Collins gave them a contract for the book. It failed miserably at the full price.

All the buzz at the time on kindle boards was that 99c was the way to success because of the successes of those above and others. When that didn't work for the masses, many promoted their books free to try and get a following. All the talk at the time on kindleboards was that free was becoming the new 99c as prices spiraled downwards.

I can remember posts on here from authors who where among the first to self-publish through Amazon, and who had no problem selling their ebooks at $9.99. They had plenty to complain about on the race to the bottom on pricing when  99c became the norm.

Like I said in my last post, free became such a problem that Amazon stepped in at the time to make them less effective and they have continued to do so. I have no doubt they will continue to monitor the situation, but I doubt they will ban it completely as they are aware it can help promote sales of other books. If the ratios step out of line again, then no doubt they will make more changes, but for now, I see more books at $2.99+ than free or 99c, so I don't see a problem just now with permafree

If anything, the trend this past few years since then has been an upward curve in prices. A number of things have helped with this besides Amazon making free less effective.

Barnes and Noble leaving out low priced books from their best selling charts.

The intro of KU to wean authors from perma free, with sales at $2.99 possible after a single day promo.  (Not as effective as it originally was without paid promos, but effective all the same.)

Intro of page reads, making higher prices more of a saving to those searching out subscription books.

Amazon showing sales graphs at upload for differing price points to sales results for the given genre, (slanted to $2/3.99)

Authors realizing that to make a return on costs of editing and decent covers, then 99c doesn't usually cut it.

Trad publishers maintaining high prices, and in some cases they are more expensive that the printed book in say the UK where 20% VAT is added to the cost of eBooks. 

Intro of countdown.

Recent intro of Amazon sponsored ads, more effective for books at $2.99+ and open to all.

Amazon stamping down on promo sites as to the percentage of free downloads to paid sales to remain an associate. These sites now pushing discounted books to say 99c. To be discounted, they obviously have to have a higher normal price point to be included.

No doubt you could add to this list.

Look at what happened when short stories made a ton of money on KU. Many started to write short stories to take advantage. Amazon jumped in and stopped it. Whatever we use as a marketing effort, Amazon can always change the rules if they spot a trend that doesn't suit their business goals.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

*^*

Retailers and manufacturers of products use a marketing strategy known as differentiation, where they attempt to showcase their brand and family of products as unique, whether they are or not is irrelevant. And while they may occasionally follow time-honored promotional tricks and gimmicks, they also try to define their own identity: iPhone and other Apple products, Harley Davidson, Mini Cooper, Fender Guitars, North Face, Lane Bryant, New Balance and Tiffany and Co.

Each of these companies evokes a separate and distinct emotion or desire or dream or something. And it's taken years for them to establish this ubiquitous mindset in consumers.

When we look to literature, we can use Nora Roberts, Stephen King, Agatha Christie, Margaret Atwood, Robert Heinlein or William Gibson, again, all evoking distinct reactions, and it's not just because they are in different genres. They are different brands that enjoy the same differentiation as the companies noted above.

When self publishers play follow the leader and all jump on the same bandwagons, they lose that unique quality that separates them, and risk becoming a commodity. Writing to market can be extremely risky to your brand's identity. I'm not saying not to follow the strategy, I'm saying be mindful how far down the rabbit hole you allow yourself to go.

There's no doubt that perma-free was instrumental in launching careers, but the strategy is already dramatically under performing relative to it's historic norms. I'm not sure how long perma-free will continue to be a viable option, the market is absolutely saturated with free books, including box sets, and massive ultra-cheap bundles, and here's the important point to all of this:

*As price decreases, fungibility increases.*

How many of our purchase decisions at the grocery store are determined by which brand is on sale? Fungibility is the antithesis of Brand Loyalty - of fans. They may love the genre, but probably won't remember "you".

I've heard so many romance readers refer to their books as "trash". Not because they don't love them, they'd probably maim you if you try to take them away, but many see them as interchangeable (highly fungible), writers telling the same basic stories over and over. Harlequin made an industry out of this market segment, which is another good example, we all know what the Harlequin Brand is about.

In the past, publishers handled pricing, and seemed to pretty much be in collusion about the whole thing, but now it's on us, author entrepreneurs. As a result, I think we're coming to a crossroads where serious writers (not necessarily literary writers) are trying to separate themselves from the "writing to market" pulp writers (no disrespect intended, WTM is as viable of a business model as any other, and by "serious" I'm referring to what the writing has to say, not the mechanics of the prose or the business acumen), by increasing prices. One financially rewarding option seems to be to dance along the edge of WTM (the rabbit hole), while still having something unique to say. This creates differentiation, while simultaneously catering to defined consumer preferences, hedging one's brand loyalty bets.

_And please, try not to take the above comments personally, I don't know "you" and haven't read any of "your" books. When discussing markets (the millions of books and writers out there) we necessarily need paint with a broad brush to have a meaningful discussion._


----------



## LadyG (Sep 3, 2015)

P.J. Post said:


> *^*
> 
> I've heard so many romance readers refer to their books as "trash". Not because they don't love them, they'd probably maim you if you try to take them away, but many see them as interchangeable (highly fungible), writers telling the same basic stories over and over. Harlequin made an industry out of this market segment, which is another good example, we all know what the Harlequin Brand is about.


I find that rather surprising, because I don't think I've ever met a romance reader who refers to their books as "trash." On the contrary, we tend to be the ones defending our favorite genre from other people who refer to our books as "trash." While I'm sure there are many people out there who see romance novels as interchangeable, I strongly doubt that fans of the genre are the ones saying that. As a long-time romance reader, I can tell you that we have our favorite authors, favorite imprints, favorite sub-genres, and so on. Just like fans of mysteries, thrillers, or any other genre.

No, I don't believe you really do understand what the Harlequin Brand is about because it's about a hell of a lot more than "writers telling the same basic stories over and over."


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

LadyG said:


> I find that rather surprising, because I don't think I've ever met a romance reader who refers to their books as "trash." On the contrary, we tend to be the ones defending our favorite genre from other people who refer to our books as "trash." While I'm sure there are many people out there who see romance novels as interchangeable, I strongly doubt that fans of the genre are the ones saying that. As a long-time romance reader, I can tell you that we have our favorite authors, favorite imprints, favorite sub-genres, and so on. Just like fans of mysteries, thrillers, or any other genre.
> 
> No, I don't believe you really do understand what the Harlequin Brand is about because it's about a hell of a lot more than "writers telling the same basic stories over and over."


Totally agree. I have never heard a fellow romance reader call their romance reads trash or interchangeable. And that goes for those being published by harlequin. There are favorite authors that publish with harlequin. Some of those that are or have published with them in the past are huge sellers and some are even members on this board.

But its just yet again the spread of the wrong stereotype. We are used to it by now I guess. We romance readers are used to be the punching bag of whatever point needs to be made at any given time. I am sure romance writers are used to it by now too. Anyone that thinks that romance readers think of their reads as interchangeable, knows nothing about the genre or its readers and writers. Nada. Nichts.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

LadyG said:


> I find that rather surprising, because I don't think I've ever met a romance reader who refers to their books as "trash." On the contrary, we tend to be the ones defending our favorite genre from other people who refer to our books as "trash." While I'm sure there are many people out there who see romance novels as interchangeable, I strongly doubt that fans of the genre are the ones saying that. As a long-time romance reader, I can tell you that we have our favorite authors, favorite imprints, favorite sub-genres, and so on. Just like fans of mysteries, thrillers, or any other genre.
> 
> No, I don't believe you really do understand what the Harlequin Brand is about because it's about a hell of a lot more than "writers telling the same basic stories over and over."


I winced also. I don't believe the intent was malicious at all, but...

And I agree. I've rarely heard a romance READER say this. Other people? You betcha. Hubby almost punched a coworker once who, when he found out what I did and that I did very well at it, said, "I guess my wife should just write some trashy books."

The people who like my books like MY books. From what I see, the avid readers of other writers, be they romance, sci-fi, or even literary fiction, feel the same. That author does something that speaks to them.

And I disagree that romance novels aren't discussing important topics, somehow. I don't think there's much more important to the human condition than human relationships, and romance allows you to explore all kinds of relationships. It's not just about man and woman meet, they bang.

Even if a romance is pure escapism--what is a cozy mystery? MOST genre books are "formulaic"--at least if readers are going to enjoy them. Readers are going to that genre/subgenre/author to have those feelings and that experience. If they're reading feel-good romance, they want to know they can rely on getting the warm fuzzies. If they're reading a police procedural, they want to be assured it will meet whatever other expectations they have.

For the record, most of my readers will tell you they first picked up one of my books for free during a promo. That's OK. Those promos have built my career, and financed a lot of things I'd never have or have done otherwise. And I write what I want to write and take lots of risks.

I realize this is the response the poster was saying she didn't want, but when you poke that nest ...

I'll say again--if you fear your books are fungible, that they're not distinguishable from somebody else's--think what YOU can bring to the party that's special, that's different. Your sense of humor, your wisdom, your knack for suspense. Your unique voice.

Voice is as important in the most saturated genre as it is in literary fiction. Voice is what sells YOU.


----------



## Lu Kudzoza (Nov 1, 2015)

> I download freebies. I vet them first, I don't just download freebies willy-nilly. Or is that willie-nillie? I think very few people do. Our time IS too valuable to download books *just* because they are free.


As a reader, I download freebies from Bookbub and a couple other daily emails. I download all of them to my Cloud. When I'm ready for the next book, I vet the next books in the list to find something interesting. The first filter is to check if it is perma-free. If so, I delete it and move to the next book in the list. This comes from the experience of so many perma-free books not being full stories (they end without a real climax) or some other measure of poor quality. I know it's not fair to the good writers that use perma-free as a marketing strategy, but it saves me time.

If the promo book was good, I'll buy the next in series regardless of cost (the last book I bought was priced at $9.99).

I pay for a first in series if the books looks interesting and the look inside is compelling. If I've paid for a book it goes to the top of my reading list.

The reason that perma-free works is because everyone has a different process for finding books. I'm a drag on the strategy, but other readers make it work.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

> I've heard so many romance readers refer to their books as "trash". Not because they don't love them, they'd probably maim you if you try to take them away, but many see them as interchangeable (highly fungible), writers telling the same basic stories over and over. Harlequin made an industry out of this market segment, which is another good example, we all know what the Harlequin Brand is about.


If they do so, they do it because of the general negative view of romance in our society. This attitude always gets me, because seriously, finding a partner and falling in love is one of the most primal of all our human experiences, and has the power to deeply deeply affect people, drive them crazy, or make them happy. I think many men are afraid to admit how they feel about their partners, because it makes them look weak, and so romance is ridiculed. It's far easier for them to joke about sex or brag about sex, and make it all about sex, but all you have to do is suggest that their partner is cheating on them and WHAMMO -- the jig is up. Just how important love and romance is to them is revealed.

What do the poets and song writers write about? Love. Breaking hearts. Cheating hearts. Being in love, losing love, finding love.

Besides, romance novels are not only about romance. They are about character, character growth, meaning, trust, self-fulfilment, partnership, etc. My books deal with issues like family, loyalty, friendship, learning about yourself, self-development, and a number of other issues. They aren't trivial. I deal with PTSD, heroism, service and philanthropy, in my books. They are not fluff.

Sure, some books are fluffy and are meant to be. People want to read fluffy books now and then. That's perfectly fine, too. Sometimes, a reader just wants feel good material. Sometimes they want something deeper.

I get sick of the attitude towards romance sometimes. I've read SF that was formulaic, high fantasy that ripped off Tolkien, mysteries that were gratuitously violent and thrillers that were totally unbelievable. There is good and bad in all genres. Shallowness and deepness.

/rant


----------



## SerenityEditing (May 3, 2016)

Atunah said:


> We are used to it by now I guess. We romance readers are used to be the punching bag of whatever point needs to be made at any given time.


I have heard people, including my mother, self-identify their favorite books/genres as 'trashy romances,' BUT (and this is a really important 'but') I've always felt it was said in a self-deprecating and/or defensive and/or reclaiming way. Like, 'I'm going to say it first, so it won't sting when you say it.'

And the distinction between a 'trashy romance' and a 'romance' seems to be arbitrary. When my mother says 'trashy romance,' I know the characters either had an explicit sex scene, there was a light scene involving oral sex or maybe handcuffs, or the FMC hopped into bed with the MMC within the first 50 pages - she's talking about the sexual content. 
When my former coworker says 'trashy romance,' I know SHE means that the characters were all described as breathtakingly and flawlessly gorgeous, everyone was a model or a movie star or a rockstar, and other than the relationship hurdles, the biggest problem anyone had to deal with was a flat tire - she's talking about the maturity/intellectual levels of the characters or how well they translate to the 'real world' and relatable situations. 
When one of my friends talks about a 'trashy romance,' I know it just means 'contemporary romance,' since in her opinion anything set after WWII isn't 'serious' enough. Anything contemporary feels frivolous to her.

So IMO it seems more a comment on what the reader thinks and feels about _themselves_ than anything truly about the book or the genre - and I've always processed it as almost a shorthand way of saying, 'Don't make fun of me for reading this.'


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I'm sure other folks think we're oversensitive. But we hear the T-word a LOT. And many of us are pouring our hearts, souls, and considerable brains into our books. 

Check out who reads romance sometime, and why. You might be surprised. I have readers with very responsible jobs indeed.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

> When self publishers play follow the leader and all jump on the same bandwagons, they lose that unique quality that separates them, and risk becoming a commodity. Writing to market can be extremely risky to your brand's identity. I'm not saying not to follow the strategy, I'm saying be mindful how far down the rabbit hole you allow yourself to go.
> 
> There's no doubt that perma-free was instrumental in launching careers, but the strategy is already dramatically under performing relative to it's historic norms. I'm not sure how long perma-free will continue to be a viable option, the market is absolutely saturated with free books, including box sets, and massive ultra-cheap bundles, and here's the important point to all of this:
> 
> ...


First of all, books *are* commodities so none of us risk becoming that since it is already true.

Second, you can see by the free list that not all free books are as popular as others. To put it simply, some people cannot give their books away.

Why?

Because while books are commodities, they are not entirely fungible even when free. Readers have preferences. They have preferences for authors and genres and tropes within genres. The fact that books are not completely fungible is proven by the fact that there are bestsellers lists at all. Readers are very loyal. They seek out the authors they love, find their Facebook pages and websites and twitter feeds, and follow, email, message and the like.

I wish that books were fungible -- I wish that Vi Keeland's books were totally interchangeable with mine. That might mean I'd hit the NYTs and stick there for weeks like she did. Sadly, this is not the case.  

If romance books were fungible, then everyone would do equally well and readers would be equally happy reading my books vs. Vi Keeland's.

The fact is that most books do not sell. Only a small percentage of authors make a living selling books, romance or otherwise. Readers are voracious, but they are choosy. If they weren't, Amazon could show any book and the readers would buy it because it would be interchangeable with other books.

Price only has so much effect on buying behaviour. A reader has only so many hours in the day to read. They make choices. They choose. Hence, you have only a very small percentage of authors making more than $10,000 off ebook sales.

A recent Author Earnings report showed that only 2.8% of authors earned $10,000 on a regular basis. That means that 97.2% of authors earn less than $10,000 on a regular basis. There are even fewer making medium to high five or six figures.

So, books are _not_ really fungible, even at the low end of the price spectrum. The fact that so few authors earn more than $10K on a consistent basis suggests that readers are highly selective.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

^^^That thing.

The point of free, or cheap, or insert-marketing-strategy-here, is getting your book seen.

From there, a reader has to make a choice to download, borrow, or buy it.

From there, the reader has to want to open it rather than whatever other book(s) are on their device.

From there, the reader has to read past Page 1.

From there, she has to KEEP READING, to stay engaged.

From there, she has to want to finish, and then to want to pick up something else by you, because that book satisfied her better than the past six books she read.

That's a lot of points where you can lose somebody. If you make it through all those--your book isn't fungible. But those things don't happen by accident. You can do the first thing with "marketing"--cover, blurb, genre--but also with "craft"--your concept and characters. The rest of them? They're all craft, and no matter what folks want to say, no amount of marketing is going to keep a reader reading, and then make them buy your next book. 

All that "free," or anything else, gets you is possible momentary eyes on your book cover. The rest is on you and your book.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

I was afraid of this, but I tried anyway because I believe this to be an important topic - again no disrespect intended. I didn't mean to get sidetracked on whether or not Romance was a respected genre, Harlequin is just a straight forward case example of branding, like Apple or Louis Vitton. As far as business is concerned, I see Romance the same as men's adventure, no better or worse than an average Clive Cussler novel. And, for the record, I don't refer to Romance as trash, that's the term numerous readers have used with me when discussing it, and...for those of you for whom English may not be a first language, or didn't grow up in the States...lol, or more specifically, where and how I grew up...

...there is more than a little nuance at work here. They don't truly believe their genre of choice to be reprehensible unworthy garbage...it's clearly a term of endearment, and a play on the word "trashy", which was slang for steamier reads of the past. Thus, "What ya readin'?" Holds book up to show bodice ripper cover. "Trash." And then smiles a knowing smile because nothing more needs to be said.

So...



> And please, try not to take the above comments personally, I don't know "you" and haven't read any of "your" books. When discussing markets (the millions of books and writers out there) we necessarily need paint with a broad brush to have a meaningful discussion.


I should have added "readers" to this caveat.

When discussing markets we cannot discuss individual readers and their preferences, because we cannot create 50 million different marketing plans. We must group readers by similar purchase behavior, segmenting the overall market into individual targets for our marketing. This allows us to target readers who enjoy tear jerker love stories, or happily ever afters, or geo-political spy thrillers, or men's adventure escapism, or even serious science or speculative fiction, and we can also target readers who see one free Romance book as pretty much the same as any other, and those that only read specific authors.

I don't recall Harlequin promoting individual writers. I recall them focusing on their brand, whereas, I do recall Random and Penguin promoting authors, as opposed to their brand. And this is the difference I was alluding to. (There may be exceptions, but again, I'm discussing general market theory.)

And yes, Harlequins are very much the same basic stories over and over (in the big general sense of Branding, not necessarily in the individual reader experiences) otherwise they wouldn't be Harlequin books; they even had a format (formula) on how to write for them. There's nothing demeaning about this, it is what it is. Much of science fiction is nothing more than retreads of Tarzan - kill the beast, get the girl. And although Aliens is one of my favorite movies for many reasons, and is what I would refer to as serious science fiction due to the layers and social commentary, at the end of the day this was the formula, except the beast was an evil Alien Queen and the girl turned out to be a daughter.

*Business isn't personal.* It's lots of math and clever manipulation.

If "your" books are 99 cents, they are almost certainly fungible whether "you" accept it or not. It's a fact of markets, ultra-inexpensive products are usually referred to as impulse buys, often shelved near check-out lanes. They require almost no ego involvement in the purchase decision - again, for the majority of consumers, not any specific "you" who may be reading this. This is a fact, demonstrated by decades of retail data, not an opinion. Hundreds of millions of dollars are invested every year based upon this aspect of markets.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Rosalind J said:


> I'm sure other folks think we're oversensitive. But we hear the T-word a LOT. And many of us are pouring our hearts, souls, and considerable brains into our books.
> 
> Check out who reads romance sometime, and why. You might be surprised. I have readers with very responsible jobs indeed.


I've gotten the rolled eyes and dismissive attitude from friends and family and other writers too when I share that I write/read romance. I read all kinds of books, too, but especially dig romance. Relationships are at the core of who we are as humans. Whether you believe in religion or evolution, the dynamic relationships of human beings are complicated and not at all like any other animal on this Earth. So why the hate?

I get the feeling sometimes that people ignorant about the romance genre in general think it's only about kissy-kissy/sexy-smexy. No. It's about everything that Sela described and more. It's a valid genre with deep emotions and the beautiful development of a long-lasting love relationship, which many people do not find in this life.

Now, about the free vs not free...I've been following this thread with great interest. My little novelettes did ok on free when I first put them out but did nothing with paid. There were a shit ton of problems with them, so I don't think that I can speak fairly about it one way or the other. As a reader though, I stand with many who have voiced their opinions here about vetting free books the same as paid ones. I don't necessarily care if it's free, but I do care that it's good. So given the choice between a free book and a paid one, I'm going to choose the one that I feel would satiate me emotionally at the time. Also important is the choice between an author I like and one I don't know, in which case I'm choosing the one I like.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

> If "your" books are 99 cents, they are almost certainly fungible whether "you" accept it or not. It's a fact of markets, ultra-inexpensive products are usually referred to as impulse buys, often shelved near check-out lanes. They require almost no ego involvement in the purchase decision - again, for the majority of consumers, not any specific "you" who may be reading this. This is a fact, demonstrated by decades of retail data, not an opinion. Hundreds of millions of dollars are invested every year based upon this aspect of markets.


No. Quarter inch finishing screws all priced at 99c are fungible. Books are not. Even at 99c. If 99c books were fungible, everyone whose book was priced at 99c would do equally well in the market.

Amazon spends a great deal of time figuring out what customers like, prefer, choose, so they can sell them more. If ebooks were all fungible, there would be no need for algorithms to figure out what a particular customer prefers. They could simply show any customer any book priced 99c.

Yes, the fact that a book is priced 99c means a customer might be more willing to give it a try, especially if the author is new to them, but they will still be looking for a particular kind of book, and if they don't like the 99c book, they will not pick up another book by that author. The fact that we spend time and money on covers suggest that books are not completely fungible, because if they were all interchangeable, the cover wouldn't matter. The blurb wouldn't matter.

All these things matter because books are not interchangeable.

Nope.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

P.J. Post said:


> If "your" books are 99 cents, they are almost certainly fungible whether "you" accept it or not. It's a fact of markets, ultra-inexpensive products are usually referred to as impulse buys, often shelved near check-out lanes. They require almost no ego involvement in the purchase decision - again, for the majority of consumers, not any specific "you" who may be reading this. This is a fact, demonstrated by decades of retail data, not an opinion. Hundreds of millions of dollars are invested every year based upon this aspect of markets.


You're making the same mistake that Amazon does. Books aren't fungible. Each book is a unique work of art crafted by the author, not a mass-produced consumer good. And readers are horribly, horribly picky. It's why so many people can't even give their books away, much less move them at 99 cents. Readers will spend 20 minutes going over the differences between covers and Look Inside previews of two permafrees to decide which one they're going to get and read over the weekend. Tiny differences in nuance and style make all the difference. It's not at all like deciding between a two sets of plastic cups on sale at the Dollar Store. One's puke green, one's snot yellow, who cares just throw one in the shopping cart and let's go home already.

A plastic cup is a plastic cup. A book is more like a Swiss watch - all the little pieces have to come together just right or it doesn't work, and the reader is going to feel ripped off because there's a time investment involved regardless of whether the book was free, 99 cents, or $9.99.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Nobody's going to write a review of one ... I dunno, store-brand gallon of milk over another.

Hundreds or thousands of people will review a free or 99-cent book. IF it's engaging enough that they actually read it. 

And if there are hundreds or thousands of reviews ... hundreds or thousands of people will go on to pay money for the other books by that author. Whereas the 270 other authors who put a book up free that day sell 0 or 10 or 50 books.

Engagement. Pleasure. Entertainment. 

Not fungible. Unless it's forgettable or unreadable to them, and they discard it. Then it's one of many discards. If it's memorable or enjoyable enough that they buy other books by that author, it's not fungible. 

The trick and the secret is: how to make your book grabby. How to be hooky. How not to be a widget.

It's not necessarily in the cleverness of your plot or the beauty of your writing. It can be hard to put your finger on, which is why people talk about "objectively bad" books that sell, so "quality doesn't matter."

That doesn't mean it's not real. 

The business of writing isn't just "lots of math and clever manipulation." I know something about business--I spent quite a few decades in it. In writing, the product matters. Try getting somebody to pick up a book that doesn't appeal to them. Then try to get them to READ it. 

I read "The Red Badge of Courage" in high school. I was forced to. I've spent untold tens of thousands of dollars on books in my life. I've never spent another dime on what's-his-name.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

Obviously, we have different opinions on the subject, but just to make sure we get all of those stones turned over. 



sela said:


> No. Quarter inch finishing screws all priced at 99c are fungible. Books are not. Even at 99c. If 99c books were fungible, everyone whose book was priced at 99c would do equally well in the market.


This statement ignores target marketing, which I referred to repeatedly. All 99 cent books are not interchangeable, and I never suggest they were. However, a 99 cent space opera about warring alien armadas is reasonably interchangeable with another 99 cent space opera with the same exact plot and set up. An example segment in the Romance genre might be love triangles or cowboys. And it's a fallacy to assume that just because two products are fungible that they would have the same level of sales. In your example, I would wager that the finishing screws in a bright orange package will sell way better than the ones in the dingy gray package. The product itself is only one aspect within the marketing mix.

So, no, not all 99 cent books are fungible, however 99 cent (and free) books within a single genre, especially within the same sub-genre, have a significantly higher probability (I believe I said earlier, "almost certainly") of being fungible, than those priced higher.



KelliWolfe said:


> You're making the same mistake that Amazon does. Books aren't fungible.


I never said books (et al) were fungible. Generally speaking, I'm of the opposite opinion. My biggest complaint about KB is that much of the marketing advice here ignores the product itself, and treats books as interchangeable widgets (regardless of the ymmv caveats), with the assumption that said advice will generate similar results, which we know is not true, because books are not the same. Which is why I'm always going on about "art" and voice and having something to say as opposed to following WTM strategies.

But, for "pulp" books, written to market in a formulaic style, at 99 cents, in the same genre, yeah, those books can be very fungible, especially within the voracious reader segment of the market.

All I've been saying (examples aside) was that ultra-low pricing strategies and free promotional strategies have been generating lower and lower returns in the aggregate. If you're doing amazing, then great, I'm happy to hear it - if it ain't broke, you know? But I wouldn't start a career based upon low pricing and giveaway strategies. I'd listen to Rosalind and others; work on finding a distinctive voice. I'm not sure how good a writer Stephen King really is, but he's got a voice that I really really like, so I have no problem paying a premium for his books.

@Rosalind:
I'm aware of your business background. 
I was, once again, painting with a broad brush. We both know that "Business", generally speaking, is not a warm and fuzzy enterprise, it's cold and impersonal, at least it is here in the States - lots of math. I was specifically addressing perma-free from a market perspective as opposed to an anecdotal one. As I've mentioned before, I reject all of it when I'm writing. I'm not writing to sell anything, I'm writing to say something - which has nothing to do with whether or not anyone will ever want to read it, much less buy it. One thing at a time.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

P.J. Post said:


> I never said books (et al) were fungible.





> There's no doubt that perma-free was instrumental in launching careers, but the strategy is already dramatically under performing relative to it's historic norms. I'm not sure how long perma-free will continue to be a viable option, the market is absolutely saturated with free books, including box sets, and massive ultra-cheap bundles, and here's the important point to all of this:
> 
> As price decreases, fungibility increases.
> 
> ...





> If "your" books are 99 cents, they are almost certainly fungible whether "you" accept it or not. It's a fact of markets, ultra-inexpensive products are usually referred to as impulse buys, often shelved near check-out lanes. They require almost no ego involvement in the purchase decision - again, for the majority of consumers, not any specific "you" who may be reading this. This is a fact, demonstrated by decades of retail data, not an opinion. Hundreds of millions of dollars are invested every year based upon this aspect of markets.


KB *really* needs a rolleyes emoji.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

P.J. Post said:


> Obviously, we have different opinions on the subject, but just to make sure we get all of those stones turned over.
> 
> All I've been saying (examples aside) was that ultra-low pricing strategies and free promotional strategies have been generating lower and lower returns in the aggregate.


But where's your evidence?

There has been ONE author earnings report showing a downswing in the Indie share of the ebook market on Amazon USA.

Until then, the line has been trending upward. Indie author earnings have been growing steadily since this whole business began. Yes, any individual indie's income may go up or down depending but overall, the indie book business has been growing. And 99c is not new. It was there at the start of the real indie revolution when folks like Amanda Hocking made their millions selling for 99c. It's still around and there are authors making millions selling their books at $6.99 and $4.99.

Just because SOME indies cannot and are not making money doesn't mean it isn't possible to do so. The industry is maturing and readers are selecting the winners.

Not everyone can make a go at this industry. Not every book is going to sell. What I would argue is that we are finding the true price of ebooks -- the price the market will bear.

There is a give and take between the buyer and seller. Amazon tries to put brackets around prices that it believes are the best for its market, but author/sellers will try to find what works for them.

I think the industry is really way too new to be arguing that 99c pricing or permafree have destroyed it.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Every survey I've seen shows that the changes in publishing have allowed many more authors to make quit the day job money. Yes the percentage of those making big money is still very low, because there's now no barrier to anyone putting up a book. But income levels that were once reserved for stars are now attainable. 

I've met a number of authors who wrote for Harlequin etc. These gals were always writing a book a month. However, it paid very little, because they could be earning as little as 5 cents a copy. If they're indie and able to write that one salable book a month, even if it's KU and they're priced at 99 cents, they may still be earning $1 or more per read. If you're earning 20x more per book, you don't have to sell huge numbers to make significantly more. That's the chance (that was a typo; I meant "change," but both work) that I see. 

All a low intro price does is remove price resistance on that first book. It doesn't somehow make the book appear to be a pack of gum to the consumer EXCEPT that readers know that a lot of indie books aren't great. So they do a lot of checking and discarding. I think the best analogy is a library. That's how library users go through books. When you find something you like, you then read all of that author's books. Same deal except now romance readers are buying.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

KelliWolfe said:


> KB *really* needs a rolleyes emoji.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Ann in Arlington said:


>


Looks more like its got a tic 

Grabby, who was it that was talking about grabby books. Rosalind? So spot on. I got this book for 99 cents, would have snapped it up for free too of course. I just read it, grabby. So grabby in fact that I went on to buy and now read the second one right away. Grabby. 

If this book hadn't been grabby, or as good as it was, I wouldn't have bought the next at regular price. So it wouldn't matter if its free or 99 cents or 4.99. If you don't grab my attention, I move on. I can read a 1000 romance books, done so in fact and more and they are never the same. Never the same story. Themes maybe, but that is not what makes the story. That is up to the characters and settings and most importantly, authors voice and tone of the book. And yes, that goes for Harlequin books also. They are the same way than non harlequin. They are either grabby or not. I like this word, grabby.  Next time my husband asks me what I am reading I say something grabby.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Atunah said:


> Looks more like its got a tic
> 
> Grabby, who was it that was talking about grabby books. Rosalind? So spot on. I got this book for 99 cents, would have snapped it up for free too of course. I just read it, grabby. So grabby in fact that I went on to buy and now read the second one right away. Grabby.
> 
> If this book hadn't been grabby, or as good as it was, I wouldn't have bought the next at regular price. So it wouldn't matter if its free or 99 cents or 4.99. If you don't grab my attention, I move on. I can read a 1000 romance books, done so in fact and more and they are never the same. Never the same story. Themes maybe, but that is not what makes the story. That is up to the characters and settings and most importantly, authors voice and tone of the book. And yes, that goes for Harlequin books also. They are the same way than non harlequin. They are either grabby or not. I like this word, grabby.  Next time my husband asks me what I am reading I say something grabby.


I'm always shilling for this thread, which is probably shady because I started it, but so many other people chimed in with great stuff. I truly believe that hookiness, grabbiness--of cover, blurb, concept, and most of all, writing--is a big secret to how to do well in this business. Trad or indie, hookiness sells your book.

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,228998.0.html ("How to Be Hooky")


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Rosalind J said:


> I'm always shilling for this thread, which is probably shady because I started it, but so many other people chimed in with great stuff. I truly believe that hookiness, grabbiness--of cover, blurb, concept, and most of all, writing--is a big secret to how to do well in this business. Trad or indie, hookiness sells your book.
> 
> http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,228998.0.html ("How to Be Hooky")


It's so simple! 

Except, of course, that what's 'grabby' for one person might be boring for someone else.

On the plus side, that means there's a need for lots of good writers of good stories with all varieties of grabbiness.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Ann in Arlington said:


> KelliWolfe said:
> 
> 
> > KB *really* needs a rolleyes emoji.


Ann beat me to it -- KB is an eye-roll-enabled forum! 

That said, although I generally disagree with PJ on this stuff, I do think PJ's points are thoughtful and deserve more than an eye-roll. The ways in which books are and are not fungible are complicated and interesting, IMO. Permafree depends on books' non-fungibility (otherwise, no one would make the move from free to paid within a series), but pricing-based competition depends on books' being fungible to at least some degree (otherwise, reducing prices wouldn't stimulate sales). I suspect the answer isn't simple. Perhaps there's a scale from fungibility to uniqueness, and particular books move along it in individual readers' minds according to a variety of factors, with some books being almost interchangeable (ones within the same sub-subgenre that are totally unknown to the shopper and appear to be of equal quality) and others being irreplaceable (the final book in a deeply beloved series).


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> Ann beat me to it -- KB is an eye-roll-enabled forum!
> 
> That said, although I generally disagree with PJ on this stuff, I do think PJ's points are thoughtful and deserve more than an eye-roll. The ways in which books are and are not fungible are complicated and interesting, IMO. Permafree depends on books' non-fungibility (otherwise, no one would make the move from free to paid within a series), but pricing-based competition depends on books' being fungible to at least some degree (otherwise, reducing prices wouldn't stimulate sales). I suspect the answer isn't simple. Perhaps there's a scale from fungibility to uniqueness, and particular books move along it in individual readers' minds according to a variety of factors, with some books being almost interchangeable (ones within the same sub-subgenre that are totally unknown to the shopper and appear to be of equal quality) and others being irreplaceable (the final book in a deeply beloved series).


Good analysis, to me. BUT I'd still say that even at the most fungible level: a reader still has a choice between books. If they're deciding on your free book vs. Unknown Author A's, Unknown Author B's, and all the way down the line to ZZZ--they're doing that for a reason, not just eeny-meeny-miney-mo. Even the most unknown author is attracting their readers/buyers SOMEHOW. Every book read is a choice. So why do readers choose you?

And to those who say "marketing"--I don't think so, except that cover, blurb, genre, and concept are all marketing. I sold my books at the beginning purely on those things. I was flat nobody from nowhere. I had 0 people on my mailing list and 1 Facebook "like"--from my best friend. At first I thought it was a total fluke that people picked up my book, but now I see (because readers have told me) that it was the series title, the cover, and a concept that appealed strongly to my core audience. (Which isn't the same as some other romance author's core audience.)

Marketing isn't necessarily anything shady. It's really just making the people who would be most likely to buy your book aware of your book. It's all about visibility, which is where free and cheap come in. And advertising your book at free or cheap, because we're in a very competitive market.


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

Rosalind J said:


> At first I thought it was a total fluke that people picked up my book, but now I see (because readers have told me) that it was the series title, the cover, and a concept that appealed strongly to my core audience.


But (and, like mine, this is a really big "but"  ), when you created your book and published it, you did not know yet what your core audience was going to be. You may have had an idea, but you could not have been sure, not until the book was successful and you got feedback from your readers. Then you could say, "These are the people who liked that book."

Identifying who "these people" are is the key to successful marketing, especially the marketing of further books. And (as I've mentioned before here and elsewhere) not everyone has the ability to do that. I thoroughly believe that your experience as a copywriter has had a lot to do with your success. That is a line of work where you have to learn to write (succinctly) words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs that people _want_ to read.

Which is exactly what every successful author does.

Most writers could benefit from more training in writing... before they hit the "Publish" button. Becoming a good author does not happen merely by osmosis.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> That said, although I generally disagree with PJ on this stuff, I do think PJ's points are thoughtful and deserve more than an eye-roll.


The part that deserved the eye-roll was stating in so many words in more than one post that books are fungible, especially at 99 cents, and then turning around and saying, "I didn't say that" after multiple people pointed out exactly how it wasn't true. That kind of thing doesn't deserve more than a rolleyes.

"Just because I've been saying books are fungible for the last 3 pages doesn't mean that's what I really *meant*. Oh no, I only meant certain *special* books are fungible. Like the trashy romance books that are all carbon copies of each other and that cheesy space opera stuff. Except *I* didn't mean they're really trashy or cheesy, that's just what _some other people say_."

It's like listening to politicians trying to walk their comments back after they shove their foot in their mouth up to the knee when there are about a million clips of them saying it on Youtube.

Can I do the rolleyes now? Yeah.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

KelliWolfe said:


> The part that deserved the eye-roll was stating in so many words in more than one post that books are fungible, especially at 99 cents, and then turning around and saying, "I didn't say that" after multiple people pointed out exactly how it wasn't true. That kind of thing doesn't deserve more than a rolleyes.
> 
> "Just because I've been saying books are fungible for the last 3 pages doesn't mean that's what I really *meant*. Oh no, I only meant certain *special* books are fungible. Like the trashy romance books that are all carbon copies of each other and that cheesy space opera stuff. Except *I* didn't mean they're really trashy or cheesy, that's just what _some other people say_."
> 
> ...


Moving on from who said what to the actual matter of the topic, I do think some books are more replaceable than others. I rarely read or write outside of romance, so I can't speak to other genres, but it's absolutely true of romance. Putting my reader hat on, I have to say that there are many, many trendy books written in a very broad style that could easily replace each other. There are also many big authors with loyal followings and lots of "voice." This is going to be specific to every reader. Some are very loyal to authors or series. Some read everything in a niche (within their desired price points/in KU/whatever). Some read whatever shows up in their recommendations. Some are very particular.

The advice we always give about writing commercial books--sell the trope, don't worry about it seeming too much like other popular books--makes commercial books _seem_ more replaceable.

Of course, the less loyal, less picky readers are going to pick up cheaper books.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Crystal_ said:


> Moving on from who said what to the actual matter of the topic, I do think some books are more replaceable than others. I rarely read or write outside of romance, so I can't speak to other genres, but it's absolutely true of romance. Putting my reader hat on, I have to say that there are many, many trendy books written in a very broad style that could easily replace each other. There are also many big authors with loyal followings and lots of "voice." This is going to be specific to every reader. Some are very loyal to authors or series. Some read everything in a niche (within their desired price points/in KU/whatever). Some read whatever shows up in their recommendations. Some are very particular.
> 
> The advice we always give about writing commercial books--sell the trope, don't worry about it seeming too much like other popular books--makes commercial books _seem_ more replaceable.
> 
> Of course, the less loyal, less picky readers are going to pick up cheaper books.


Maybe they could replace each other at some abstract analytic level, but in the real market they don't because while they are fungible in an analytic abstract view, they are not to the market overall -- aka to actual readers. Some books do better than others even among the most fungible of books -- say similar books in a sub-sub-category catering to the same niche tropes, like billionaire shifter lion finds a mate stories. Take all the billionaire shifter lion finds a mate books and some will do better than others because at base NO AUTHOR WRITES THE SAME STORY IN THE SAME WAY WITH THE SAME VOICE!

Sorry for shouting, but that is what it all comes down to. Voice. Give 10 authors the same exact parameters and they will write 10 different books and will have 10 different sales and rank.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

sela said:


> Maybe they could replace each other at some abstract analytic level, but in the real market they don't because while they are fungible in an analytic abstract view, they are not to the market overall -- aka to actual readers. Some books do better than others even among the most fungible of books -- say similar books in a sub-sub-category catering to the same niche tropes, like billionaire shifter lion finds a mate stories.* Take all the billionaire shifter lion finds a mate books and some will do better than others because at base NO AUTHOR WRITES THE SAME STORY IN THE SAME WAY WITH THE SAME VOICE!
> *
> Sorry for shouting, but that is what it all comes down to. Voice. Give 10 authors the same exact parameters and they will write 10 different books and will have 10 different sales and rank.


Lots of books are written with a very generic voice. I don't see what we accomplish by denying that. Voice is also subjective. Some people will notice it. Some won't. Of the people who notice it, some will love it, some will hate it, some will think it's okay, etc.

If I look at any niche, I'll find some authors in it with distinct voices and many others who are indistinguishable. I've never read PNR, so I can't comment on that. But with, say, billionaire romance, there are many, many books that are more or less replaceable. Again, how "replaceable" they are depends on the reader. I have a book that gets lots of "50SoG knockoff" comments in reviews. I'm sure, to some readers, that book is just another generic billionaire erom. Others appreciate my voice/writing style.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

Crystal_ said:


> Lots of books are written with a very generic voice. I don't see what we accomplish by denying that. Voice is also subjective. Some people will notice it. Some won't. Of the people who notice it, some will love it, some will hate it, some will think it's okay, etc.
> 
> If I look at any niche, I'll find some authors in it with distinct voices and many others who are indistinguishable. I've never read PNR, so I can't comment on that. But with, say, billionaire romance, there are many, many books that are more or less replaceable. Again, how "replaceable" they are depends on the reader. I have a book that gets lots of "50SoG knockoff" comments in reviews. I'm sure, to some readers, that book is just another generic billionaire erom. Others appreciate my voice/writing style.


But how does a reader choose which book to read? All readers have limited time. They have to make a choice. I just don't believe that it comes to an eeny miny mo. Maybe at the start of a hot trend (like stepbrother romance or dragon shifters, etc), readers that like that trend will gobble up every book that's written in it but eventually it gets saturated and readers will have to choose. Something differentiates two or more books of the same sub-sub-sub niche/trope. Whether it's the author name, or the cover, or the description, or the look inside, or the reviews, or the bestseller rank, or whatever. Something causes the reader to choose one book over another and something causes many readers to choose one book over another. If books were like widgets, then we wouldn't see some books rise and some books fall, even within these sub-sub-sub niches.

(But what does this have to do with permafree and the race to the bottom? I think I've lost track.  )


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Felicia Beasley said:


> But how does a reader choose which book to read? All readers have limited time. They have to make a choice. I just don't believe that it comes to an eeny miny mo. Maybe at the start of a hot trend (like stepbrother romance or dragon shifters, etc), readers that like that trend will gobble up every book that's written in it but eventually it gets saturated and readers will have to choose. Something differentiates two or more books of the same sub-sub-sub niche/trope. Whether it's the author name, or the cover, or the description, or the look inside, or the reviews, or the bestseller rank, or whatever. Something causes the reader to choose one book over another and something causes many readers to choose one book over another. If books were like widgets, then we wouldn't see some books rise and some books fall, even within these sub-sub-sub niches.
> 
> (But what does this have to do with permafree and the race to the bottom? I think I've lost track.  )


If books are replaceable, price point is important, and the "race to the bottom" is a very real issue. If a reader wants to pick up any generic billionaire romance, and they can pick from hundreds of .99 and free books, why would they pick up a 3.99 book? It needs to somehow stand out from all the other generic billionaire romances.

And, yes, there are many ways that can happen, and the more specific your book is (in terms of subgenre, niche, trope, voice, cover, etc), the more you will stand out (that also makes your appeal less broad, so it's a trade off). At the end of the day, there are still lots of readers, especially free, .99, and KU readers, who just want to read a hot romance, any hot romance. Haven't you ever turned on the TV wanting to watch whatever is on?


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

Crystal_ said:


> If books are replaceable, price point is important, and the "race to the bottom" is a very real issue. If a reader wants to pick up any generic billionaire romance, and they can pick from hundreds of .99 and free books, why would they pick up a 3.99 book? It needs to somehow stand out from all the other generic billionaire romances.
> 
> And, yes, there are many ways that can happen, and the more specific your book is (in terms of subgenre, niche, trope, voice, cover, etc), the more you will stand out (that also makes your appeal less broad, so it's a trade off). At the end of the day, there are still lots of readers, especially free, .99, and KU readers, who just want to read a hot romance, any hot romance. Haven't you ever turned on the TV wanting to watch whatever is on?


Okay, I get what you're saying now. I haven't ever turned on the TV to watch whatever is on, I always know what I want to watch first (love Netflix queue). But I'm sure other people do, so I get your analogy.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Among the non fungal books I have bought in the sub $2 range are Hitchikers Guide omnibus edition, Cloud Atlas, The Commitments, Gone Girl, Left Neglected, Water for Elephants ... , I could go on but I think you get the point.


----------



## Elizabeth Barone (May 6, 2013)

Rosalind J said:


> I use the Select Free days occasionally because they sell books. If it didn't work, I wouldn't set books to free. I assume other authors do the same.
> 
> If you don't want to do it, set your book to 99 cents instead and do your loss leader that way. Or enroll in Select and do the occasional free days. Or none of the above. I figure other authors test what works best for them and do that. I also figure retailers allow free books because they sell more paid books that way.
> 
> The nice thing is that we get to choose our own pricing and do our own testing. The hard thing is...exactly the same thing.


This.

Permafree works for a lot of indies. It's just another loss leader. Authors who don't have much luck with or don't care for permafree have plenty of other options.

If permafree was banished by all retailers, they would all take a hit in income. And we all know Amazon and the like aren't going to do anything that affects their income.

I know it's frustrating trying to figure out what works for you -- especially when you see X method working for so many others -- but hang in there. Keep experimenting! Others' permafree books have no affect on your own sales, so nose to the grindstone and do your own thing! &#128522;


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

M R Mortimer said:


> It would be interesting to know if the readily available and legitimate library of free ebooks has any impact on the numbers of pirate ebooks downloaded? it could be the permafree library is offering something for people looking for a free read but not looking for an exact book to read, such that those people in whatever numbers they exist, don't have to trawl the pirate sites...


This is a really great point.

Regardless of any other argument for or against permafree, this would be enough to justify it.

I'd never even thought of this before, but of course, it makes perfect sense. Indeed, one might argue that permafree is saving the industry, or at least making a difference to many people's bottom line.


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

Rosalind J said:


> Every survey I've seen shows that the changes in publishing have allowed many more authors to make quit-the-day-job money.


It doesn't even have to be _that_ much money to make a huge impact on the writer's life. Making enough every month to completely pay your utility bill, or your car payment, or your mortgage... _that_ is a life-changing income, and that is what the vast majority of "successful" self-publishers are doing. This is anecdotal but when people like Hugh Howey and Joe Konrath tell about the dozens of people over the years who have come up to them and talked about how "successful" they feel because they have achieved even that level of income, you have to believe that there's truth to it.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

elizabethbarone said:


> Permafree works for a lot of indies. It's just another loss leader. Authors who don't have much luck with or don't care for permafree have plenty of other options.
> 
> If permafree was banished by all retailers, they would all take a hit in income. And we all know Amazon and the like aren't going to do anything that affects their income.


I strongly disagree. If the bottom was 99 cents and free didn't exist, then readers would accept that and treat dollar books the way they do free now. Authors have trained readers to expect free books. Please tell me any other good on the market that you can expect to pick up for free. Retailers have sales, they give you 4 for 1 maybe, but no one advertises, "Come to our story and pick up 200 free items without buying anything."

I'm not arguing that free or permafree isn't a working strategy. I'm arguing that it's a poor strategy that in the long term will fizzle out. Amazon recognizes that free books take up space, compete with paid books, and cost it real money to store and deliver. That's why they don't allow free. The price match is simply to keep the freeloaders from shopping elsewhere.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

brkingsolver said:


> *Please tell me any other good on the market that you can expect to pick up for free.*


Free samples are everywhere. When you go to the grocery store there are reps handing out samples of foods they sell there, usually with handy recipes that make use of them. When you go to Bath & Body Works there are tester bottles *everywhere* for everything they sell. When you go to Baskin Robbins you can get samples of any of their ice cream before you decide which one you want to buy. When you go to Barnes & Noble you can sit down and read an entire book if you want. Record labels upload their music videos and entire albums to Youtube so people can listen to them.

Free samples have always been the best advertising method for attracting new customers.


----------



## 5ngela (Sep 7, 2015)

brkingsolver said:


> I strongly disagree. If the bottom was 99 cents and free didn't exist, then readers would accept that and treat dollar books the way they do free now. Authors have trained readers to expect free books. Please tell me any other good on the market that you can expect to pick up for free. Retailers have sales, they give you 4 for 1 maybe, but no one advertises, "Come to our story and pick up 200 free items without buying anything."
> 
> I'm not arguing that free or permafree isn't a working strategy. I'm arguing that it's a poor strategy that in the long term will fizzle out. Amazon recognizes that free books take up space, compete with paid books, and cost it real money to store and deliver. That's why they don't allow free. The price match is simply to keep the freeloaders from shopping elsewhere.


I bet publishers also want all ebooks to be price above 9.99 dollars. Then it means they don't have to compete with cheaper books. Wait they do it with price fixing.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

KelliWolfe said:


> Free samples are everywhere. When you go to the grocery store there are reps handing out samples of foods they sell there, usually with handy recipes that make use of them. When you go to Bath & Body Works there are tester bottles *everywhere* for everything they sell. When you go to Baskin Robbins you can get samples of any of their ice cream before you decide which one you want to buy. When you go to Barnes & Noble you can sit down and read an entire book if you want. Record labels upload their music videos and entire albums to Youtube so people can listen to them.
> 
> Free samples have always been the best advertising method for attracting new customers.


Please. "Samples". No one is giving away full-size bottles of shampoo or full meals.


----------



## Contrarian (Oct 12, 2016)

brkingsolver said:


> If the bottom was 99 cents and free didn't exist, then readers would accept that and treat dollar books the way they do free now. Authors have trained readers to expect free books. Please tell me any other good on the market that you can expect to pick up for free. Retailers have sales, they give you 4 for 1 maybe, but no one advertises, "Come to our story and pick up 200 free items without buying anything."
> 
> I'm not arguing that free or permafree isn't a working strategy. I'm arguing that it's a poor strategy that in the long term will fizzle out. Amazon recognizes that free books take up space, compete with paid books, and cost it real money to store and deliver. That's why they don't allow free. The price match is simply to keep the freeloaders from shopping elsewhere.


I agree.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

brkingsolver said:


> Please. "Samples". No one is giving away full-size bottles of shampoo or full meals.


No, and no one is giving away their entire series, either. They give away the first book as a *sample*, and if the reader likes it she'll come back and buy the rest of the books, and maybe some other shiny things she sees in the author's catalog. Just like going to Baskin Robbins and tasting some different flavors to see which one you really want before you buy something.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

See: Library. 

That's how I found all the authors I read. For free. 

I've only bought books from maybe 1 in 100 of the authors I first read free, though. The ones I liked so much that I needed to read their next book. 

Most of my readers found me the same way. I don't care as long as they found me and are willing to spend money on me now.


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

brkingsolver said:


> Please. "Samples". No one is giving away full-size bottles of shampoo or full meals.


But we are not selling shampoo. We are selling digital goods. And the free strategy is EVERYWHERE online.

I can't think of a single online subscription service (Hulu, Netflix, etc.) that doesn't offer a free trial period. 
Musicians offer free songs to sell albums. TV shows offer free episodes to sell seasons. And authors offer free books to sell the rest of a series.

This is not a new strategy. I'd disagree with you that it is going to fizzle out any time soon.

Also, Amazon does allow authors to make their books free, they just have to be in Select to take advantage of that feature. And they do tout it as a bonus for being exclusive to attract authors, so they must believe in its effectiveness. I doubt Amazon would even have a searchable list of free books if they weren't completely on board with it as a money making strategy.

The other thing to remember is that Amazon doesn't make a ton of money on books in general, compared to other categories. So really, the entire bookstore is like one giant loss leader for them. It is a great way to get people to the site, and get them invested in the Amazon ecosystem. Once you start doing your reading on a kindle, you will keep coming back. And while you're there, you might buy something with a higher profit margin for them.

It's also the main reason Apple and Google haven't really stepped up to the plate when it comes to selling ebooks. There just isn't enough profit there, compared to other things.


----------



## TheLass (Mar 13, 2016)

brkingsolver said:


> I strongly disagree. If the bottom was 99 cents and free didn't exist, then readers would accept that and treat dollar books the way they do free now. Authors have trained readers to expect free books. Please tell me any other good on the market that you can expect to pick up for free. Retailers have sales, they give you 4 for 1 maybe, but no one advertises, "Come to our story and pick up 200 free items without buying anything."
> 
> I'm not arguing that free or permafree isn't a working strategy. I'm arguing that it's a poor strategy that in the long term will fizzle out. Amazon recognizes that free books take up space, compete with paid books, and cost it real money to store and deliver. That's why they don't allow free. The price match is simply to keep the freeloaders from shopping elsewhere.


Yes. Regarding samples, authors already hand these out with the Look Inside.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

TheLass said:


> Yes. Regarding samples, authors already hand these out with the Look Inside.


I don't find look insides very effective samples. Authors can polish up the first 10-20% and then the rest of the book doesn't live up to it. You can't tell with 10% if the book is any good. The only thing you can really tell is if the book is readable.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Well, I'll tell you what. You rely on your Look Inside samples, and I'll stick with my permafrees.

As a writer/publisher, I just saw firsthand the impact of getting rid of my permafrees when I pulled them down to put everything in my catalog in KU. There was an almost perfect correlation between the falling number of free downloads and sales, which culminated in a 50% drop in sales by the time my free downloads flatlined. The sales numbers are still running around 50% of where they were despite my KU page reads continuously increasing. To me, that says that readers don't want to invest in a new indie author/series _even if it only costs them 99 cents to do so._ Can't say I blame them.

As a reader, if you're an indie writer that I don't know and you don't have a free 1st in series, the odds of me picking up your books just cratered. I've been burned by so many bad books where the writer got bored halfway through and started phoning it in or couldn't pull off a satisfying ending that I'm no longer willing to invest in you unless you prove to me that you're worth it, first.

If you're willing to do that, I've got a Kindle full of books that I bought because the author was willing to do that and I grabbed every single thing in her catalog. If you're not, I can go spend a little more on tradpub books where at least I can be reasonably confident that the work is up to minimal standards and that someone _ran it through a spellchecker,_ which is apparently too much to ask of about half of the people publishing on Amazon right now. Which includes some regular posters from right here on kboards whose books I've grabbed out of their profiles.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

KelliWolfe said:


> No, and no one is giving away their entire series, either. They give away the first book as a *sample*, and if the reader likes it she'll come back and buy the rest of the books, and maybe some other shiny things she sees in the author's catalog. Just like going to Baskin Robbins and tasting some different flavors to see which one you really want before you buy something.


This is my take on it too. The strategy fits what happens in other retail environments if you understand the "product" to be _the series_. Giving away the first book is like giving away sample baggies of Cheetos, or whatever: you're banking on the fact that people will want more of that thing. This is why permafree doesn't work so well with stand-alones. In that case, you are giving away the entire product; the author has other books, but they aren't _that exact thing_. People read the freebie and, instead of feeling that addictionlike need to buy more, they feel complete and satisfied. Maybe they'll want to replicate that feeling by purchasing another book by that author, but they're not going to have that addictionlike motivation.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Free copies of the paperback version of James Patterson's Witch and Wizard were handed out in London (and, I assume, elsewhere). AKA a 307 page shampoo free sample.


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

KelliWolfe said:


> As a reader, if you're an indie writer that I don't know and you don't have a free 1st in series, the odds of me picking up your books just cratered. I've been burned by so many bad books where the writer got bored halfway through and started phoning it in or couldn't pull off a satisfying ending that I'm no longer willing to invest in you unless you prove to me that you're worth it, first.
> 
> If you're willing to do that, I've got a Kindle full of books that I bought because the author was willing to do that and I grabbed every single thing in her catalog. If you're not, I can go spend a little more on tradpub books where at least I can be reasonably confident that the work is up to minimal standards and that someone _ran it through a spellchecker,_ which is apparently too much to ask of about half of the people publishing on Amazon right now. Which includes some regular posters from right here on kboards whose books I've grabbed out of their profiles.


Me too!

Plus, I always keep a backlog of books on my Kindle, yet I read them (for the most part) in the order I got them, oldest to newest. It's another reason I don't read the sample or Look Inside. I don't want part of a story running around in my brain and then when I do get to it wondering, "Wait! Haven't I already read this?" I may briefly check a Look Inside for formatting, fixed font issues, etc.

I'm not a KU subscriber, I'm willing to pay traditional publisher prices for books (although I do watch for sales) for ongoing books in a series and I devour them one after another when I'm hooked on a new series. For Indie authors, that 10% sample isn't going to get me, but a permafree, the ability to borrow a first-in-series through KOLL, or even temporarily free in KDP Select can.


----------



## Contrarian (Oct 12, 2016)

TheLass said:


> Yes. Regarding samples, authors already hand these out with the Look Inside.


I agree. I can tell from a few pages at the beginning of a book whether or not I'm going to like the whole thing. That's how I found books at the library before ebooks came along, and I never read the reviews for the book, either--but that's another thread. Whether polished or not, the Look Inside is a good indicator of the book. I wouldn't plunk down money without reading the Look Inside, and I wouldn't take a free book, either, without doing that. People buy for all kinds of reasons, but I think not reading the Look Inside is a mistake.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Linda_B said:


> I agree. I can tell from a few pages at the beginning of a book whether or not I'm going to like the whole thing. That's how I found books at the library before ebooks came along, and I never read the reviews for the book, either--but that's another thread. Whether polished or not, the Look Inside is a good indicator of the book. I wouldn't plunk down money without reading the Look Inside, and I wouldn't take a free book, either, without doing that. People buy for all kinds of reasons, but I think not reading the Look Inside is a mistake.


And see, I pretty much never read the Look Inside. Here's why: My brain is such that, once I've read something, it sticks. It's not eidetic, to where I could recite it word for word, but the setting, feel, tone of conversation, etc. . . . that's all retained. I find it HUGELY distracting to start reading a book and have this deja vu like feeling that I've read it before. And if I've read part of the book -- as with Look Inside -- that sense of deja vu kicks in.

I don't even use samples that way. If I sample, it's by way of being a wishlist on the kindle. When I start to read the sample, I'll get to the end of the sample and do one of two things right away: (1) decide I won't read it and mark it as DNF on GR and delete the sample or (2) decide I AM going to read it and go buy it right away and continue. I will never buy and save it for later because I've already read a good chunk and if I pick it up sometime later, the familiarity will be distracting. Since Look Inside is on the computer and I read on my kindle, the chances of me continuing reading right that minute is small. So, I just don't bother with Look Inside at all.

Mind you, I don't grab freebies and 99 cent books willy nilly -- I evaluate them the same as I would a book I'm paying $4 or $10 for. I may be a little more willing to 'try something new' if it's not going to cost me money, but, really, I still don't want to waste my time. So unless it seems like something I'd enjoy, without having read the first two chapters to find out, I'm not going to get it, no matter how cheaply it's priced.


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

Linda_B said:


> I agree. I can tell from a few pages at the beginning of a book whether or not I'm going to like the whole thing. That's how I found books at the library before ebooks came along, and I never read the reviews for the book, either--but that's another thread. Whether polished or not, the Look Inside is a good indicator of the book. I wouldn't plunk down money without reading the Look Inside, and I wouldn't take a free book, either, without doing that. People buy for all kinds of reasons, but I think not reading the Look Inside is a mistake.


I wouldn't call it a mistake- to each their own. But I always read a bit of the look inside before I buy, even if the book is free. The beginning will tell me if I like the premise, the characters and the author's voice. Sometimes the first few paragraphs will pull you into the story,other times they will leave you cold.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

It always kills me to see people arguing that their unproven theory on what might happen, or what ought to be happening, or what their intuitions says must be happening (but it ain't) is more valid than a whole lot of empirical testing. 

Empirical testing shows that free samples have always worked to generate business. And, thought of as a sample of the series, a permafree book is precisely that--a sample that is (if properly written) satisfying enough to read on its own, but enticing enough to get readers to buy more.

There will always be a base of freeloaders in any business that game a system to get the most value. Super-couponers are an example, who can often save 80-90% off their grocery bills with free and heavily discounted loss-leaders. But the vast majority of people don't work that hard to abuse a system. This isn't theory. This is well-established business practice, and the fact that it's possible to get groceries nearly for free hasn't driven grocery stores out of business nor ended up with all the goods inside free. Even widespread piracy hasn't achieved that, and by that measure, everything that's pirated is "permafree." Yet somehow, I still sell a hundred thousand books a year, even though every single one of my books is pirated. That's counter-intuitive, yet it's true, proven by empirical reality.

So if there are two sides to an argument, and one side has no proof, just theory, and the other side has constant, solid, replicable proof, you'd think the deniers would give up, right? But you see, people will convince themselves of just about anything if they want it to be true, even in the face of irrefutable proof. We see this every day outside the publishing world too. Why should it be any different here?

But the nice difference is, in business, only those who embrace provable, profitable and sustainable (yes, for many years) strategies will make a living. The deniers and doomsayers will remain on the sidelines chattering and wondering why they can't get anything going.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

David VanDyke said:


> It always kills me to see people arguing that their unproven theory on what might happen, or what ought to be happening, or what their intuitions says must be happening (but it ain't) is more valid than a whole lot of empirical testing.
> 
> Empirical testing shows that free samples have always worked to generate business. And, thought of as a sample of the series, a permafree book is precisely that--a sample that is (if properly written) satisfying enough to read on its own, but enticing enough to get readers to buy more.
> 
> ...


This ought to be the final word.

But knowing KB, it won't be.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

KelliWolfe said:


> KB *really* needs a rolleyes emoji.


----------



## Trans-Human (Apr 22, 2015)

Permafrees are the cancer of the book market. And we're slowly awaiting stage 4 at this point. Might be a long one, but it's coming. With fury.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

That's what they said about novels rotting people's minds (look it up), about paperbacks undermining publishing, about digital goods destroying intellectual property, about buffet restaurants or fast food undermining real cuisine, about popular music corrupting youth (well, okay, a little truth to that one, LOL), about skirts shorter than the knee, ad nauseam. Only a few doomish predictions ever come true, and there's no way to predict which predictions are worth listening to until after the fact.

Permafree is a manifestation of market forces, and is therefore a symptom, not a cause. You can't cure the market, and you can only fight disruption for a short time, and at your peril. The storm above your head does not mean the sky is falling. You can huddle under the umbrella--or you can figure out how to monetize the rain and the lightning. Cursing those who choose to do so is worse than pointless--it wastes your energy on a losing battle.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> This ought to be the final word.
> 
> But knowing KB, it won't be.


No kidding! I nearly spit out my tea when I saw this thread was "alive" again.


----------



## MiriamRosenbaum (Nov 30, 2016)

Trans-Human said:


> Permafrees are the cancer of the book market. And we're slowly awaiting stage 4 at this point. Might be a long one, but it's coming. With fury.


Care to elaborate? What's stage 4?


----------



## Lu Kudzoza (Nov 1, 2015)

> about popular music corrupting youth (well, okay, a little truth to that one, LOL)


Now you're just exposing your advanced age.


----------



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

Anarchist said:


> This ought to be the final word.
> 
> But knowing KB, it won't be.


Oh, my, yes. Just...yes. 
I guess that's the whole way of the internet, though. Seeing the same arguments over and over.


----------



## SerenityEditing (May 3, 2016)

MiriamRosenbaum said:


> Care to elaborate? What's stage 4?


I suspect s/he meant stage 4 cancer, which is metastatic and usually terminal. With stages 0-3 you can hope for a 'cure,' but stage 4 means it has spread to other parts of the body and the lymphatic system, so it's usually not a matter of IF the cancer will kill you, but a matter of when.


----------



## RightHoJeeves (Jun 30, 2016)

It's a marketing strategy. Every marketing strategy involves a spend. Giving away books for free doesn't cost money out of hand per se, but its a loss leader.

Everyone does this. Great example: Stan, the Australian Netflix. It's $10 a month, and the first month is free. They even tell you in the ads you can watch it for a month for free and then cancel forever. Are they going to get people who do exactly that? Sure. But they're also going up against Netflix itself, so they'll take whatever in they can get. I must admit I don't know how Stan is going, but I've had it for about a year and I actually watch it way more than Netflix.

To be honest, people should count themselves lucky when marketing things nowadays. It's not easy or simple necessarily, but back in the day it was prohibitively expensive unless you were printing flyers and handing them out (even then, expensive). Now, you can target particular demographics over the entire world. You can laser in on your market. It's actually quite funny to think at how incredibly broad and unfocused old marketing is.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

David VanDyke said:


> It always kills me to see people arguing that their unproven theory on what might happen, or what ought to be happening, or what their intuitions says must be happening (but it ain't) is more valid than a whole lot of empirical testing.
> 
> Empirical testing shows that free samples have always worked to generate business. And, thought of as a sample of the series, a permafree book is precisely that--a sample that is (if properly written) satisfying enough to read on its own, but enticing enough to get readers to buy more.
> 
> ...


THIS.

No one can say what would happen if permafree and 99c went away, but we can guess.

I guess that a whole shedload of books would not be purchased or read. There is no reason for any given reader/customer to purchase your book, One-of-a-Million-Indie Writer. There are a million other books out there and there is no way for a given reader to know whether your book or One-of-a-Million-Other-Indie-Writer's book is better or worse, other than the blurb and cover and preview. Why take a risk on an unproven author when there are proven known commodities out there?

A free book or 99c book loss leader is a way for a reader / customer to know whether they like the way you tell a whole story. Not just the first 10% of a story -- the _whole_ story. How you deal with that middle, and how you conclude the story. A preview can be polished until it gleams but the rest may stink.

Free works. 99c books work. The market has spoken and until it speaks again that those tactics don't work, permafree and 99c books will continue to be used.

Heck, the eBook market flourished because of 99c books. We indies have such low overhead that we can make a million selling books for 99c or using permafree series starters.

Just because an individual author can't make it work for them doesn't nullify the rest of the market. Many many authors are flourishing because of permafree series starters and 99c books.

I know permafree made a real difference to my career and many others.

The proof of the pudding...


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

sela said:


> THIS.
> 
> No one can say what would happen if permafree and 99c went away, but we can guess.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't have a career if not for permafree. I plan on putting the first of every serial at permafree in the future. If some don't get matched by Amazon they'll at least be 99 cents there. Like you said, something not working for someone doesn't mean I shouldn't do it if it's good for me. The best part of being an indie is that no one makes that choice but me.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

It occurs to me that permafree is particularly useful for those of us who are not entirely writing to genre, publishing the kind of books that might strike the fancy of only a small percentage of readers. Pushed to its maximum capabilities, permafree allows one to get a first in series into the hands of literally millions of readers. Even if only one percent of them love it, you still have the possibility of nurturing a career. Only very wide distribution allows that sort of thing, though. Otherwise you'd never find your 1%. I think this is the way things have gone for me.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> It occurs to me that permafree is particularly useful for those of us who are not entirely writing to genre, publishing the kind of books that might strike the fancy of only a small percentage of readers. Pushed to its maximum capabilities, permafree allows one to get a first in series into the hands of literally millions of readers. Even if only one percent of them love it, you still have the possibility of nurturing a career. Only very wide distribution allows that sort of thing, though. Otherwise you'd never find your 1%. I think this is the way things have gone for me.


Actually I've probably given away v close to a million books just on Amazon, and that's exactly right--I have a bit of a niche audience for indie, and Select free days are how they've found me.

I'm a few days into a 5-day free offer with 70k books downloaded so far on Amazon. I've had I think 3 other times with 80k+ books downloaded in a 5-day period. Fwiw, what I saw during my 6-month wide experiment was that I'd have the same total number of books sold/borrowed during a promo period, but they'd be across all stores. When I did the offer just on Amazon, people picked the book up there.

It's a different game now, harder to stick, but free offers remain my own best way to grow my audience.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

RightHoJeeves said:


> It's a marketing strategy. Every marketing strategy involves a spend. Giving away books for free doesn't cost money out of hand per se, but its a loss leader.
> 
> Everyone does this. Great example: Stan, the Australian Netflix. It's $10 a month, and the first month is free. They even tell you in the ads you can watch it for a month for free and then cancel forever. Are they going to get people who do exactly that? Sure. But they're also going up against Netflix itself, so they'll take whatever in they can get. I must admit I don't know how Stan is going, but I've had it for about a year and I actually watch it way more than Netflix.
> 
> To be honest, people should count themselves lucky when marketing things nowadays. It's not easy or simple necessarily, but back in the day it was prohibitively expensive unless you were printing flyers and handing them out (even then, expensive). Now, you can target particular demographics over the entire world. You can laser in on your market. It's actually quite funny to think at how incredibly broad and unfocused old marketing is.


Netflix also offers a free month and advertises as such. So does Amazon with Prime. So does Hulu. So does HBO Now. I could go on. It's a common tactic nowadays. And it works.


----------



## RightHoJeeves (Jun 30, 2016)

Felicia Beasley said:


> Netflix also offers a free month and advertises as such. So does Amazon with Prime. So does Hulu. So does HBO Now. I could go on. It's a common tactic nowadays. And it works.


Indeed. I think the trick is to realise it *will* feel like you're just giving away stuff for free unless you've got everything set up so your audience goes on to actually buy more books. A loss leader is just a loss if its not... leading to something... or something...


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

RightHoJeeves said:


> Indeed. I think the trick is to realise it *will* feel like you're just giving away stuff for free unless you've got everything set up so your audience goes on to actually buy more books. A loss leader is just a loss if its not... leading to something... or something...


It's not even a loss, actually. You haven't "lost" anything as you have no incremental costs in giving away free ebooks. You can't count the "cost" of "lost sales," because that's a false supposition--the vast majority of those people (in my experience, 80-90%) would NOT have bought your book even at 99 cents. The only actual "loss" is the advertising cost, and that IS a real cost. You're certainly right that if you advertise to give the book away free and it doesn't lead to any sales, it's simply a loss. In that case, generic-you need to look and see what went wrong--presentation? Story? What?

I've found that free giveaways can work really well even with a standalone book, if it's in KU--I did that back in January and had enormous page reads coming off the free run, plus reads/purchases of my other books in other series. But you kinda have to try it and see. They don't work the same even for different books by the same author. Some books are just more appealing, or the cover's better, or the competition's different, or ... something.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

David VanDyke said:


> Permafree is a manifestation of market forces, and is therefore a symptom, not a cause.


"Free" is a promotional strategy, and as such, has nothing to do with supply and demand, therefore it's not subject to "market forces". So, this assertion is inaccurate. And this distinction isn't about someone being wrong on the internet, it's important in understanding the discussion - correlation is not causation.



David VanDyke said:


> It always kills me to see people arguing that their unproven theory on what might happen, or what ought to be happening, or what their intuitions says must be happening (but it ain't) is more valid than a whole lot of empirical testing.


I agree with the logic here, but the success of perma-free stratgies is also anecdotal at best, the sample set is extremely small and self-reporting. More writers fail with perma-free strategies than succeed, and we can deduce this with simple math: there's not enough room at the top for all of the authors promoting free books, so no, perma-free is not a panacea. This strategy is far more likely to generate zero interest in your brand than it is to generate meaningful income.

"Your" singular success with perma-free strategies do not demonstrate causation in the aggregate. It literally doesn't matter how many books you've sold as a result, "you" are not the supply side of the market, (that would be the tens of thousands of writers with free books).

I think the disconnect is that "Free" books are not loss-leaders, at least not in the normal business sense of the term. Loss leader promotions utilize advertising (of low priced products) to generate retail traffic, these consumers then purchase additional higher profit items while in the store - that's the psychology of the strategy, (not to return for an additional purchase at some future time). It's why we have a bait and switch law in America. However, this is Amazon's strategy, so yes, perma-free books are collectively loss leaders for Amazon, but not for individual authors.

I think this misunderstanding of the underlying psychology might explain, at least in part, why the strategy seems to generate such inconsistent results.

I truly believe Richard Plepler, the CEO of HBO, summed it up best:



> "Our model is building addicts."


I think this explains the true success for perma-free authors. It doesn't seem to be about objective quality, or clever prose, or anything necessarily literary - at the end of the day, it's about addiction. So the perma-free strategy is more in line with a drug dealer's pitch, "the first taste is free".


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

P.J. Post said:


> I agree with the logic here, but the success of perma-free stratgies is also anecdotal at best, the sample set is extremely small and self-reporting. More writers fail with perma-free strategies than succeed, and we can deduce this with simple math: there's not enough room at the top for all of the authors promoting free books, so no, perma-free is not a panacea. This strategy is far more likely to generate zero interest in your brand than it is to generate meaningful income.
> 
> "Your" singular success with perma-free strategies do not demonstrate causation in the aggregate. It literally doesn't matter how many books you've sold as a result, "you" are not the supply side of the market, (that would be the tens of thousands of writers with free books).
> 
> ...


Yeah, good point -- I think that metaphor is actually more accurate than the "loss leader" concept. And it's why offering an entire book works better than offering just the first 10% via Look Inside: the hook needs to get firmly planted.

I think there are two main reasons it works unevenly. First, some series are more addictive to more people than others. Second, some people manage to get a lot more copies of their permafree book into readers' hands. Each of those factors in turn depends on a whole bunch of subfactors. That's the rub.


----------



## RightHoJeeves (Jun 30, 2016)

Rosalind J said:


> It's not even a loss, actually. You haven't "lost" anything as you have no incremental costs in giving away free ebooks. You can't count the "cost" of "lost sales," because that's a false supposition--the vast majority of those people (in my experience, 80-90%) would NOT have bought your book even at 99 cents. The only actual "loss" is the advertising cost, and that IS a real cost. You're certainly right that if you advertise to give the book away free and it doesn't lead to any sales, it's simply a loss. In that case, generic-you need to look and see what went wrong--presentation? Story? What?
> 
> I've found that free giveaways can work really well even with a standalone book, if it's in KU--I did that back in January and had enormous page reads coming off the free run, plus reads/purchases of my other books in other series. But you kinda have to try it and see. They don't work the same even for different books by the same author. Some books are just more appealing, or the cover's better, or the competition's different, or ... something.


Agreed, but I can imagine how someone who gives away 10,000 books feels like they have actually lost 10,000 sales. I'm not saying they are right. Just acknowledging the fallacy.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

RightHoJeeves said:


> Agreed, but I can imagine how someone who gives away 10,000 books feels like they have actually lost 10,000 sales. I'm not saying they are right. Just acknowledging the fallacy.


Yep. When I had my first really big free promo dealio happen, my best friend said, "Just think if even half of those people had bought the book, even for 99 cents!" I said, "Yes, but they WOULDN'T have bought the book."

The way I've seen a first book in seris go up the lists at full price (assuming the author isn't a huge name) is either (a) by being absolutely awesome (i.e., hitting that sweet spot for lots of folks), or (b) by dint of lots and lots of advertising--which is actually much MORE expensive, generally, than advertising the free book. A huge spend for me will be $1K in a month. I know authors who spend that in a DAY during a big ad push.

I've always done free, ironically, because it's the cheapest way to get lots of books in people's hands. After that, it's on the book.


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

RightHoJeeves said:


> Agreed, but I can imagine how someone who gives away 10,000 books feels like they have actually lost 10,000 sales. I'm not saying they are right. Just acknowledging the fallacy.


One pen name I had, I gave away just a few more than that -- once Book Three was out, I spent almost $700 on all the best promo sites (except one), and the sites did their job perfectly. No complaints there. 12,940 downloads, and into the low 20s free on Amazon, without Bookbub!
It was Book One in a three book series. 
The cover was great, the blurb honed to perfection. But the book itself failed to hit the tropes of its genre correctly -- that series has now earned $220 IN TOTAL! Minus expenses, I mean. Total income was $220. Ad expenses, almost $700, plus all the expenses for covers, proofreading, and most of all, the time involved in writing them.
(Actually, a good editor would have probably saved me during Book One, if I'd used an editor on it, that is! Lesson learned.)

Just saying. Free promo does nothing if the books aren't all they should be.

I have other series that have six figure sales numbers (at $2.99 a pop), and those had six figure free download numbers too. Because those books hit the genre tropes readers wanted. I'm a nobody, pretty much. Without permafree, those books would still have sold, but not nearly so well as they did.

For the record, whenever I give books away I feel like I've bought something good -- not like I've lost sales. What I've bought by giving away that book is the opportunity to win over a reader. And sometimes I DO win the reader over, and then I win, two bucks, two bucks, two bucks, maybe several more times, when they buy my other books. And sometimes I lose...


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

P.J. Post said:


> It doesn't seem to be about objective quality, or clever prose, or anything necessarily literary - at the end of the day, it's about addiction. So the perma-free strategy is more in line with a drug dealer's pitch, "the first taste is free".


That's exactly the way it works.

But the problem is that some readers ONLY read free books. That's all they ever look for. I have seen this when I send out newsletters about a new release. Even though the new book is at 99 cents for the first few days, many of them won't buy. They want a free book. I even got a few replies saying "but that book isn't free."

I spend roughly 800-1000 dollars to produce a new book, with editing costs and cover design, plus print book formatting. But readers probably think I just stick up a book I've written myself, so no cost to me-right?

This has turned me off perma free. I have put my first in series back to paid but at 99 cents. Strangely, it has improved sales a tiny bit.

Except for a the odd free promotion when I have a free book for a limited time, I will no longer have several of my books for free.


----------



## 5ngela (Sep 7, 2015)

Susanne. said:


> That's exactly the way it works.
> 
> But the problem is that some readers ONLY read free books. That's all they ever look for. I have seen this when I send out newsletters about a new release. Even though the new book is at 99 cents for the first few days, many of them won't buy. They want a free book. I even got a few replies saying "but that book isn't free."
> 
> ...


Personally I don't believe there's people that only read free books if he/she can afford it. I mean it could be that he/she only read free book from author A and buy book from author X, Y, Z, etc. Or read free ebook but buy new or used print books. Or it could also be he/she only read free imported ebook but buy local ebook or vice versa. Just my opinion though.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

Susanne. said:


> That's exactly the way it works.
> 
> But the problem is that some readers ONLY read free books. That's all they ever look for. I have seen this when I send out newsletters about a new release. Even though the new book is at 99 cents for the first few days, many of them won't buy. They want a free book. I even got a few replies saying "but that book isn't free."
> 
> ...


Except readers who only read free books would have never picked up your first book if it wasn't free to begin with. So you're not losing anything just because they won't buy from you in the future. You are losing out on readers who will buy books later on in the series if they liked book one which they wouldn't have read if it wasn't free. You would lose those readers with a 99 cent first book.

That isn't to say permafree is the best option for every writer. I don't use permafree because I'm in select (I do use my free days though). Select is a whole nother can of worms though and I won't go off topic about that. Permafree is also not an I win button and there are good reasons not to go free permanently. However, I don't see worrying about freeloaders as an actual worry.


----------



## 71202 (Jul 17, 2013)

It is also worth remembering that many people give books away for free because they want to maximize reach and do not have the goal of earning money.


----------



## SerenityEditing (May 3, 2016)

Susanne. said:


> That's exactly the way it works.
> 
> But the problem is that some readers ONLY read free books. That's all they ever look for. I have seen this when I send out newsletters about a new release. Even though the new book is at 99 cents for the first few days, many of them won't buy. They want a free book. I even got a few replies saying "but that book isn't free."
> 
> ...


This is my mother, to a T. She's getting better about it now that I've learned, and am sharing with her, some of the ins and outs of self-publishing, but for years she would complain that the free books aren't good enough quality, or they only do one book free then want you to buy the others, or the book is free but it's part one of a series and she didn't feel like the story was finished so she feels "tricked."

It's taken a lot of banging my head against the wall with her to make her understand that authors aren't putting books out there at free just to do her a personal favor - they're doing it to attract readers who will _buy_ books, so the authors can afford to have time to _write_ the books and make a living out of it, and can afford to make the books as professional and polished as she thinks they should all be. I had to actually spell out an analogy for her, that she wouldn't expect someone to spend all day cooking delicious, elaborate meals and then just giving the food away - they might give out small samples, but that's to convince you to come to their restaurant, where you have to pay.

My venturing into editing really has been the thing that's opened her eyes about it. I guess she always thought that books come out perfectly polished, or that editing costs would be maybe $15, $20. Now that she understands more about the work that goes into it, and the expenses of covers and editing, she's more willing to pay - though it's still rare she'll pay more than $1.99 for anything. (She says she'd sooner pay for a gallon of gas and go to the library, lol.)

She's an incredibly voracious reader but has spent (*doing the math*) about 60 years relying almost 100% on the library for her books, never paying for a book for herself. (As far as I know, she has bought one physical book for herself in all her life.) Only in the last three or four years has she started to open up to the notion of buying books at all - and even that is probably because our local library system's digital offerings are very scant. Most of her friends are the same way - those who read much, that is. They go to the library, and only go to bookstores if they're looking for a gift for someone else, never for something to read themselves.

I don't know how the reader demographics break down but I'd assume they're similar, and that older people - who maybe have more time for reading and are not as glued to the TV and computer as maybe younger generations might be - tend to be more accustomed to relying on the library and getting books for actually, literally free. So I see permafree as a way to sort of hit both markets - you're offering an incentive, a perk, to people who are accustomed to buying their own books, and you're offering a familiar way of doing things to people who have relied on public libraries and are not used to paying for books. The people who are used to buying books will like your book, hopefully, and go on to buy more of your work, while the people who are *not* used to buying books get gradually and relatively painlessly introduced to the concept - freebies, 99 cents, then gradually working upward.

There will always be tightwads like my mom who would prefer not to ever have to spend a penny on books, but that's the human condition for you.

As M. R. Mortimer said, "We must show them the work involved, so that they value the product. ... we must ensure the readers understand what goes into providing these products for them to enjoy, be it free or paid."


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Felicia Beasley said:


> Except readers who only read free books would have never picked up your first book if it wasn't free to begin with. So you're not losing anything just because they won't buy from you in the future. You are losing out on readers who will buy books later on in the series if they liked book one which they wouldn't have read if it wasn't free. You would lose those readers with a 99 cent first book.


Precisely.

Trying to do business with your emotions often turns logic exactly on its head. "I'm mad because they won't pay 99c but they will get it for free." Yes, but that's for an entry point. People who read and discard books at the rate of 5-10 a day or more in order to find the gems they want, do not want to be out $10+ a day. They want to mine the free offerings for their gems--but a percentage will go on to pay for your books, retail. Caring about what non-buying individuals think is a chump's game. Good business-people only care about what the numbers say, and after that, what their repeat customers think. The numbers say there are people you will only ever get by chumming the waters with free books. No free=no fishing in that pond. And that pond completely includes with those who will pay 99c, so by going free, you get them both.

People who won't buy those apples in the grocery store because they are "too expensive" or who will drive an extra mile to save two pennies on gas, are the same people who will plunk down $5 on their Starbucks or their Ben and Jerries'. Value judgments vary wildly depending on how strongly the consumer feels about something. The trick is to provide something that you hope will generate that desire to pay whatever it takes. For example, people who wanted the next Harry Potter were plunking down $25 for the hardcover without a blink. That's your goal. Free is where it starts, for a certain significant percentage of readers that turn into fans.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

P.J. Post said:


> "Free" is a promotional strategy, and as such, has nothing to do with supply and demand, therefore it's not subject to "market forces". So, this assertion is inaccurate. And this distinction isn't about someone being wrong on the internet, it's important in understanding the discussion - correlation is not causation.


Um, free _is_ a price and price is subject to market forces.



> I agree with the logic here, but the success of perma-free stratgies is also anecdotal at best, the sample set is extremely small and self-reporting. More writers fail with perma-free strategies than succeed, and we can deduce this with simple math: there's not enough room at the top for all of the authors promoting free books, so no, perma-free is not a panacea. This strategy is far more likely to generate zero interest in your brand than it is to generate meaningful income.


The reason why many if not most authors fail with permafree is not because permafree is a failing strategy in and of itself, but because _most authors fail with_ _any_ _strategy_.

Of the 3+ million books in the Kindle store, only about 100,000 of them sell a single copy or more a day. The other 2,900,000+ books sell less than a copy a day.

There are 3000+ books published each day in the Kindle store. To sell, a book has to get noticed, and to get noticed, a book has to find its audience. Price is one tactic to get a book noticed and in front of its audience. For some authors and some books, higher prices are barriers and lower prices -- or free -- means there is little or no barrier to a customer picking up a book and then going on to buy more of the higher priced books in the series or catalogue.

Permafree works for enough authors that they use it on a regular basis. Like me and many other authors I know. It won't work for everyone. Not all authors can charge $6.99 for an eBook but many can. That doesn't mean that $6.99 is a bad price, but that for most authors, it won't move many books, if any. So, it depends on the eBook. Some can sell for more and some for less. Permafree will work for some and not for others.



> I think the disconnect is that "Free" books are not loss-leaders, at least not in the normal business sense of the term. Loss leader promotions utilize advertising (of low priced products) to generate retail traffic, these consumers then purchase additional higher profit items while in the store - that's the psychology of the strategy, (not to return for an additional purchase at some future time). It's why we have a bait and switch law in America. However, this is Amazon's strategy, so yes, perma-free books are collectively loss leaders for Amazon, but not for individual authors.


I think it's you who are misunderstanding the term. You're right about how a loss leader functions, but there is no reason a free or 99c eBook can't act as a loss leader. Authors can use a 99c or free book as a loss leader to sell the rest of the books in the series. A permafree or 99c series starter _is_ a loss leader because it attracts traffic to the author's product page and author page in the hopes that the customer will buy more higher priced products after they consume the cheap or free product.

A low priced eBook on Amazon.com is just as much of a retail product as a can of Campbell's Tomato Soup is in Walmart. A permafree or 99c eBook can function as just as much a loss leader as the Walmart brand of tomato soup sold at 1/3 of the price of Campbell's Tomato Soup. Permafree/99c is a pricing tactic that individual authors use to get the customer to buy the other more expensive books in the series. It is a loss leader by the very definition so I don't understand how you can claim it doesn't apply. It does.



> I truly believe Richard Plepler, the CEO of HBO, summed it up best:


Appeals to authority are fallacies, especially when they are not experts in the particular field. Last time I checked, HBO is a cable channel not a book publisher or book seller.



> I think this explains the true success for perma-free authors. It doesn't seem to be about objective quality, or clever prose, or anything necessarily literary - at the end of the day, it's about addiction. So the perma-free strategy is more in line with a drug dealer's pitch, "the first taste is free".


This is on its face hogwash. Sorry, it's a market and it's all about supply and demand, not quality. If anything, it's about taste preference, and "quality" is relative and tangential to taste preference. Some people prefer Cheez Whiz to a fine old cheddar imported from Holland. Cheez Whiz is produced by a huge conglomerate food company. Last week, almost 9 million Americans ate more than 1/4 pound of Cheez Whiz. That fine old cheddar imported from Holland is most likely the product of a cottage industry and sells a minuscule fraction of the amount of Cheez Whiz eaten each week.

Permafree is no different from the salesperson at Costco offering free samples of a _Brand P Pepperoni Pizza_ in the hopes that the customers will buy one of the brand's pizzas in the freezer. In other words, increasing demand for Brand P Pepperoni Pizza. The customer is more willing to buy the pizza (eBook series) if it knows it likes the taste (permafree series starter). It has nothing to do with addiction or anything so silly. It's simple supply and demand. Producers seek to increase demand for their products by price tactics. Permafree is a price tactic of indie authors. It works -- for many. Not all. No pricing strategy works for ever producer.

Any given unknown author has to find a way to standout in the crowded market. Permafree and 99c books allow them to get their books in front of new customers who may go on to buy the rest of their books.

It's market forces. Plain and simple.

It _is_ literary in the end -- not in a snobbish "lit-ra-chur" sense but in the sense that the reader has to like the story, the characters, and the way it's told, or else they won't go on to buy the rest of the series. Permafree precisely picks the winners, the series that do please, because it works to put a book or series in front of new customers, who then decide with their dollars to buy the rest of the series. In the end, it is about quality but only in the sense of fulfilling the customer's expectations, not in any sense of "literature."

Maybe if permafree doesn't work for a given author, it's because the free sample doesn't satisfy or the customers are not price sensitive and so price is not a barrier...


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Also, "permafree" is not book marketing strategy, any more than "airplane" is a war strategy. It's a tool. It matters hugely how one employs the tool.

If I had a dollar for every struggling writer who told me how one of the tools I use "doesn't work," well, I'd have a mortgage payment, I think. And they almost never want to hear that it's the wielder and their lack of coherent strategy rather than the tool that's at fault. They'll blame anything except their own lack of persistence, vision and willingness to try. The fact that even with the best strategy and implementation, things don't always work all the time, only feeds their Eeyore complex.

And this is with me offering to lay it out for them. Some people would rather fail than succeed, because by failing, they are proven right about their many assumptions about the world, all of which add up to "I'll never succeed." And we know how powerful the desire to be proven right is. It leads people to intentional failure, for to succeed would be to admit someone else was right.

In a sense I count myself fortunate that I never set foot on almost any forum for two years after starting on my self-publishing journey, because by the time I started listening to other people, I had a body of experience with which to judge people's assertions--but even then, I sometimes believed something "wouldn't work" or "was a waste of time" until I actually tried it and figured out a way to make it work for me. I was also fortunate enough to notice Russell Blake and to follow closely what he was doing--and imitate it. When in doubt, imitate success, don't try to argue with it.

Taleb rightly points out that the only people whose opinions should matter to you are those with skin in the game--those who have their own money and reputation at risk by expressing it. That's why most internet opinions are crap. They have no skin in the game. And, not meaning to be unkind to the prawny, but if you do not depend on indie publishing for a serious portion of your living, you do not have skin in the game. I will respect you as a person and your right to have an opinion, but I might not respect the actual opinion at all.

It's easy to be an armchair quarterback, hard to be a real one. Real quarterbacks know how to win, but none of them win all the time. Armchair quarterbacks always have an excuse.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

I like free first books in a series. If it's good, I'll buy more at pretty much any cost (within reason, which to me is anything $4.99 or less for an ebook of ~60k words). 

"Race to the bottom" is some shit people say when they blame others/outside forces. "Race to the bottom" is what I think of when I see the scams at KU with links to the back of the book to get page reads in a long book about nothing. "Race to the bottom" is when authors go after other authors with downvotes or bad reviews or some other nonsense.

I'm not racing to the bottom. I'm slowly climbing my way to the top.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

sela said:


> Permafree is no different from the salesperson at Costco offering free samples of a _Brand P Pepperoni Pizza_ in the hopes that the customers will buy one of the brand's pizzas in the freezer. In other words, increasing demand for Brand P Pepperoni Pizza. The customer is more willing to buy the pizza (eBook series) if it knows it likes the taste (permafree series starter). It has nothing to do with addiction or anything so silly. It's simple supply and demand. Producers seek to increase demand for their products by price tactics. Permafree is a price tactic of indie authors. It works -- for many. Not all. No pricing strategy works for ever producer.


Maybe your reading experience doesn't match mine, Sela. For me, books really are addictive. Or, so as not to make light of a serious illness, let's say _intensely compelling_. If I had a buck for every time I found myself buying and settling into the next book in a series at 2 a.m., when I'd planned to have the lights out four hours earlier, I'd be ... well, not that much richer, but it's happened a lot. And every so often, the world feels dull and gray for a few days when there is no next in series to buy. The book hangover: I know I'm not alone, since I didn't coin the term. I don't feel that way about other consumer products. Well, okay, maybe Cracklin' Oat Bran. But that's it for sure. This is not to say books are not consumer products; of course, they are, and supply and demand do function in the book market. But consumer products vary in the emotions they provoke. Choosing toilet paper is a different experience than choosing your next car or a pair of earrings or a tree for the garden. They're all different from one another, and when it comes to books, I think their ability to compel reading is one of the key factors in demand. There are other factors too, price among them.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

veinglory said:


> It is also worth remembering that many people give books away for free because they want to maximize reach and do not have the goal of earning money.


This is an important point, one that we need to be reminded of from time to time. Thanks. 
It reinforces the idea that success is relative, and there's many different paths to get there.



AngryGames said:


> I like free first books in a series. If it's good, I'll buy more at pretty much any cost (within reason, which to me is anything $4.99 or less for an ebook of ~60k words).
> 
> "Race to the bottom" is some [crap] people say when they blame others/outside forces. "Race to the bottom" is what I think of when I see the scams at KU with links to the back of the book to get page reads in a long book about nothing. "Race to the bottom" is when authors go after other authors with downvotes or bad reviews or some other nonsense.
> 
> I'm not racing to the bottom. I'm slowly climbing my way to the top.


I was just looking at your books the other day, still a fan. 

Anyway, when people talk about "the race to the bottom", I think they're referring to the early days, like 2010-2012. Market pricing and consumer expectations, for the most part, were pretty much established by 2013. Perma-free is just another tool now, like David said.
Climb on Garth. \m/


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Becca Mills said:


> If I had a buck for every time I found myself buying and settling into the next book in a series at 2 a.m., when I'd planned to have the lights out four hours earlier, I'd be ... well, not that much richer, but it's happened a lot. And every so often, the world feels dull and gray for a few days when there is no next in series to buy. The book hangover: I know I'm not alone, since I didn't coin the term.


*waves hand*. ^This is me, too!


----------



## Eugene Kirk (Oct 21, 2016)

David VanDyke said:


> Also, "permafree" is not book marketing strategy, any more than "airplane" is a war strategy. It's a tool. It matters hugely how one employs the tool.
> 
> If I had a dollar for every struggling writer who told me how one of the tools I use "doesn't work," well, I'd have a mortgage payment, I think. And they almost never want to hear that it's the wielder and their lack of coherent strategy rather than the tool that's at fault. They'll blame anything except their own lack of persistence, vision and willingness to try. The fact that even with the best strategy and implementation, things don't always work all the time, only feeds their Eeyore complex.
> 
> ...


Wow. Nuff said, I think. ^^


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

> I was just looking at your books the other day, still a fan.


Ah, another fan of books written in crayon by a semi-conscious bacterial organism. If people keep reading, I'm going to have to switch to chalk and writing with my right hand =/.

The old "race to the bottom" was just the original "KU scam" that keeps evolving. Basically, a number of persons saw money being made (hand-over-fist I guess?) and started piling words on top of words and sold it. We all remember the "hit" that indie writers took for such low-quality filler, but we did what we always do and powered through it by improving our books, covers, etc. to make sure we separated ourselves from the scams and get rich quick schemes.

I feel like the new race to the bottom is essentially the same, it just keeps morphing to meet both consumer demand (aka: getting customers to pay money) as well as circumventing the checks put in place by Amazon to keep it from happening.

I never once believed those of us who are serious would ever feel anything but mortified if we released a book that was like all of my books (the "written in crayon with my wrong hand" thing from above). Sure, some of us have probably published stories that we went back to a year or three later and "fixed" or rewrote because we were embarrassed or had just leveled up our writing skills over that time well enough to make what we knew was a pretty damn good book even better.

To this day, I'm still re-reading old books of mine and re-editing them here and there. The stories never change, but the presentation (*cough*professionalism?*cough*) does. Especially now that I've weaned myself from "began" and "that" and my love of the comma key.

Meh. I just get annoyed anytime I see the "race to the bottom" thing brought back up. It's nonsensical. Even when it's presented as "your prices are too low and it's hurting my sales." *ESPECIALLY* when it's about one author's prices hurting someone else.


----------



## A. N. Other Author (Oct 11, 2014)

I was making around $300 per month before I went permafree with my two series. The rest are priced $3.99. After some judicious marketing I'm hitting low-4-figures each month now. 

My choice is this:
- tiny amount of profit on book 1, then tiny profits on books 2,3,4,5,6 . . . 
- zero profit on book 1, then lots of profit on books 2,3,4,5,6 . . .

I'm genuinely happy for authors who don't need this tactic, but $0.99 did very little for me, so while permafree is an option it's one I can't afford not to use.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> Maybe your reading experience doesn't match mine, Sela. For me, books really are addictive. Or, so as not to make light of a serious illness, let's say _intensely compelling_. If I had a buck for every time I found myself buying and settling into the next book in a series at 2 a.m., when I'd planned to have the lights out four hours earlier, I'd be ... well, not that much richer, but it's happened a lot. And every so often, the world feels dull and gray for a few days when there is no next in series to buy. The book hangover: I know I'm not alone, since I didn't coin the term. I don't feel that way about other consumer products. Well, okay, maybe Cracklin' Oat Bran. But that's it for sure. This is not to say books are not consumer products; of course, they are, and supply and demand do function in the book market. But consumer products vary in the emotions they provoke. Choosing toilet paper is a different experience than choosing your next car or a pair of earrings or a tree for the garden. They're all different from one another, and when it comes to books, I think their ability to compel reading is one of the key factors in demand. There are other factors too, price among them.


I'm not denying that books can be addictive. I get email all the time from readers who say they stayed up half the night to finish one of my books.  Books can be addictive to some readers, no doubt.

I'm arguing that books are no different from other commodities in the way the market affects supply and demand and how prices work. I'm arguing that cheap or free books can be loss leaders in the same way that the low-priced sale items attract in shoppers to Walmart, who end up buying other stuff. That's why authors price first in series books at 99c or use permafree. Read the first and if the customer likes book 1, they will often go on to buy all the rest -- as long as they satisfy. That's why some authors use 99c or permafree series starters.

This tactic -- or tool as David calls it -- can be a game changer. It was for me.


----------



## Eugene Kirk (Oct 21, 2016)

Can one of you more experienced guys tell me how KU affects the permafree option?

I'm sold on the concept of the lost leader and will be using a novella to introduce my series. I plan on going exclusively KU for now. I've read in different places that because of KU, perma free isn't as effective now and as such going 0.99 and KU and then bumping it to free when you can is the way to go.

Does this make sense? Or would it be better to go wide on the starter novella, set it to permafree and then lead into the rest of the series which would be in KU?

My thanks in advance!


----------



## Trans-Human (Apr 22, 2015)

KelliWolfe said:


> Free samples are everywhere. When you go to the grocery store there are reps handing out samples of foods they sell there, usually with handy recipes that make use of them. When you go to Bath & Body Works there are tester bottles *everywhere* for everything they sell. When you go to Baskin Robbins you can get samples of any of their ice cream before you decide which one you want to buy. When you go to Barnes & Noble you can sit down and read an entire book if you want. Record labels upload their music videos and entire albums to Youtube so people can listen to them.
> 
> Free samples have always been the best advertising method for attracting new customers.


Yes. Samples. As others said, that's not what is discussed here at all. You can get samples from a grocery store, true (taste the jam/cheese/wine before you buy it, or tester bottles for perfumes). Nobody gives you a full jar of jam or a bottle of wine/perfume to take with you home. Would you ask for that from a seller? Give them the "loss leader" argument?

Libraries are not an argument, otherwise we'd bring up the torrenting/pirate sites as a counter-argument. So is Youtube. You're aware that musicians who upload their music on Youtube or record companies that do the same get money from likes, subscribers, views, and additional revenue if they advertise on their videos, just like any other content creator channel on Youtube. It's NOT for free.



KelliWolfe said:


> No, and no one is giving away their entire series, either. They give away the first book as a *sample*, and if the reader likes it she'll come back and buy the rest of the books, and maybe some other shiny things she sees in the author's catalog. Just like going to Baskin Robbins and tasting some different flavors to see which one you really want before you buy something.


You can't compare a series as an entire product, because people also write stand-alones. A book by itself is a whole product, whether it's part of a series/serials or not is irrelevant as an argument as when you create the book, you don't just focus on the story, but everything else that a quality book should exhibit (editing, covers, etc.). It's an investment, that you're giving away for free.



TellNotShow said:


> This is a really great point.
> 
> Regardless of any other argument for or against permafree, this would be enough to justify it.
> 
> I'd never even thought of this before, but of course, it makes perfect sense. Indeed, one might argue that permafree is saving the industry, or at least making a difference to many people's bottom line.


It's not saving the industry by any means. Torrent sites are as strong as ever, if they weaken temporarily it's because of the law chasing them down, not because they don't have people who use them as fervently as before. And authors are not making it easier on themselves with putting up permafrees, or even temp. free titles that later end up on torrent sites. As somebody else said that they can read a book for free at Barnes and Noble, why is it bad if the same title is read for free on a torrent site? What's the difference? You still get eyes on your story. I'm saying, if this is the argument, or the core of it anyway, against piracy but pro-freebies.



Steve Voelker said:


> But we are not selling shampoo. We are selling digital goods. And the free strategy is EVERYWHERE online.


Okay Steve, let's keep it digital then. Would you ask the designer of of an app to put it out permafree? Let's say the creators of Scrivener? Mind you, they charge 45$ per individual digital product. Or the license for use of the same.

For some reason some of you started talking about free samples, rather than permafrees, even though that's the title in particular. Because you have no analogy to make with permafree products elsewhere, especially digital ones. "Everywhere" seems an overblown picture to paint your argument. I beg to differ.



Steve Voelker said:


> I can't think of a single online subscription service (Hulu, Netflix, etc.) that doesn't offer a free trial period.


Free trial period =/= permafree product.



Steve Voelker said:


> Musicians offer free songs to sell albums. TV shows offer free episodes to sell seasons. And authors offer free books to sell the rest of a series.


Of the three categories of content creation listed, I don't need to actively pursue any complicated search attempts for authors. Not the same with musicians, and even less with high investment projects like TV Shows.



Steve Voelker said:


> This is not a new strategy.


Just because it's not new, it doesn't mean it affects the industry in a good way.



Felicia Beasley said:


> I don't find look insides very effective samples. Authors can polish up the first 10-20% and then the rest of the book doesn't live up to it. You can't tell with 10% if the book is any good. The only thing you can really tell is if the book is readable.


And how long can an author last with such a strategy? Do you see them shooting up the ranks any time soon? Even if they use different pen names, how long before each such title they release sinks further down before no algo can save it? I haven't run across such a book, ever, nor have people I know who actively shop Amazon for titles. So I'm guessing it's not as prevalent as many other things might be. I and the people I know may not be a perfect example of why that trend you mentioned is not more prevalent, but neither is your experience and any other with similar ones a better gauge how effective a look inside feature is.

It should be enough in general, for people to decide whether or not to buy a title. If you second guess, ask yourself the same question about a reader that stumbles upon you for the first time with the same attitude. Do you really want somebody to second-guess your 1500$ investment? Even though they have the opportunity to try the product out in some small portion? Would they do the same with books put out by trad pub channels? Even for new names. They don't stamp out freebies to drive eyes to them. The Look Inside feature is more than enough.



KelliWolfe said:


> As a writer/publisher, I just saw firsthand the impact of getting rid of my permafrees when I pulled them down to put everything in my catalog in KU. There was an almost perfect correlation between the falling number of free downloads and sales, which culminated in a 50% drop in sales by the time my free downloads flatlined. The sales numbers are still running around 50% of where they were despite my KU page reads continuously increasing. To me, that says that readers don't want to invest in a new indie author/series _even if it only costs them 99 cents to do so._ Can't say I blame them.


The readers shape their behavior based on what most authors do or don't do. Unlike you, I prefer people who do invest time and money into something new, because that's what I did anyway. If the sole difference of my product is that it's not published traditionally, and maybe the fact that I'm newer than a well-known/established author of the trad industry, then the problem is not with me, it's with the readers who filter books in that exact way. They don't want authors like me, and I don't want them as readers. I'd suggest you don't try to win them over either. Permafrees are a cheap ploy for this.



KelliWolfe said:


> As a reader, if you're an indie writer that I don't know and you don't have a free 1st in series, the odds of me picking up your books just cratered. I've been burned by so many bad books where the writer got bored halfway through and started phoning it in or couldn't pull off a satisfying ending that I'm no longer willing to invest in you unless you prove to me that you're worth it, first.


And people equally get disappointed by trad pub books for the same reasons. Nobody stopped buying them all of the sudden. They don't do free promos or permafrees to my knowledge. If they do, those who do are few. Unlike self-pub/indie authors where most practice the freebie/permafree trends.



David VanDyke said:


> It always kills me to see people arguing that their unproven theory on what might happen, or what ought to be happening, or what their intuitions says must be happening (but it ain't) is more valid than a whole lot of empirical testing.
> 
> Empirical testing shows that free samples have always worked to generate business. And, thought of as a sample of the series, a permafree book is precisely that--a sample that is (if properly written) satisfying enough to read on its own, but enticing enough to get readers to buy more.


On the subject of happening - if you're so concerned about the industry as a whole, how come a lot of you (or all to be more accurate) pro-permafree advocates have failed to mention the downward spiral of sell-throughs on 99 cents promos? Those of you who are Bookbubbers, how about mentioning the fact that now authors are warned not to do 99 cents promos since the ROI is shyte? And Bookbub is the Amazon of indie author marketing, let's not even go to the smaller brands who did 99 cents promos.

Authors who didn't calculate the effects their strategies might have started this, but the readers are slowly ending it. It's becoming a free-or-nuthin' climate out there and it's not pretty. Many platforms wont offer 99 cents discount promos anymore. It's just a matter of time before none offer it, due to the consumer behavior. And you shape that consumer behavior. Or at least continue to shape it like those before you. It started around 2006, and as more authors offered their books for free rather than discounted and continue to do so, more and more people would rather get something for free than pay for it. No matter the quality of the product. And it got worse nowadays.

Just look at the promo sites from this lens and you'll see the empirical evidence, as you seem to be so driven by it.



David VanDyke said:


> Permafree is a manifestation of market forces, and is therefore a symptom, not a cause.


Somebody started the trend. Others followed. The one who started it probably didn't have this endgame in mind, but nonetheless it happened. They did so that their product was seen by more eyes (rather than pay for solid marketing), and to make it "affordable" to consumers, more affordable than anything in the book market. The avalanche today is because of that one person's decision that influenced others to follow suit, and thus "train" readers that they can, and should, be provided free products in the form of books.

Even if it's "only" a symptom, it still means there's a disease present.



David VanDyke said:


> You can't cure the market, and you can only fight disruption for a short time, and at your peril. The storm above your head does not mean the sky is falling. You can huddle under the umbrella--or you can figure out how to monetize the rain and the lightning. Cursing those who choose to do so is worse than pointless--it wastes your energy on a losing battle.


Its not disruption if it only affects part of the industry (indie authors), and others seem unscathed by the same. And yes I'm fighting it, and I'm doing just fine. Considering my problem is not visibility or money, but lack of time. Without that problem I'd be doing even better. I find it ridiculous that a handful or two authors here try to encourage you not to give away your stuff for free, and be persistent with how you gauge the quality of the products you put out, rather than you doing that yourselves, without having anyone from aside reminding you of that.



MiriamRosenbaum said:


> Care to elaborate? What's stage 4?


Death of discount. Any kind.



RightHoJeeves said:


> It's a marketing strategy. Every marketing strategy involves a spend. Giving away books for free doesn't cost money out of hand per se, but its a loss leader.


If you spent money on a delicious cover, on the blurb, on editing (both dev. and copy), proofing, formatting - I'd say giving that book away for free is exactly like burning money at the fireplace. Not even taking into account any marketing/promos done to push the book up for eyeballs. Maybe you see the costs differently, but I don't think this strategy justifies the invested finances.


----------



## 5ngela (Sep 7, 2015)

Trans-Human said:


> If you spent money on a delicious cover, on the blurb, on editing (both dev. and copy), proofing, formatting - I'd say giving that book away for free is exactly like burning money at the fireplace. Not even taking into account any marketing/promos done to push the book up for eyeballs. Maybe you see the costs differently, but I don't think this strategy justifies the invested finances.


You make compelling arguments. I agree with most of them. But personally I don't think free download = lost sales. Who knows how many people will buy it if it's not free. Readers who can afford it will buy it. Readers who cannot afford it, will pirate it. It was not a matter of habit or moral but money. Everyone have budget and priority after all. Authors who have many loyal fans do not need to worry about readers who only chase free books. This group was not their targeted readers. It's like legacy carrier vs budget carrier, luxurious car vs ordinary car, branded jewelry vs ordinary accessories, etc. Different product with different marketing strategy and different price have different customers.

Just my opinion though


----------

