# The danger of buying your own books/Mark Dawson buys 400 copies of his own book



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

An eye opening read.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/22/author-loses-spot-in-top-10-bought-400-copies-of-his-own-book-mark-dawson-the-cleaner

_Edited to update thread title after a merge. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Moe D (Dec 6, 2017)

I'm surprised how many people on Facebook and Twitter are giving Mark Dawson a pass on this. Sure, he did nothing illegal, but the whole thing seems highly unethical.

In my opinion, he gamed the system and when you sell courses on how to be successful and then you game the system, in my eyes you lose all your credibility.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

My original subject line was going to be a lot more "harsh".

The article lets him off the hook. But, the excuse is extremely shaky. It was all about getting a ranking for a launch of a book. Think about the excuse given...it makes little sense.

What irks me is so many authors who are gaming the system and get a free pass WHEN they are taking money from their fellow authors.

Mark


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

This other Guardian article seems to go into more detail about this sort of thing:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2020/jul/20/an-author-bought-his-own-book-to-get-higher-on-bestseller-lists-is-that-fair


----------



## blubarry (Feb 27, 2015)

I've been disappointed in the indie community on this issue. Were this a trad pubbed author who did the same thing, others (including MD) would be leading the ethics complaints about it. When a high profile indie does it, suddenly the comments are "that's what the trad publishers do". Worse, other high profile indies have vigorously defended it. Granted, he has been transparent about what he did and why, but I feel very disingenuous and defensive about a very gray area that just feels unethical and gives no thought to the authors he had bumped from the list through his questionable tactics.


----------



## TSDwrites (Aug 30, 2018)

Wont be listening to his show anymore. This is just as bad as self-reviewing!


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

blubarry said:


> I've been disappointed in the indie community on this issue. Were this a trad pubbed author who did the same thing, others (including MD) would be leading the ethics complaints about it. When a high profile indie does it, suddenly the comments are "that's what the trad publishers do". Worse, other high profile indies have vigorously defended it. Granted, he has been transparent about what he did and why, but I feel very disingenuous and defensive about a very gray area that just feels unethical and gives no thought to the authors he had bumped from the list through his questionable tactics.


There is not enough "like" in the world for this.

I generally respect him and his honesty, but I think he made two mis-steps:

First, doing this in this way, because it wasn't necessary at all in order to make this list. He could have remained "clean", ordered the books wholesale and made the list anyway.

Secondly, thinking this was not going to blow up after mentioning it on the podcast. Seriously, when I heard that, I cringed so hard (several people on my walk might have given me funny looks) and was like: Mark, mate, how did you ever think *that* was going to go down well, especially after all the box set rubbish that went on a few years ago.

He is a big boy. He doesn't need defending. He made a miscalculation, I'm sure he knows it.


----------



## Trioxin 245 (Dec 29, 2017)

Some opinions on this.

When I heard this I was outraged. I tore up my manuscript and screamed "why!" I then went to twitter and found others like me. Then I  found the more I complained about life being unfair, the more likes my post received! 

Now that the sarcasm is out of the way, lets look at a few things.

He was open and forthright in what he did.

The books were pre- purchased by overseas fans. They were not bought to collect dust on  shelf.

Instead of going to corporate store he went and put money in the pocket of an independent bookstore.

What he did was not illegal. I do think it was dumb to announce it though knowing how their are millions of people ready to strike on any infraction they deem immoral according to  their own standards.


----------



## Trioxin 245 (Dec 29, 2017)

Edited-save for another thread.


----------



## Jeff Hughes (May 4, 2012)

The singular tragedy of human behavior is our propensity to rationalize any behavior.  Indie authors are no exception.

The good news is that such shenanigans give one all the information one needs regarding whether an author is worth reading or not.


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

I feel that when you are doing something and you think, "I wonder if this is shady", then yeah, yeah it's probably shady.  He might ask people overseas if they will buy his book, and they might say yes, but when it comes down to it how many actually will buy it?  Opinions change in the check out line. 
And really, this is an old sales trick.  Like, when you are buying a washing machine and the salesperson tells you "it's our most popular model".  The one that they tell you is their most popular model is the one that sells the most because it's the one they tell people is the most popular.  It's all a big circle of them selling the one that they get the best deal on.  Moving your rank, advertising your placement and trying to drum up new sales based on that is the same idea.  They are trying to influence the popularity of something, then sell it based on that popularity, then advertise it's popularity to a wider audience.

Also, is it just me or does "The Cleaner" sound like a bad Steven Seagal movie?


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

markpauloleksiw said:


> An eye opening read.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/22/author-loses-spot-in-top-10-bought-400-copies-of-his-own-book-mark-dawson-the-cleaner


From the article:

On Twitter, Dawson wrote: "If I was intent on 'gaming the system' I would have bought 10k copies, sat on them forever and been number one. (I wouldn't have discussed it on a popular podcast, either.)"


----------



## MorrowWriter (Jan 8, 2020)

Thanks for posting the link. I'm going to have to check out that episode of the podcast!


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

So buying 400 copies doesn't qualify as gaming the system?

Jeez, we need to forgive celebrity indie authors for their "little eccentricities"!

Or, possibly he couldn't afford to buy 10k copies? Perhaps the very idea appeared too scary? The difference between a bus pickpock and a bank robber!

I used to listen religiously to his podcast, but, shame, shame, for projecting the indie community in poor light.


----------



## Highbodycount (Jun 27, 2020)

I'm glad I saw this thread because I thought I was losing my marbles - the silence about it on the self-publishing subreddit has been deafening. Mark Dawson seems to be a great marketeer who's helped a lot of indie authors out, but what the evangelists don't get (and especially the ones who write thrillers, crime fiction or mysteries) is that they're competing against him, so they're competing against someone who's bought his own books. And who did he knock out of the top-ten rankings? Was it another indie author who had a superb book and deserved to be there? I came into the indie world thinking that it was a fairly level playing field


----------



## J. A. Wallace (Mar 31, 2019)

This is very disheartening for authors who play by the rules. I can't see how this helps his career long term. His reputation seems to be built on helping fellow authors. These actions hurt authors.


----------



## notjohn (Sep 9, 2016)

>Now I will forever wonder why he actually mentioned it in his podcast. Rule 1 of committing a crime...Don't go around boasting about it! 

It ranks right up there with Pedro Bravo, the University of Florida student who asked Siri where he should bury the body of his roommate, whom Mr Bravo had just murdered in a romantic squabble.


----------



## jvin248 (Jan 31, 2012)

.

Getting to the top of the list is "only" 400 copies away? ... Actually looks like 1,700 copies, organic sales plus the little game. He found actual readers who would buy the books from him, so there is a bit of grayness involved. Appears that real readers, fans of his who would buy the book anyway, are getting those books from him so it's not just a pile rotting in his garage. It's not that far removed from an author email blasting fans with a desperate plea "help me reach the lists, if you are thinking of buying the book then please get it today!" 

The author was testing the system. He had an outrageous idea and experimented. Then told about his experiment. Almost like a journalist uncovering a dirty political secret to report on. A sad comedy of a system the author exposed with that loophole. 
Traditional publishers are less likely to play that game now, at least for a while, so the lists are safer for organic sales again.

The solution is that readers need to stop chasing "number one best seller" books just because they show up on such sales charts -- because those sales charts are more Marketing devices than rankings of Quality. Which is what readers seem to largely assume the list provides.  

.


----------



## blubarry (Feb 27, 2015)

jvin248 said:


> .
> 
> Getting to the top of the list is "only" 400 copies away? ... Actually looks like 1,700 copies, organic sales plus the little game. He found actual readers who would buy the books from him, so there is a bit of grayness involved. Appears that real readers, fans of his who would buy the book anyway, are getting those books from him so it's not just a pile rotting in his garage. It's not that far removed from an author email blasting fans with a desperate plea "help me reach the lists, if you are thinking of buying the book then please get it today!"
> 
> ...


No one denies he had the readership to get on the list, but I think we have to stop making his excuses for him. He was not "testing the system". He knew the system, knew how to game it, and did so. When called on it, used the excuse that he was selling to his fans who couldn't order the book. Then when the list said only UK sales permitted, it suddenly became an innocent mistake and other such rationale. It's a gray area, absolutely, but that doesn't mean it's right. The fact that so many piped up and said the same refrain around how the trad publishers do it all the time is disheartening. How many times have indies gotten in a rage about what "everyone is doing" when it fit into a gray area? I've been indie publishing since 2012 and I've seen many instances. Let's call this one out as well, not defend it because it's MD.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Highbodycount said:


> I'm glad I saw this thread because I thought I was losing my marbles - the silence about it on the self-publishing subreddit has been deafening. Mark Dawson seems to be a great marketeer who's helped a lot of indie authors out, but what the evangelists don't get (and especially the ones who write thrillers, crime fiction or mysteries) is that they're competing against him, so they're competing against someone who's bought his own books. And who did he knock out of the top-ten rankings? Was it another indie author who had a superb book and deserved to be there? I came into the indie world thinking that it was a fairly level playing field


There's lots about it on Mark's self publishing facebook groups, all of them. If only it took just 400 sales to get on that best seller list, we'd all be doing it. What did he do? Bought in his own name for overseas readers who had pre-ordered? So what? Mountains out of molehills.


----------



## Highbodycount (Jun 27, 2020)

Doglover said:


> There's lots about it on Mark's self publishing facebook groups, all of them. If only it took just 400 sales to get on that best seller list, we'd all be doing it. What did he do? Bought in his own name for overseas readers who had pre-ordered? So what? Mountains out of molehills.


Did it say on those Facebook groups why he didn't buy author copies from the publisher, at author-copy prices? Or why the publisher itself didn't handle those sales? And what kind of reader just _has to _have hardbacks of what seems to be simply a regular thriller? By the reviews I've seen, it's not Blood Meridian.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

Take a step back.

This is someone who makes a living off his knowledge of how the maximize author earnings.

There is no credible way he could argue it was a mistake! BTW. The reason he did not buy 10,000 books and tuck them away is because it would have likely triggered red flags in the system.

As an independent, I am in awe of authors who make their way to best seller lists with integrity. Like the vast majority, I grind it out every day.  

THis guy is leaping ahead of the line of someone who is likely grinding their way like everyone else.

One of the big misconceptions is that the Big 5 publishers out there are the only  threat to honest independents. The other are the "big brand" independents who behave exactly like the Big 5 and BUY their way onto lists and game the system.

After I read the articles...I asked myself, what else did this guy do before that maybe was not caught. This type of behaviour is usually not a one-off.

Mark


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

Hat tip to Nate Hoffelder's The Digital Reader.

*Author loses spot in Top 10 after buying 400 copies of his own book
Mark Dawson's purchase pushed his thriller The Cleaner up the Sunday Times chart, but the sales monitor Nielsen has now revised its figures*

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/22/author-loses-spot-in-top-10-bought-400-copies-of-his-own-book-mark-dawson-the-cleaner


----------



## Brevoort (Jan 27, 2014)

I am going with the Nielsen BookScan official statement as

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1286256899181117443%2Fphoto%2F1 (Thursday) by Mark Dawson on his Twitter Account.

It reads in part, _"We have spoken at length to all those involved and believe it to be an innocent error._"

I really don't have the time to go into the epistemology of this issue so I will take the word of Nielsen and Dawson.

I will make one other point. During a couple of the SPF podcasts Mark Dawson and James Blatch discussed the idea of the promotion ahead of time and Dawson seemed to be at pains to say that he had made attempts to make sure that what he was going to do was proper. And, he had the backing of the bookseller in question.

So, I will walk away from the bonfire and get back to work.


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

Triceratops said:


> Hat tip to Nate Hoffelder's The Digital Reader.
> 
> *Author loses spot in Top 10 after buying 400 copies of his own book
> 
> *


*

Karma -- it doesn't pay to cheat the system.*


----------



## Eskimo (Dec 31, 2013)

I suppose another lesson here is that if you're going to cheat, don't publicize it.


----------



## Highbodycount (Jun 27, 2020)

Brevoort said:


> I am going with the Nielsen BookScan official statement as
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1286256899181117443%2Fphoto%2F1 (Thursday) by Mark Dawson on his Twitter Account.


This is just the original Nielsen official statement from days ago, saying the purchases didn't meet their inclusion criteria and that the rankings were going to be adjusted, along with a writer apologizing to Mark Dawson for saying he gamed the system. The rankings haven't been changed back.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

I've merged in a second thread on the same event. Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

I'm usually very invested in sportsmanship, but I don't really care if Mark bought his way into the list. He obviously didn't think it was wrong or shameful. He talked about it on his podcast as a strategy.

People rant about gaming the system as if the system has an inherent value. I don't agree there.

I remember a few year ago, before NYT got rid of their ebook only list, people were constantly up in arms about authors gaming the list with bundles.

If the list has arbitrary scoring and he takes advantage of an unbalanced rule... I have a hard time caring about that. But I also think lists are silly if they aren't straight measures of sales.

I don't really care that Mark is a successful, popular authors who helps other authors. I do give him the benefit of the doubt based on what I've seen from him over the years, but I would (and do) happily dismiss an author of his stature.


----------



## Eskimo (Dec 31, 2013)

I am amused ast how some people try and minimize what Mark did. In instances like this, I default to a comment made by a US Supreme Court Justice regarding pornography -- "I know it when I see it." The degree of his mistake can be debated. But did Mark proactively do something wrong? It's pretty obvious he did. That he boasted about it as well merely seals the deal.


----------



## Indy Strange (Aug 29, 2019)

Brevoort said:


> I am going with the Nielsen BookScan official statement as
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1286256899181117443%2Fphoto%2F1 (Thursday) by Mark Dawson on his Twitter Account.
> 
> ...


LOL! That's company speak for 'We're aware Mark Dawson has a large following, so we're hoping that downplaying his actions will keep y'all off our back.'

I just don't understand why he did this. Were the benefits of his little experiment really worth his reputation taking a hit? Especially since he sells online courses where reputation in this industry has more meaning. Also, he's been self-publishing long enough to see the various scandals so why would he think that this was okay to publicly announce?


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

Never underestimate an author's ego.

So here is his excuse...i bought the book because I will eventually sell them to readers, this is okay.

NO IT IS NOT. When your readers actually pay for the book and get the book is when you actually sold the book.

Mark


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

This news made me listen to the million dollar man WWE entrance theme!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XFTmPzMbvBU


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

Mark Dawson's July 11 tweet. Mark has since deleted it.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

The "If I was trying to game the system I'd have bought 10,000 copies" line is disingenuous. This wasn't a POD indie book, but a trad publisher's print run. These print runs are not large for hardbacks. I strongly doubt that there _were_ 10,000 copies to be ordered from an independent bookshop on a Wednesday or Thursday (he did this after seeing his position in the mid-week chart, remember) in order to make it into the Sunday Times bestseller list which is presumably compiled shortly after the end of trading hours on Saturday evening. I suspect the maximum amount he _could_ order was... about 400 copies. Strange, that.

Yeah, factor in irritating details like limited print runs, the bookshop's credit terms with their wholesaler, and the sheer space 400 hardback books take up, I'd say he basically bought up every copy he physically could. Maybe not 10,000, but also possibly not for want of trying.

I have dodgy extended family. When we've had to confront them with a clear wrong we know they committed, their favourite tactic isn't to try and outright deny anything - how can they, they've been caught red-handed? Instead they try and muddy the water. "If I was a thief," they'll say, "why would I only have taken the jewellery sitting in your bedroom when I could have stolen your car?"

The whole thing stinks.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

On the scale of sins in publishing, I wouldn't consider this a mortal one.  The entire list system is pretty much corrupt.  Those who maintain the lists know full well they can be gamed and allow it to happen. They only take action when they get bad press and only on a small scale of booting the offending party, very seldom actually trying to fix the issue (NYT acting to stop Indie box sets being one such case).  

All of that said, if 1000 people trespass and get away with it, that doesn't make it right for the 1001th person to do so.  Wrong is still wrong.  And I personally think the "I did nothing wrong" spin being put on this after the fact both feels a bit disingenuous and is likely doing nothing to make the situation better.

Do I think this is worthy of destroying someone's career and/or ostracizing them from the author community - not even remotely. As I said, far worse has been done in the name of gaming the system.  Do I think he's suffered a ding to his reputation for doing this? Yes, and it is probably deserved. 

That's pretty much as far as I care to take this one.  I think it's wrong, but I'm not breaking out the pitchforks and torches. 

What I am hoping, though, is that the backlash is enough to keep others from following his lead.  The last thing we need is more author-see/author-do here.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> On the scale of sins in publishing, I wouldn't consider this a mortal one. The entire list system is pretty much corrupt. Those who maintain the lists know full well they can be gamed and allow it to happen. They only take action when they get bad press and only on a small scale of booting the offending party, very seldom actually trying to fix the issue (NYT acting to stop Indie box sets being one such case).
> 
> All of that said, if 1000 people trespass and get away with it, that doesn't make it right for the 1001th person to do so. Wrong is still wrong. And I personally think the "I did nothing wrong" spin being put on this after the fact both feels a bit disingenuous and is likely doing nothing to make the situation better.
> 
> ...


I think that's fair. The sin I can live with, it's the spin that I'm finding increasingly difficult to stomach.


----------



## Highbodycount (Jun 27, 2020)

alawston said:


> I think that's fair. The sin I can live with, it's the spin that I'm finding increasingly difficult to stomach.


Definitely agree with all that.


----------



## blubarry (Feb 27, 2015)

The spin is bad, the bullying for apologies on twitter equally bad, but not the first time MD has acted like that.


----------



## Carl Johnson (Dec 11, 2014)

I see it as gaming the system, especially where he admits doing it to manipulate his book's ranking. There's a reason why ordering 1 or 1000 copies of a book on Amazon, only affects the book's ranking as if only one was purchased -they consider it gaming the ranking system too.


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

alawston said:


> I have dodgy extended family. When we've had to confront them with a clear wrong we know they committed, their favourite tactic isn't to try and outright deny anything - how can they, they've been caught red-handed? Instead they try and muddy the water. "If I was a thief," they'll say, "why would I only have taken the jewellery sitting in your bedroom when I could have stolen your car?"
> 
> The whole thing stinks.


You said it perfectly!


----------



## Jeff Hughes (May 4, 2012)

Honesty and integrity don't come in shades of gray.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

markpauloleksiw said:


> THis guy is leaping ahead of the line of someone who is likely grinding their way like everyone else.


This is a really good point. Those 400 copies could have been -- and probably were -- the difference between making the list or not for some other author who was playing it straight and busting their butt to make it on the list the honest way.


----------



## MMSN (Feb 27, 2019)

Has he apologized to the authors whose ranks he sunk?


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

As I've read elsewhere, contracts have clauses to buy author copies at wholesale. I haven't seen Mark comment on this. Pretty hard to believe his contract didn't have this option. 

Pretty hard to believe he just coincidentally was doing this super duper good thing for his overseas readers at the same time his book launched, knowing it would push him on to the list. 

If you were more cynical about it, you'd almost think the bulk-buying, the talking about it, the articles and controversy was planned in the all publicity is good publicity mode. 

It's so bad though. I don't understand why he keeps repeating "innocent mistake" like everyone is stupid.


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

I don't mind an author buying copies of his own book to get on a list. But an author doing that, then thanking _the readers_ for placing his book in the top 10?

If Mark wants to buy his way onto a list, fair by me. It's his money. But he should not have thanked the readers. If you thank the readers, you are propagating a false narrative that it was the readers and not you who made the book hit a high position on the list.

It's like lawyer-speak to imply something, but not actually saying something.


----------



## Indy Strange (Aug 29, 2019)

Uh...it looks like he deleted his Twitter account. Other than the Guardian article being retweeted and a handful of writers being snarky, the response to this has been tepid, so I don't even understand the need to do that. I swear, people would rather be dramatic than just post a sincere apology and promise not to do things like this in the future. Times like these make me grateful I got my thick internet skin from hanging around in the Supernatural fandom on Tumblr during the height of its popularity. That was a dark experience.


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

Indy Strange said:


> Uh...it looks like he deleted his Twitter account. Other than the Guardian article being retweeted and a handful of writers being snarky, the response to this has been tepid, so I don't even understand the need to do that. I swear, people would rather be dramatic than just post a sincere apology and promise not to do things like this in the future. Times like these make me grateful I got my thick internet skin from hanging around in the Supernatural fandom on Tumblr during the height of its popularity. That was a dark experience.


He might only have taken a break. You can deactivate your Twitter account for 30 days. After 30 days has elapsed the account and all data related to it is deleted. So if 30 days goes by and Mark doesn't come back, then yeah he will have deleted it permanently.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

I don't know who Mark Dawson is, aside from what little I read about him here on KB.

He isn't a competitor in my genre, so I really have little stake in this issue.

That said, this reminds me of a post a mysterious poster placed on another thread a couple weeks ago, where that poster stated that the big publishing houses have ways of gaming the bestseller lists, and various ranking systems -- and it was hinted that there is a fair amount of buying one's own books, through various means, to accomplish that task.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Mark is kicking people out of the private facebook groups you get access to with the SPF courses if you say anything bad to him about what he did. Saw it happen two days ago and after I commented my feelings about it, I got kicked too. 

So, if you're a course member and want to stay in those groups, tread carefully.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

........ said:


> Mark is kicking people out of the private facebook groups you get access to with the SPF courses if you say anything bad to him about what he did. Saw it happen two days ago and after I commented my feelings about it, I got kicked too.
> 
> So, if you're a course member and want to stay in those groups, tread carefully.


This is just a rumour-mongering badmouthing post. Not that it wouldn't happen, but it fails to understand the reason people get removed from groups. I run several FB groups, and would kick someone out for doing this, too. Probably without warning (because they can read the group's T&C and life's too short to argue).

Why?

Because it's outside the purpose of the group.

Those groups are for discussing ads, not for gossiping about stuff that goes on in the community. If you want to gossip, use your own real estate: your own groups and circle of friends.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Patty Jansen said:


> This is just a rumour-mongering badmouthing post. Not that it wouldn't happen, but it fails to understand the reason people get removed from groups. I run several FB groups, and would kick someone out for doing this, too. Probably without warning (because they can read the group's T&C and life's too short to argue).
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


It's not a rumor.

Mark put up posts discussing the two Guardian articles, and people are discussing it but if you say it was ethically wrong, out you go. Booted from the group.

These groups, by the way, are advertised as part of the SPF101 course. Not a privilege but a core part of what you are buying. So you speak up, like people have in this thread, and get thrown out of something you paid to have access to.

There's no need to defend him Patty. He opened up the posts to discuss what he did and the articles. They are extremely relevant to the group's core purpose of being a successful author - ethics being key to that.

To put it bluntly, most of the people in this thread would have been kicked out for what they said here. From a group they paid to be in.

I'm putting it up here so people who might enroll know what they're getting into. My review of the course would now be: course material is good, creator tried to buy his way onto a bestseller list and if you criticize him, you'll be thrown out of the groups he sold access to.

This isn't WHOA - it's direct experience. A course creator tossing people out of a group they paid to be in after revelations about bulk-buying on to a bestseller list is very much relevant to indie authors.


----------



## R.U. Writing (Jul 18, 2015)

When I heard about it on his podcast, I rolled my eyes and thought, "must be nice to have enough money to experiment like that."

Is it a little cringey? Yeah. Are the optics of it bad? Yeah? But what Mark did is in no way unethical. He had a hunch about the way the lists work, he experimented, he was open with it, and he proved that you can get onto the list by buying your own copies.

It's not cheating. It's getting onto a list of the books that have sold the most. And Mark's book sold enough. Plain and simple. If the lists want to be "pure" (whatever that means) then they need to disregard those kind of sales. He placed a large order with a single bookshop which is easily traceable. In designing the lists, I can't imagine that anyone with half a brain didn't see the ability to buy your own book to make the list as a potential issue with the "integrity" of the list.

So instead of being critical of Mark, be critical of the lists. If you didn't know it before, you now know the lists can't be trusted to report anything more than actual sales--regardless of where they come from.

This whole thing smacks of schadenfreude. People are delighted to see a successful writer get hurt and they are piling on.

Knock it off and get back to writing.

If you think publishing (or life for that matter) is anything close to a meritocracy, you are going to end up very bitter and disappointed.


----------



## Highbodycount (Jun 27, 2020)

Russ Munson said:


> Knock it off and get back to writing.


What's the point, when wealthy people can skew the rankings? We write because we're driven to do it, but we also have to eat.


----------



## nail file (Sep 12, 2018)

blubarry said:


> The spin is bad, *the bullying for apologies on twitter* equally bad, but not the first time MD has acted like that.


I'm surprised no one has mentioned this. And not just bullying for apologies but then trying to say what form those apologies should take.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Indy Strange said:


> Uh...it looks like he deleted his Twitter account. Other than the Guardian article being retweeted and a handful of writers being snarky, the response to this has been tepid, so I don't even understand the need to do that. I swear, people would rather be dramatic than just post a sincere apology and promise not to do things like this in the future. Times like these make me grateful I got my thick internet skin from hanging around in *the Supernatural fandom on Tumblr during the height of its popularity. *That was a dark experience.


You mean Supernatural isn't that popular anymore??  (Although it's hard to sustain popularity momentum during these times, when the final season was interrupted.)


----------



## R.U. Writing (Jul 18, 2015)

Highbodycount said:


> What's the point, when wealthy people can skew the rankings? We write because we're driven to do it, but we also have to eat.


If the only reason you are writing is for money, then you need to make peace with the fact that most things in life are out of your control. And most of the things that "seem" to be in your control, aren't in your control either.

It has always been this way and it always will be.

Since you believe that you are "driven to it," then you must agree that you didn't choose to be a writer. That is probably true. The same for me.

In the same vein, wealthy people didn't choose to be wealthy. They were born under the right circumstances at the right time with the right genes and along the way, they received the right lucky breaks.

That's life.

Knowing this, and under the illusion that we have any control over our lives, we do our best to treat each other the best we can. Mark Dawson didn't set out to harm anybody. He was open about what he was doing and he took a shot. Would I have done the same thing? Not sure. It would depend on that day's mindset under similar circumstances.

Who exactly has Dawson's actions hurt? Other people who are trying to make the list by other means? People who have been lucky enough that their manuscript landed on the right desk at the right time and got a traditional contract and now have big publishers pulling the monetary strings? Or other indie writers who were already selling a crapton of books and already making a lot of money since they happened to write something that lots of people wanted to read?

One might say, "no, there are 'pure' indies who aren't making much money but are spending all their money on advertising to make the list." But how is buying all that advertising any different, in essence, than what Mark Dawson did? It's using money to buy visibility. Obviously, those who can afford to spend enough money on advertising to make the list are the same "wealthy people" you seem so concerned about "skewing" the rankings.

Yes, every now and then, a book takes off on its own. But again, the writer has no control over this.

So what does that leave us with? Write, if that's what you love do to. Play the business game if you want to try to compete with wealthy people--but know what you're getting yourself into. Mark Dawson has provided that business knowledge in more ways than one.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Russ Munson said:


> But how is buying all that advertising any different, in essence, than what Mark Dawson did? I


I've seen a lot of people saying or asking similar things the last few days, i.e. "how is this any different than any other marketing."

The answer is direct vs. indirect.

Most marketing is indirect (in fact an argument can pretty easily be made that all LEGIT marketing is indirect): i.e. we put out graphics, send newsletters, buy slots on AMS, etc, to try and convince others to buy our product.

What happened here is direct, in that he directly affected his own ranks by purchasing those books. This is the sort of thing that Amazon could, in theory, give someone the boot for, basically directly manipulating their rank.

Obviously we're not talking about Amazon here. We're talking about the Lists, and the lists are well known to pretty much not give a fig about this unless they get bad press (which happened here).

Mark didn't technically break the letter of the law, but there's also the spirit of the law - which is the impartiality these Lists don't have, but very much prefer they're perceived as.

Which brings me back to what I said in my comment yesterday about getting a slap on the wrist, since we're not exactly talking high treason here.

What we SHOULD be doing now, is turning our attention to those lists and giving them that negative publicity they don't want so that maybe, just maybe, they take efforts to clean up some of the behind the scenes shenanigans.


----------



## Highbodycount (Jun 27, 2020)

Russ Munson said:


> If the only reason you are writing is for money


I literally said we're driven to write; I am anyway. And I'd love to eventually be able to make a living this way, I'd say most writers would. I'm afraid I don't agree with your metaphysical views on life being outside our control and wealthy people not choosing to be wealthy, but that doesn't matter here.

Mark Dawson damaged all of us, and I'm really shocked that other writers _choose_ not to see that. But I'll be very specific about my own position: I write thrillers, and I'm just starting out with the marketing, so I'm nowhere near the financial league Dawson was even before this incident. But I spent years working on a thriller and now four months doing nothing else except learning about self-publishing, screwing up Amazon ads, destroying my Goodreads profile with bad covers, and watching Facebook ads die within minutes. But it's worth it. I wouldn't have a chance on the Sunday Times Bestseller list today, but maybe I would in the future. And maybe you would. And beyond that, ALL of us are competing against someone who bought copies of their own books, and who would definitely have placed the words 'Sunday Times Bestseller' on the cover of their book, and that's what potential buyers would have seen when it showed up in the Amazon search.

That's not fair. I can't afford to buy hundreds of copies of my own books, and tbh, I wouldn't do it because it'd make me feel really sh*tty. I think the most disheartening thing about all this is that his fans can't see that he did anything wrong - or made a mistake, whatever - or that they won't admit it.


----------



## Highbodycount (Jun 27, 2020)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> getting a slap on the wrist, since we're not exactly talking high treason here.


I do think this is sensible.


----------



## Eskimo (Dec 31, 2013)

Highbodycount said:


> *Mark Dawson damaged all of us*


I agree that Mark made a mistake, then compounded that mistake. But to say he damaged us all is nonsense. In whose eyes are we damaged? Certainly not in the eyes of most readers. I'd venture a guess that 99% have not heard about this episode, and most of those who have could care less.


----------



## Highbodycount (Jun 27, 2020)

Eskimo said:


> I agree that Mark made a mistake, then compounded that mistake. But to say he damaged us all is nonsense. In whose eyes are we damaged? Certainly not in the eyes of most readers. I'd venture a guess that 99% have not heard about this episode, and most of those who have could care less.


I just said how in the post. I suppose at the end of the day, the damage was prevented because Nielsen stepped in.


----------



## Rachel Anne (Apr 18, 2015)

Highbodycount said:


> Mark Dawson damaged all of us, and I'm really shocked that other writers _choose_ not to see that.


I'm surprised by this comment. Do you really think Mark Dawson was the first to do something like this?
Most of the bestseller lists are filled with completely shady tactics. Box sets and tactics used to get on those lists are at the height of it. It's easy to do some digging on most of those books to see just how they got their 'titles.'

It's heartbreaking, absolutely. It had been a dream of mine to be on those lists once upon a time, and honestly, it still would be. Do I think Dawson did some shady things for it? Yep. But I can also appreciate how open he was about it. But those lists were damaged long before this, so I fail to see how it could possibly 'damage all of us.'


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

It's not about the lists were damaged long before that or not.

It's not about the subject of the discussion being "open" about it. 

The fact of the matter is he did shady things.

Nobody is above the law or bigger than the community for that matter, that too after winning the trust of thousands of them and appearing respectable before them all along.

Announcing in the podcast in the first place is how a wolf in sheep's skin hopes to get forgiven for it's "silly eccentricities". Nice subtle weasel tactic, by the way.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

Here is the problem as I see it.

This just signals to other authors who are ambitious that this is the game you have to play. We are talking about a guy who  teaches authors how to get ahead. 

There really was no punishment. Other than some shame on message boards. Readers will mostly be oblivious. Plus he got a boatload of free publicity. Got his book mentionned in the Guardian. 

We are not talking about someone clueless and a baby in this industry.  

I just think the ethical bar just got set even lower. That is a shame. 

Mark


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Russ Munson said:


> When I heard about it on his podcast, I rolled my eyes and thought, "must be nice to have enough money to experiment like that."
> 
> Is it a little cringey? Yeah. Are the optics of it bad? Yeah? But what Mark did is in no way unethical. He had a hunch about the way the lists work, he experimented, he was open with it, and he proved that you can get onto the list by buying your own copies.
> 
> ...


It is cheating. And it's unethical. Because it's not getting onto a list by selling the most (implication there is selling the most to _other people_ -- it's getting onto a list by buying your way onto it.

Buying your own copies isn't a metric of anything beyond how much money you have in your bank account. The whole point of the bestseller list is to allow people to see what are books are popular, with the assumption that if a book is popular and people like it, there's a reasonable assumption that other people will, too. Buying one's own books doesn't do that. And being open about cheating just says that you think you're above the rules.

There was probably some other author who was about to be #10 on that list, who got bumped off just because Mark wanted to buy his way onto it. That's some BS, that is.

And maybe it is schadenfreude, but it's not about seeing a successful author get hurt. It's about seeing a cheating author who thinks he's above the rules be shown that he's not.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Russ Munson said:


> Is it a little cringey? Yeah. Are the optics of it bad? Yeah? But what Mark did is in no way unethical. He had a hunch about the way the lists work, he experimented, he was open with it, and he proved that you can get onto the list by buying your own copies.
> 
> It's not cheating. It's getting onto a list of the books that have sold the most. And Mark's book sold enough. Plain and simple. If the lists want to be "pure" (whatever that means) then they need to disregard those kind of sales. He placed a large order with a single bookshop which is easily traceable. In designing the lists, I can't imagine that anyone with half a brain didn't see the ability to buy your own book to make the list as a potential issue with the "integrity" of the list.
> *
> So instead of being critical of Mark, be critical of the lists. If you didn't know it before, you now know the lists can't be trusted to report anything more than actual sales--regardless of where they come from.*


I agree. People are upset because this shows how BS lists are. They should be upset about the lists, not about Mark.

I can't agree with any stance that starts from a premise of the lists are fair and pure and it's only Mark who is unfair and impure.

The lists are unbalanced. He took advantage of an unbalanced rule. That's not sportsmanlike, but it's not cheating either.

(And Mark only spent about 5k (USD). It's not a small amount of money, but it's not the epic wealth people are suggesting. Even if it was, it came from his author earnings. Mark is upfront about his income and ad spend. Five grand isn't a huge amount for him. And it's not a huge amount in terms of advertising either. Plenty of people spend 5k they don't get back on advertising just to hit lists).


----------



## MMSN (Feb 27, 2019)

Russ Munson said:


> Who exactly has Dawson's actions hurt?


1. The authors on the top ten list that got there by making legitimate sales who each had their ranks lowered by Mark's buying/pushing his way in.
2. The author who was #10 on the list who got booted off the list by Mark's buying/pushing his way in.
3. The owner of the list, who is trying to create/maintain a believable bestseller list so readers will buy his/her media but lost credibility by Mark's buying/pushing his way in. (File this under "Why we can't have nice things.")
4. Readers who shelled out their money believing they were getting a top ten bestseller but who were tricked by Mark's buying/pushing his way in.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Funny how all these "blame the lists not the tactics used" arguments were never trotted out on behalf of RH's list-aiming shenanigans.

I personally hate the "everyone cheats so it's okay" line of reasoning because I think it cumulatively leads to worse and worse behavior as people keep moving their ethical lines based on what they assume everyone else does when the percent of those who are actually cheating in most societies is much lower than perceived.

And in this particular situation I wonder how an acknowledge ad guru was incapable of spending $4,000 on advertising to generate 400 sales of his own books in the relevant market and in one of the largest genres and instead had to resort to buying those books at retail instead.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

CassieL said:


> Funny how all these "blame the lists not the tactics used" arguments were never trotted out on behalf of RH's list-aiming shenanigans.
> 
> I personally hate the "everyone cheats so it's okay" line of reasoning because I think it cumulatively leads to worse and worse behavior as people keep moving their ethical lines based on what they assume everyone else does when the percent of those who are actually cheating in most societies is much lower than perceived.
> 
> And in this particular situation I wonder how an acknowledge ad guru was incapable of spending $4,000 on advertising to generate 400 sales of his own books in the relevant market and in one of the largest genres and instead had to resort to buying those books at retail instead.


They were. People debated the merits of lists all the time. I remember many, many arguments about the legitimacy of box sets hitting lists. Including plenty that defended or didn't defend RH. I wouldn't defend her, as she's a bully, but I'd also never rec David G's books, no matter how useful they might be, for the same reason.


----------



## Indy Strange (Aug 29, 2019)

Crystal_ said:


> I agree. People are upset because this shows how BS lists are. They should be upset about the lists, not about Mark.
> 
> I can't agree with any stance that starts from a premise of the lists are fair and pure and it's only Mark who is unfair and impure.
> 
> ...


I think most of us know that the lists are kinda bogus, but that's because of people like Mark Dawson. Call me old-fashioned but just because a bunch of people or publishers cheat, it still doesn't make it okay. He has the money to create countless opportunities for himself, so doing things like this that could affect other authors who may not have those same opportunities, is not cool. And if it was so above board, Dawson wouldn't have been hounding people on Twitter for apologies, temporarily/permanently deleting his Twitter account in a huff, or from what I've seen from multiple sources, booting people from Facebook groups who dare to say his actions were unethical. He's acting just like other authors called out for behaving badly because people are letting him get away with it. The fans caping for him aren't doing him any favors either. By excusing his behavior while he's already reached the point of arrogantly announcing he's going to cheat, he has less incentive to make sure he doesn't mess up like this again in the future.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

CassieL said:


> *Funny how all these "blame the lists not the tactics used" arguments were never trotted out on behalf of RH's list-aiming shenanigans.*
> 
> I personally hate the "everyone cheats so it's okay" line of reasoning because I think it cumulatively leads to worse and worse behavior as people keep moving their ethical lines based on what they assume everyone else does when the percent of those who are actually cheating in most societies is much lower than perceived.
> 
> *And in this particular situation I wonder how an acknowledge ad guru was incapable of spending $4,000 on advertising to generate 400 sales of his own books in the relevant market and in one of the largest genres and instead had to resort to buying those books at retail instead.*


*Blue* highlights: yes, this does seem to have some odor of double-standard; we've had this conversation before for different authors. And with considerably less 'benefit of doubt.'

*Red* highlights: good point... would be money better spent to achieve the same result. (And allow the writer to sleep better, too.)


----------



## R.U. Writing (Jul 18, 2015)

Good grief, people. Put the pitchforks away.

Publishing is not a meritocracy. Nor is life.

I wish it were. But it's not. People with greater resources have more influence. People with bigger brains, the same. Nothing will change this.

Just because you believe the opposite, doesn't make it true.

Thankfully, in an unfair world, some human institutions and some individuals try to make things as fair as possible. This is a good thing.

However, these lists are not one of them. There are no rules stating that you cannot buy your own books. The lists are simply a list of the bestselling books in a certain time frame as reported by certain institutions (ignoring others, of course). That's it. Plain and simple.

The lists are welcome to define themselves in a way that might address the "integrity" that people (namely indies) are desperately craving. They could say "These are the bestselling books as purchased by individual consumers," or whatever.

But they don't. And they won't. Why? Because that would defeat the purpose of the list in the first place. Which is to give advantage to those who already have the advantage: i.e. the major publishers.

This is NOT a defense of "everyone cheats so let's just all cheat." Not even close. Dawson didn't break any rules. The only "rule" that was broken is the erroneous one in your head that believes that the lists are pure.

To even suggest that Dawson is in the same category as RH is utterly absurd--and frankly alarming. If you can't see the difference between the two situations and can't see that life is full of shades of gray, then we can't even begin to have a civil argument.

RH clearly broke Amazon's TOS and sold a rule-breaking product to authors who didn't know she was breaking the TOS. That is unethical. Full stop.

Dawson did not break any rules other than the one that you wish was there, but isn't.

I find it funny (and sad) that the same people who are arguing for ethics are trying to publicly tar and feather a man who objectively didn't do anything wrong.

Should Dawson have done what he did? Probably not. As I said before, the optics are bad. What he did may _feel_ wrong, but it doesn't make it wrong. Beyond that, leave the poor man alone. This holier-than-thou garbage has to stop.


----------



## Rachel Anne (Apr 18, 2015)

CassieL said:


> I personally hate the "everyone cheats so it's okay" line of reasoning because I think it cumulatively leads to worse and worse behavior as people keep moving their ethical lines based on what they assume everyone else does when the percent of those who are actually cheating in most societies is much lower than perceived.


Just to state (and I don't know if this was also directed at my comment) but I in no way condone what he did nor feel it was appropriate. I've never agreed with the 'everyone cheats so it's okay' reasoning. It's not okay.

I just don't think the situation needs to be exaggerated by bemoaning that all of us have been ruined because of this.


----------



## nail file (Sep 12, 2018)

Yeah, I'm not on the whole vilifying MD issue. So he did something shady. It happens. His reasoning was weak and his hand was smacked. He took a chance and it didn't play out like he had hoped.

I'm still surprised that anyone would defend him considering he was supposed to be this marketing/ad genius and created this gold standard course. So can we expect another module out now under that brand on how to buy our way onto curated lists?

His reasoning and excuses aren't holding water. If he wanted that many books to sell to readers for reasons, then why not buy them at cost (as he was supposedly able to do) and make a profit on that end? Oh, because it wasn't about the money and about getting a bump onto the list? Okay, then. Shady but whatever.



CassieL said:


> And in this particular situation I wonder how an acknowledge ad guru was incapable of spending $4,000 on advertising to generate 400 sales of his own books in the relevant market and in one of the largest genres and instead had to resort to buying those books at retail instead.


Exactly.

To many minds it casts a shadow on his courses efficiency if he can't trust his own advice that he's been making money on for years.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."


----------



## Indy Strange (Aug 29, 2019)

Russ Munson said:


> Good grief, people. Put the pitchforks away.
> 
> Publishing is not a meritocracy. Nor is life.
> 
> ...


Why do you keep being dramatic about pitchforks and saying we're trying to tar and feather him? He may be the sun and moon to you, but it's perfectly okay to say that what he did was wrong. That's what's annoying me the most about this. If it was anyone else, some of y'all wouldn't be making so many excuses for him.


----------



## R.U. Writing (Jul 18, 2015)

Indy Strange said:


> Why do you keep being dramatic about pitchforks and saying we're trying to tar and feather him? He may be the sun and moon to you, but it's perfectly okay to say that what he did was wrong. That's what's annoying me the most about this. If it was anyone else, some of y'all wouldn't be making so many excuses for him.


He's not the sun and moon to me. I don't know the man at all. I'm simply someone who is aware of the situation and I don't like seeing a mob overreact. (And when I say "mob" and "pitchforks" I don't just mean here on Kboards--I mean the whole reaction to the situation since this is a public forum). Thanks to social media, this kind of mentality and attack happens WAY too often in our culture and I've decided to say something about it.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Russ Munson said:


> He's not the sun and moon to me. I don't know the man at all. I'm simply someone who is aware of the situation and I don't like seeing a mob overreact. (And when I say "mob" and "pitchforks" I don't just mean here on Kboards--I mean the whole reaction to the situation since this is a public forum). Thanks to social media, this kind of mentality and attack happens WAY too often in our culture and I've decided to say something about it.


What many people here are saying is that MD shouldn't get a pass on this simply because he's a successful, well-known author. As has been mentioned, other instances of "buying into the list" have created a storm of criticism for those involved... and rightly so, since the deliberate, purposeful act of "gaming the system" is something we should all discourage. So there should be no double standard, and MD's action should be criticized and disavowed the same way it is for others. Again, rightly so in those cases as well.

I don't know what's happening about this in social media. I only know the conversation here on KBoards. I don't think reaction that is being expressed elsewhere is relevant to the comments expressed here.


----------



## R.U. Writing (Jul 18, 2015)

Just to be clear, I'm not giving him a pass. I'm not saying that what he did is right. I'm simply saying it isn't wrong. A poor choice, sure, but not wrong, and I don't want to see someone's reputation and career ruined due to an overreaction.


----------



## Eskimo (Dec 31, 2013)

Got an email from MD today, and as hard as it is to believe, he is now making matters worse. He is informing his fan base as to what happened, and putting his own spin on things, not bothering to mention he admitted to jonesing sales to push himself higher on the bestseller list.

As they say, it's often the coverup, not the actual crime, that does the most damage. Strange....

_Edited to remove quote, pending verification that it came from a public site. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## mike h (Dec 6, 2017)

After reading the back and forth of the Mark Dawson controversy, what surprised me was the lack of interest in the mechanics of how one actually achieves gaming the system like he did. Did he buy hardbacks? Softback? E-books? (400 e-books would be an interesting accomplishment). Where did he advertise the books for sale? How did he advertise them for sale? Who were the people who bought them? How much was actually at risk from a monetary stand point if he couldn't dump the books? 
Or....Is he like AG Riddle who has pallet loads of books he ships off to Amazon to sell for him... or are all his paper books POD? If he takes the AG Riddle approach, does he log in the books as sold, pay royalties to whatever distributor he uses (without actually shipping the books) and then ultimately sell the books through that distributor or other distributors?
Just curious about these types of things.


----------



## Kathy Dee (Aug 27, 2016)

I seem to remember reading that he ordered and bought them from a physical store, so it's likely they were paperbacks.


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

From Mark Dawson's newsletter, emailed July 25:

_Edited to remove quote. In general, material that is not, or was not at one time, publicly available cannot be quoted here. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_

Then it goes on to the regular newsletter stuff.

Does anyone have the full transcript of what Dawson originally said on his podcast? The Guardian says

_On the latest episode of his Self Publishing Show podcast, Dawson explained why he did it. When Nielsen released its midweek chart, Dawson had realised that The Cleaner was sitting at No 13, having sold around 1,300 copies that week - just outside the coveted top 10. He hit on the idea of buying the book himself in the UK, to sell to readers overseas. "We'd like to get to the top 10 ... we've been trying to think of ways we can do that that would count those sales as sales for the chart," he said.

After sending an email to gauge interest, around 400 people in the US said they would buy the book if he bought the copies himself first. So Dawson went to a children's bookshop in Salisbury. "I said, 'would you be interested if I placed an order for 400 hardbacks of my own book?'," said Dawson on the podcast. "They were like, 'Yes, of course.'"_
https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2020/jul/20/an-author-bought-his-own-book-to-get-higher-on-bestseller-lists-is-that-fair

Which doesn't really seem to jibe with what Mark is saying in his newsletter today.

Nielsen runs the chart that appears in the Sunday Times. The statement from Nielsen was

_Nielsen told the Bookseller that after initially believing that the sales had been part of a virtual book signing, it had concluded that they "did not meet its criteria". It will now recalculate the charts for the week ending 4 July, and the Sunday Times will also issue a correction.

"With current circumstances calling for alternative ways to achieve sales we are having to monitor and judge many cases on an individual basis and we apologise that on this occasion we misunderstood the intentions of this sales transaction," Nielsen said._
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/22/author-loses-spot-in-top-10-bought-400-copies-of-his-own-book-mark-dawson-the-cleaner

It sounds from that like Nielsen is apologizing to the public for Nielsen's not having corrected the list sooner? Nielsen first thought the copies were for a digital book signing, whatever that is; but then they changed their minds and issued the list correction. Right?

Mark on his Twitter a couple days ago had been claiming that Nielsen apologized to him, not to the public. But, Mark's now deactivated his Twitter.

So, it doesn't sound like Nielsen at all apologized to Mark Dawson. And it doesn't sound, according to Mark himself on his podcast, like he originally had simply wanted to buy a few copies to sign and sell to overseas readers. He wanted all along to bump the book up in the list. That's why he bought the copies.

Nothing's lining up.

edit: formatting.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

Ego makes us do crazy things like selling our soul to be on a historically presitigious list.

Why not just come out and say "All my life I wanted to be a top ten author and I lost my head." or something similar.

If he really wanted the books for overseas readers...why the rush to buy on a certain date WHEN coincidentally it would affect the rankings. So his story crumbles and the more he  and his "allies" argue that it was okay...or whatever...the more they make it worse...

Mark


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> Funny how all these "blame the lists not the tactics used" arguments were never trotted out on behalf of RH's list-aiming shenanigans.


After you've been around for a while, you won't be surprised. The usual folks come along and chide us for saying anything bad about people like Dawson, who are looked up to and respected. And other people do bad things too (it was a common excuse for padding books, as to compete it simply had to be done), and it was a mistake, and it didn't hurt anybody (ask that person who theoretically should have been #10 how they feel about it). and it won't make the rest of us look bad (keep an eye on what readers start saying once they get wind of it).

The thing is, it wasn't a mistake. It was deliberate and calculated to manipulate ranking. Sure, he asked about people buying the book from him, but he bought the books to move up in rank. He went to a store and bought _retail_, because it's not just the amount of books, but the speed at which they sell. Another author might have sold 400 copies in a week, he did it in one day. We know this is how it works after watching certain people making/encouraging massive buys in a short period to hit a list.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

Kathy Dee said:


> I seem to remember reading that he ordered and bought them from a physical store, so it's likely they were paperbacks.


They were hardbacks.

This isn't a particularly important point in the grand scheme of things, but it's a certain fact, so let's cling on to it.


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

Maybe the reason why Mark disclosed his bulk purchase of his own book was because: Nielsen was already on to him?

Nielsen, the ones who curate the Sunday Times list, must have data that indicates book sales at particular venues. If they saw Dawson's book jump from #13 to #8, and then they saw that that had been the result of 400 copies being purchased at one single bookseller--a children's book shop no less--Nielsen would certainly have said, "Hang on."

Nielsen calls the children's book shop in Salisbury, book shop says "Oh yes, our own local Mark Dawson himself bought those!", then Nielsen calls Mark.

After the phone call Mark thinks, "Right, I'd better get out in front of this. I'd better control the messaging." So, he casually (he believes) lets drop in his next podcast that he purchased 400 hardbacks of his own book. Except he also admits the truth, that he had wanted to bump the book to the top 10.

And then things go off the rails.


----------



## MMSN (Feb 27, 2019)

alawston said:


> They were hardbacks.
> 
> This isn't a particularly important point in the grand scheme of things, but it's a certain fact, so let's cling on to it.


And he was resurrecting a book that was seven years old (published in 2013).


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

Triceratops said:


> Maybe the reason why Mark disclosed his bulk purchase of his own book was because: Nielsen was already on to him?
> 
> Nielsen, the ones who curate the Sunday Times list, must have data that indicates book sales at particular venues. If they saw Dawson's book jump from #13 to #8, and then they saw that that had been the result of 400 copies being purchased at one single bookseller--a children's book shop no less--Nielsen would certainly have said, "Hang on."
> 
> ...


"Truly, yours is a dizzying intellect." Sorry to drop a Princess Bride quote on you, as I genuinely like the way you're thinking, but this requires Monsieur Dawson to be both a Machiavellian genius obsessed with controlling his messaging... and also an absolute clown shoe when it comes to delivering a podcast over which, let's be clear, he has absolute editorial control. Reading the original Guardian piece, it seems as though the journalist was tipped off by the podcast, and that Nielsen scrutinised their data in response to the growing furore. If MD hadn't bragged about it all in the podcast, it's very unlikely this story would ever have broken. _That's_ why the Schadenfreude is so strong for me.


----------



## Eskimo (Dec 31, 2013)

unkownwriter said:


> *After you've been around for a while, you won't be surprised. *The usual folks come along and chide us for saying anything bad about people like Dawson, who are looked up to and respected. And other people do bad things too (it was a common excuse for padding books, as to compete it simply had to be done), and it was a mistake, and it didn't hurt anybody (ask that person who theoretically should have been #10 how they feel about it). and it won't make the rest of us look bad (keep an eye on what readers start saying once they get wind of it).
> 
> The thing is, it wasn't a mistake. It was deliberate and calculated to manipulate ranking. Sure, he asked about people buying the book from him, but he bought the books to move up in rank. He went to a store and bought _retail_, because it's not just the amount of books, but the speed at which they sell. Another author might have sold 400 copies in a week, he did it in one day. We know this is how it works after watching certain people making/encouraging massive buys in a short period to hit a list.


I agree. And I've seen a number of authors do some marginal things. I recall a few years ago when an author got a few bad initial reviews when their latest book was released, and they sent around an email to their readers, pleading with them to go and write some good reviews to offset the bad ones. Not exactly a big crime, but hardly ethical. We can debate forever just how large or small MD's transgression was, it certainly doesn't come close to the stuff RH pulled, but it's not nothing either.


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

alawston said:


> "Truly, yours is a dizzying intellect." Sorry to drop a Princess Bride quote on you, as I genuinely like the way you're thinking, but this requires Monsieur Dawson to be both a Machiavellian genius obsessed with controlling his messaging... and also an absolute clown shoe when it comes to delivering a podcast over which, let's be clear, he has absolute editorial control. Reading the original Guardian piece, it seems as though the journalist was tipped off by the podcast, and that Nielsen scrutinised their data in response to the growing furore. If MD hadn't bragged about it all in the podcast, it's very unlikely this story would ever have broken. _That's_ why the Schadenfreude is so strong for me.


Merci, monsieur! I'm not saying it did happen that way, only that it might have. True, Dawson would have been monumentally club-footed if he goofed up as much to confess his true motives when trying to paper things over. But, just maybe he was rattled/tired/nervous, and didn't really think his story through before he started talking. At any rate the Nielsen-was-on-to-him hypothesis is the only rational explanation why Dawson in the first place would have blabbed about buying 400 of his own hardcovers. If that's not true and he really did just feel like volunteer-bragging on the fly during his podcast, that makes him even dumber, and to date Dawson has been anything but dumb. It's possible also that Nielsen both got wise to him with their own data, and then after Mark's podcast, got a lot of calls/emails about the matter too. At any rate if I'm Hercule Poirot, I'd like a first-class sleeper on the Orient Express!


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Asking readers for reviews is unethical now? Really?

People are defending Mark because he's built goodwill over the years. Other people, myself included, are explaining that he did not cheat.

This is a game thing. The game had rules. He technically followed those rules. The rules are not fair or good but they are the rules. He was unsportsmanlike, but he did not cheat.

As a person who plays games, I will not stand by while people misuse these terms.

You can dislike the rules--I do--but that doesn't change them.

This is an argument people have had again and again, usually with the same people on the side of clarity and the same people on the side of I don't like it so it's cheating. (Remember bonus books?)


----------



## Indy Strange (Aug 29, 2019)

Being a gamer doesn't give you ownership over a word. The dude manipulated 'the Game' to get a higher ranking, and once he announced what he did, that ranking was taken away. This is why I don't get into the whole author worship thing. Folks are trying to change the definition of words in order to defend him. I get it, he's some of y'all's hero, but like I said, y'all aren't doing him any favors by feeding his ego and encouraging him not to ever admit when he's done something wrong.


----------



## MMSN (Feb 27, 2019)

Neilsen stripping Dawson of his rank is quite a clear declaration that it IS cheating --seeing as how it's THEIR game and THEY make its rules, not anybody else.


----------



## LostWriter (Jul 19, 2020)

There's no way to get to the top of this game without doing something shady. Just ask Alexa Riley.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

The throbbing infected toenail question at the heart of it that Mark Dawson refuses to answer despite being asked, that the Guardian article authors didn't ask is this: Did he have the option to buy wholesale copies direct from his publisher?

The answer to that question is almost certainly yes. Almost all traditional publishing contracts have options for authors to directly buy copies at wholesale prices. His publisher hasn't answered the question either.

To say he didn't have the option to buy direct is almost impossible to believe. When authors go on book signing tours this is how it's done.

For him to admit he did have the option destroys the entire extremely shaky narrative we're being fed, like we're fools. 

Mark Dawson openly admits he was looking for ways to push himself to the top ten of the hardback bestseller list.

He claims he had the idea to ask people overseas if they wanted copies (so at this point he is fully admitting he knew that a bulk buy order would manipulate the list. He's not innocently doing anything here). 

He claims he spoke with his publisher and they said him going to buy it at FULL RETAIL at a bookshop would be the best course (hmm... really? They, a large publisher, didn't have any contract clause allowing him to buy wholesale copies from them? Hard to believe).

Then, with full knowledge that bulk buying is the way authors have manipulated bestseller lists in the past, he goes to that bookshop and buys 400 copies of his book.

This bulk-buy slips by Nielson who now have egg on their face because it shows how easily their list is manipulated. 

This bulk-buy forces the author at #10 off the list, harming that author and taking away their genuine list position they worked hard for. 

Mark Dawson then publicly self-congratulates himself and brags about his position on the chart. He knows DIRECTLY at this point that he only got there due to his own bulk-order.

To believe that he did this innocently is impossible. He openly admits he was looking for a way to get more copies sold. He's the one who went to that bookshop. 

The story has giant gaping holes in it. I hope that every time Mark Dawson shows up in a forum, in a facebook group, on a podcast, or in person, he is directly asked: did you have the option to buy wholesale copies? 

I think he won't admit the truth: he did have that option. His publisher would have happily sold him 400 copies at wholesale price to ship to his overseas fans.

But those copies wouldn't have manipulated the list and so he chose to buy the 400 copies at full retail price, knowing exactly what it would do.

It's list manipulation pure and simple. To pretend that Mark Dawson, a former lawyer, and someone who has been deeply involved in publishing for many years had NO IDEA that bulk-buying copies was wrong, is not credible on any level. 

I got his newsletter too and I agree - he's trying to hedge around it, pretending the Guardian has whipped up a storm in a teacup. He has directly claimed that he'd arranged copies for overseas readers who wouldn't have been able to get one. He even says that some see a bombastic headline and draw a negative conclusion on that alone. What he doesn't say at all is that he openly discussed how to manipulate the list and then walked to that shop to plunk down his money and bulk-buy 400 copies. He's hoping that his readers will just say "newspapers, always whipping up lies over nothing!" and continue to support him.

I don't support him. He has thrown authors out of the private facebook groups they paid to be in because they have called him on his deeply unethical behavior. 

I'd put money on it that he had the right to buy wholesale copies and his publisher won't talk about it, the Guardian article authors didn't think to ask and Mark Dawson won't answer when asked directly by anyone now. He's hoping no one will focus on that giant gaping hole in the story. He won't even come out and say he didn't have the right to buy wholesale copies. 

It's just untruth compounding on untruth. I wish I'd never given him a cent and if I could get all my money back I would.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Russ Munson said:


> Just to be clear, I'm not giving him a pass. I'm not saying that what he did is right. I'm simply saying it isn't wrong. A poor choice, sure, but not wrong, and I don't want to see someone's reputation and career ruined due to an overreaction.


If his career or reputation are ruined, it will be because he tried to do something underhanded and was stupid enough to admit it, not because people overreacted.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Crystal_ said:


> People are defending Mark because he's built goodwill over the years. Other people, myself included, are explaining that he did not cheat.
> 
> This is a game thing. The game had rules. He technically followed those rules. The rules are not fair or good but they are the rules. He was unsportsmanlike, but he did not cheat.


But surely, if he didn't cheat, people finding out what he did would not have resulted in him losing his Top Ten status. Would it?


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> But surely, if he didn't cheat, people finding out what he did would not have resulted in him losing his Top Ten status. Would it?


They're trying to spin it as Mark Dawson, innocent babe in the woods just trying to fill overseas orders for readers who had no other way to get hardback copies, went into a bookshop and bought 400 copies from the goodness of his heart, innocent, innocent!

It was all just a big kerfuffle and he had no idea it would manipulate the list (despite him talking directly about doing it so sales would be recorded and it would manipulate the list).

Apparently the former lawyer who has been around publishing for years now is just an innocent babe.

Nielson stripped him because it was list-manipulation and I think they didn't come out harsher against it because it's egg on their face to be so easily duped. They blamed covid-19 for not being able to check as they usually do but the truth is, it was probably always hardly checked.


----------



## MMSN (Feb 27, 2019)

In my work, I've seen people in this general type of predicament many times. Invariably it happened because they had become quite successful/powerful they got so full of themselves they lost sight of the forest for the trees and stepped way over the line. Then they got nailed and were shocked. _Outraged!_ Justifications, rationalizations, blame (not to mention lies) flowed.

It seemed to me that the people who always made out the best were the ones that just said Sorry, I had a terrible lapse in judgment, I understand why you're all angry at me, and I will do better. That always seemed to take the air out of the whole thing and people would lose interest. It was the individuals who flopped around like fish who just dug themselves in deeper.

But doing that mea culpa does of course involve taking a direct hit to the ol' ego.

Mark says that Neilsen stripped his ranking because Nielsen decided that his purchases were innocently made but couldn't count towards the list because some went to readers outside the U.K. Huh? What Neilsen said was that they had initially counted Mark's bulk-buy books towards his rank because they believed they were part of a virtual book signing arrangement. When Nielsen found out they were really just a bulk-buy, they stripped Mark's rank. Nielsen apologized for having let this get by them.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

MMSN said:


> In my work, I've seen people in this general type of predicament many times. Invariably it happened because they had become quite successful/powerful they got so full of themselves they lost sight of the forest for the trees and stepped way over the line. Then they got nailed and were shocked. _Outraged!_ Justifications, rationalizations, blame (not to mention lies) flowed.
> 
> It seemed to me that the people who always made out the best were the ones that just said Sorry, I had a terrible lapse in judgment, I understand why you're all angry at me, and I will do better. That always seemed to take the air out of the whole thing and people would lose interest. It was the individuals who flopped around like fish who just dug themselves in deeper.
> 
> ...


Actually _meaning_ the mea culpa sincerely.... that's always a plus.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

I'm not a gamer and I have no worship of Mark. He seems like a good guy and he's done a lot for Indies, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But that's as far as I'd go. And it's kind of ironic for all many anonymous people to critique him for being shady when he talked about this on his very public podcast.

I'm annoyed because people are creating an atmosphere that discourages sharing of information. Not because I care about Mark. I don't, really.



ShayneRutherford said:


> But surely, if he didn't cheat, people finding out what he did would not have resulted in him losing his Top Ten status. Would it?


No. He exploited a broken (imbalanced or unfair) rule. The bad press brought attention to the broken rule, so the list owners changed the rule.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> I'm not a gamer and I have no worship of Mark. He seems like a good guy and he's done a lot for Indies, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But that's as far as I'd go. And it's kind of ironic for all many anonymous people to critique him for being shady when he talked about this on his very public podcast.
> 
> I'm annoyed because people are creating an atmosphere that discourages sharing of information. Not because I care about Mark. I don't, really.
> 
> No. He exploited a broken (imbalanced or unfair) rule. The bad press brought attention to the broken rule, so the list owners changed the rule.


The list owners didn't change a rule. Bulk-buying to manipulate lists has been banned for years. There is a whole section on the NYT wikipedia section about people who tried to scam their list.

The Sunday Times list wasn't "bulk-buying is fine" until Mark Dawson did it.

As for shady - he knew this would manipulate the list. He did it anyway. He publicly congratulated himself for getting on the list but didn't mention it only happened because of his bulk-buy and then after he talked about it, was stripped from the list.

If you were cynical it was a marketing move, controversy to get attention. Or it's hubris and cheating.

But not innocence. Not benefit of the doubt.

And how is this creating an atmosphere on the sharing of information? If people cheat in some way they get called on it.

The fact is that if Mark mass purchased his own titles on Amazon and it moved his chart position, they'd ban him.


----------



## MMSN (Feb 27, 2019)

Yeah, Nielsen's trying to list what the top ten most popular selling books are, but then has a rule that to be on that list books actually have to _be _ top ten most popular bestselling books.
UNFAIR!!


----------



## isaacsweeney (Jan 1, 2011)

Eskimo said:


> I am amused ast how some people try and minimize what Mark did. In instances like this, I default to a comment made by a US Supreme Court Justice regarding pornography -- "I know it when I see it." The degree of his mistake can be debated. But did Mark proactively do something wrong? It's pretty obvious he did. That he boasted about it as well merely seals the deal.


So many here claim to know right and wrong as if it's black and white, crystal clear. As writers, don't we understand that everyone has a story? Truth is a matter of perspective.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

isaacsweeney said:


> So many here claim to know right and wrong as if it's black and white, crystal clear. As writers, don't we understand that everyone has a story? Truth is a matter of perspective.


Well, seeing as you appear be having trouble:

Bulk-buying your own books to manipulate a bestseller list is wrong.

There we go, nice and clear.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

isaacsweeney said:


> So many here claim to know right and wrong as if it's black and white, crystal clear. As writers, don't we understand that everyone has a story? Truth is a matter of perspective.


That's BS. A bestseller list is a measurement of how many readers are buying a book. Not how many of their own books an author can buy. That's not a matter of perspective.

And honestly, even if there wasn't a rule about it, we as writers (and presumably intelligent people) should be able to understand the spirit of the rule and follow it, and not buy our way onto a list. Because if you don't play by the rules, the game -- and the bestseller status -- means nothing.



........ said:


> Well, seeing as you appear be having trouble:
> 
> Bulk-buying your own books to manipulate a bestseller list is wrong.
> 
> There we go, nice and clear.


That seems pretty obvious to me.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

A very interesting thread. My immediate observations seem to be roughly the same as most on here. An author with Mark's obvious intelligence, business acumen and knowledge of both trad and indie publishing cannot then invite people to believe this was an innocent mistake. This is why the explanation he posted is obviously a cover-up and just adds insult to injury. I also note that this explanation was in fact from his publisher and not from himself personally and now he seems to have deleted his Twitter account, maybe because I believe this is where it first came to light. 

Buying a full quarter of the books required to get your title into the Top Ten is obviously dishonest but I'd imagine the author's general attitude it along the lines of "there's no such thing as bad publicity" because he seems to be a marketeer first and an author second (despite the fact he's actually a very good author IMO). 

Tactically he has made the mistake of Nixon. Gaming the system so overtly is bad and insulting to regular writers who can't find $7000 to buy into the charts - BUT - the cover-up after the crime is worse. In this case, the wretched display of mock-ignorance about how buying from a bookshop and not direct from the publisher would have such an impact on the bestseller list. 

All very disappointing from someone who is a quality writer and already extremely wealthy. Plus is reinforces the notion that when all is said and done, even the most successful indie authors will do literally anything to be endorsed by the trad world and get trad recognition, even it it means cheating.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

markpauloleksiw said:


> One of the big misconceptions is that the Big 5 publishers out there are the only threat to honest independents. The other are the "big brand" independents who behave exactly like the Big 5 and BUY their way onto lists and game the system.


This is something I've considered for a long time, and in fact I would say they the "mega indies" are in fact a greater threat than the big 5. It's no coincidence that many of them were very wealthy before they started self-publishing and use their wealth to push regular indies out of the way on advertising platforms. But... that's business, unfortunately.



markpauloleksiw said:


> After I read the articles...I asked myself, what else did this guy do before that maybe was not caught. This type of behaviour is usually not a one-off.
> 
> Mark


*If* there was anything else, it'll all come out in the wash now. He's enraged so many indie authors that some might be inclined to start leaking like an old sieve.


----------



## mike h (Dec 6, 2017)

One has to wonder how much of a difference it makes in sales to bump a book up in the ratings from the number 16 slot to the number 10 slot. $1,000? $10,000? What makes it worth the cost of buying the books in the first place?


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

mike h said:


> One has to wonder how much of a difference it makes in sales to bump a book up in the ratings from the number 16 slot to the number 10 slot. $1,000? $10,000? *What makes it worth the cost of buying the books in the first place?*


I assume it's the presumed 'prestige' of being able to claim "top ten on the _____ best-seller list." For some people that claim is worth a lot.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

MMSN said:


> It seemed to me that the people who always made out the best were the ones that just said Sorry, I had a terrible lapse in judgment,


ALL OF THIS ^^^

Someone admitting they did wrong effectively turns an on-the-fence situation into a non-event. Doubling down is what causes these things (ie threads like these) to keep going and going. We have seen it time and time again here in the author world, ego keeping something in the headlines long after its expiration date.

In the words of George Clooney from Dusk Til Dawn, "It's not a problem until you make it one."


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

mike h said:


> One has to wonder how much of a difference it makes in sales to bump a book up in the ratings from the number 16 slot to the number 10 slot. $1,000? $10,000? What makes it worth the cost of buying the books in the first place?


When I worked at an independent bookstore back in the day every Sunday we'd take a copy of the New York Times, cut out the top 10 list, pull all our copies of those titles, slap a 30% off sticker on the covers, and put them on the center front display. Which meant that those top 10 titles got added visibility and a leg up on the competition due to the price discount. (That the bookstore swallows, not the publisher.)

I have no idea how this UK list compares to the NYT list in the States or how many bookstores over there do the same using this list, but if that does happen over there and at enough bookstores it could be a decent amount of additional sales just for being in the top 10 as opposed to the top 15.

These are print sales we're talking about in this scenario which are more impacted by the actions of physical bookstores so it's different from most self-pub scenarios.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

So, it's Sunday... where did he place on this week's list? And how long will he stay on there?


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

Moral of the story: Money cannot buy you happiness 

"We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


----------



## Eskimo (Dec 31, 2013)

isaacsweeney said:


> So many here claim to know right and wrong as if it's black and white, crystal clear. As writers, don't we understand that everyone has a story? Truth is a matter of perspective.


Unless you believe in alternative facts, no, truth is not a matter of perspective.


----------



## Patrick1980 (Jul 26, 2020)

I remember John Locke claiming in his book for writers that he got his initial boost from crafting a heartfelt blog post about Michael J. Fox, or something like that. People were so moved by his sentiments, that they decided to buy his books!

Uh, right. 

Then it turned out that John Locke was buying reviews. (This happened in 2012, when Locke was one of the all-stars of the indie revolution.)

Which brings us to Mark Dawson: What Mark Dawson did was a minor lapse in judgment compared to that.

One thing to keep in mind about Dawson: He obviously has some chops and some fans. But he's also the JP Morgan of indie publishing. He has an entire organization behind him. He isn't just some guy writing solo in his den anymore. 

At this point, he seems to make about as much money from selling advice to authors as he does from selling books to readers. (Surely the profit is higher on the courses for authors, if not the gross.) This doesn't make him bad, or dishonest. (I took one of his video courses, and the quality was top-notch.)  

But keep in mind, Dawson is (probably) not you. He revealed in a previous podcast that he spent $500K on AMS ads in 2019. Did any of you spend that much on Amazon ads last year? I sure didn't. He sees himself more as the indie writer version of Coca-Cola than one of us. (Again, that doesn't make him bad.) 

Dawson probably heard that the big publishers routinely buy their way on to bestseller lists. And he thought, "why don't I give that a try?" 

And if the trad publishers do it, and it's legal, then why shouldn't he? In the SEO world, this would be the equivalent of a "gray hat" method (marginally shady) but not a "black hat" method (definitely shady). 

It really doesn't matter what any of us thinks about it, at the end of the day. Forget about the "indie writer community". There is no such thing. There are only thousands of individual writers, trying to get ahead in a competitive and saturated marketplace. I'm not sure that what Dawson did was any worse than permanently selling entire box sets for $0.99  (thereby accelerating a "race to the bottom"). 

I'm much more concerned about the inflation in PPC ad costs (which Dawson had a part in, by selling all those "Facebook ads for authors" courses) than about people buying their way on to constantly changing and quickly forgotten bestseller lists.


----------



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

So many people focus on the 'how' or the 'what' behind what this person did to get on that list, they forget or gloss over the 'why' - and what it means for authors who work their butts off but don't have near the savvy or wealth to do what they did, and to me that makes what they did to get there even worse.

Imagine, you're solidly middle class, or perhaps poor, and you study and you work hard and you score perfect on your SATs. But, you cannot penetrate the Ivy League because children of wealthy donors have been paid into these institutions.

Many will say, hey, that's capitalism - that's how the system works, don't hate the player, hate the game. But, that's clearly terrible. Think about the differences we're talking about here. Quite plausibly, the kid that did everything right, academically-speaking, but didn't have the knowledge and/or ability to buy their way into a prestigious school winds up with a completely different career and potentially a completely different life, and not for the better, than they would've had if those wealthy kids hadn't supplanted them with cash instead of actual academic merit. 

Sure, you could say that a kid who winds up at State Tech could plausibly wind up with a 'better' life than the kid of a mogul who paid for them to graduate Yale, yes, it could play out that way, but that's not really the point. Public perception and perception among those who could make or break your career and potentially make all the difference in your life is such that attending the Ivy League versus attending State Tech is seen as a difference in one's academic 'quality' or acumen for lack of better terms. Buying your way in is taking advantage of this perception, knowing the huge potential, and what it could mean for you in the bigger picture.

Same thing here with this author or others who attempt to pull off this trick. If you are buying your own books knowing that doing so gets you high enough on the list that you'll have your name and book published in view of many prospective customers who are largely unaware of how these lists work and take them as actual signifiers of quality, or symbolizing what's actually - LEGITIMATELY - popular, you are purposefully buying visibility while knowing what general public perception of being on that list is, and the knock-on effect which can make all the difference in one's career. 

Which means by buying your way there, you are doing it fully acknowledging you could be knocking someone off of that list who may not be already as successful as you, and to whom that level of visibility likely would have made all the difference in their career, and worse knowing you could potentially be knocking someone off that list who'd actually earned their spot, and earned their shot at a real career through their own sweat equity.

That is just completely gross, no matter how you spin it. It is doubly so when we're talking about someone, who quite frankly, is and could be doing just fine thank you very much in terms of their writing career without resorting to this kind of slimy tactic while also refusing to own up to what they were doing at the same time. And, then the way they tried to spin it in their newsletter? Honestly, this whole thing - given who it is - has me pretty disappointed, and yet I admit given the ins and outs of this industry, not all that surprised.


----------



## Patrick1980 (Jul 26, 2020)

It will be interesting to see if the podcasts like 'The Creative Penn' and 'The Sell More Books Show' cover this, or ignore it. My guess: They won't mention it. But I could be wrong.



Corvid said:


> So many people focus on the 'how' or the 'what' behind what this person did to get on that list, they forget or gloss over the 'why' - and what it means for authors who work their butts off but don't have near the savvy or wealth to do what they did, and to me that makes what they did to get there even worse.
> 
> Imagine, you're solidly middle class, or perhaps poor, and you study and you work hard and you score perfect on your SATs. But, you cannot penetrate the Ivy League because children of wealthy donors have been paid into these institutions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

Corvid said:


> That is just completely gross, no matter how you spin it. It is doubly so when we're talking about someone, who quite frankly, is and could be doing just fine thank you very much in terms of their writing career without resorting to this kind of slimy tactic while also refusing to own up to what they were doing at the same time. And, then the way they tried to spin it in their newsletter? Honestly, this whole thing - given who it is - has me pretty disappointed, and yet I admit given the ins and outs of this industry, not all that surprised.


I fully agree with this. Some of those defending Mark on here seem to be making a case that we're all indie writers in it together fighting the evil corporations. The comments that we're just individuals in a saturated marketplace is completely correct. If there really were a proper functioning "community" of indie writers, we would have got our stuff together a long time ago and set up a proper platform for indie writers which *did not allow* professional publishers to use it. This way the reading public could get genuinely independent writing at low prices without Big 5 or "Mega Indies" (who are more like mini trads than genuine indies) buying up all the visibility on a platform like McAmazon.

At the end of the day, writers like Mark (and one or two others I could mention but will not) can devote significantly more time, money and marketing resources to themselves than many big trad houses can to their hundreds of authors (on an individual level). This is why I get mildly irritated when I hear these writers talking about how they're "indie" - technically yes, but not de facto, they're not. In reality they have more power and sway and cash than a regular writer published by a trad. Being in this exalted and enviable position and then abusing the system to grasp at even more glory is unedifying.

In Mark's case what is more disappointing than anything else is that he is clearly a very talented businessman and also (IMO) a skilled thriller author. He would have been remembered for those things, but now he's going to be remembered as the guy who cheated the system to get ahead and then lied to cover it up.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Patrick1980 said:


> It will be interesting to see if the podcasts like 'The Creative Penn' and 'The Sell More Books Show' cover this, or ignore it. My guess: They won't mention it. But I could be wrong.


Good point. There is a whole ecosystem of podcasts, blogs, training courses and facebook pages that he has utilized to promote his courses. Will they comment or stay silent now?

I think one of the big things that happens as you climb the ladder of success is that you really need brutally honest outside sources to check your actions against. If you only have people who work for you or with you then soon a really bad idea can sound just fine.

That's what happened with all that trademarking of ordinary words that broke out last year. Came from a small entwined group with no outside voice to say "hey, that's bad".

Wonder if those podcasts and websites will have Mark Dawson on again in the future? Will they interview him honestly or will it be just trying to continue the narrative he's promoting that it was all innocent and this is a storm in a teacup whipped up by bad newspapers and angry authors who only read headlines (apparently)?


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

When this site's ownership changed, Bryan left the podcast show to Jazzy, to comment on revised t&c. Apparently he had gone fishing. 

Joanna along with the subject of this thread was terribly upset as to how they and another big name, Nick, weren't recognised in England inspite of their fame. "Who cares if they don't recognise us?" she said in that show.

Nothing wrong with aspiring for national fame or going for fishing, but one cannot help but observe what wealth, fame, and ego can do to a person. 

These are only small examples of dodgy behaviour, weasel words, and arrogance, I have noted from these shows.

Initially I thought it was irrelevant to this thread to talk about podcasts and the people who run them, but now I feel they are also responsible as positive proponents of all the news -- not just about books -- that happens in the indie author community. In this context, I'm also wondering why several celebrity indie authors on this forum are not commenting on this thread. Of course, they all are not obliged in anyway but it would be interesting to see their take on this matter. Even Mark is on these boards!


----------



## Brian D. Anderson (Nov 4, 2019)

Mark Dawson is free to do whatever he wants. But let's not pretend it was anything but manipulating the system. I know that those who are invested in his methods and taking his classes are prone to coming to his defense. That's nothing new. I've seen it before with book stuffers and content mills several times. Those involved with the perpetrator, directly or indirectly, turn a blind eye to the unethical behavior. If they don't, what does that say about them? 
The truth is he knew what he was doing - he's not stupid - and still decided to go through with it. It's unlikely he'll pay a heavy price, if any at all. Too many people look up to him and have tied their hopes for success to his methods.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

Another thing I noticed is Mark's co-host, James, would do all the talking in Self Publishing Formula podcast. And he, if I recollect properly, was yet to publish a fiction book at that time. And Mark used to simply sit around while James interviewed all the big name authors on the show. I used to feel that Mark with all his expertise and experience should handle the whole show by himself. Somehow, I used to feel that his association with someone who hasn't demonstrated enough experience in writing and publishing was bad for his career. Even then, during those early days, I used to feel the premonition for Mark's career. And I also  felt that Mark took the subtle insults and flattery his co-host smeared on him in a very light-hearted and trustful manner. I thought it damaged his public image. I used to get angry and say to myself: "Gosh, why can't Mark do all the interviewing by himself?"

Edit to add:

Mark screwed the list but a question worth pondering is: WHO screwed Mark?


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

VisitasKeat said:


> Another thing I noticed is Mark's co-host, James, would do all the talking in Self Publishing Formula podcast. And he, if I recollect properly, was yet to publish a fiction book at that time. And Mark used to simply sit around while James interviewed all the big name authors on the show.


The more I think about it, the more I believe that Mark was trying to do pre-emptive damage control by volunteering on his podcast that he had bought the copies. I think that Nielsen was already on to him. I think that Nielsen had already called him, and Mark panicked and thought that any second a newspaper or tabloid would call the book shop in his town where he had bought the copies, and tell to the reporter what they, the book shop, had already told Nielsen. So Mark wanted to get out in front of the story.

Think about it. Dawson volunteered so many details: 400 copies exactly, 3,700 pounds sterling, it was a children's book shop, the store was right in Salisbury where he lives, etc. He's not usually that forthcoming, not about things like that. All the details were the exact same information that the book shop would have told a reporter if, or when, the reporter called the store.

So, Mark had calculated, "When this comes out, I can just say 'Yeah I already covered that, I admitted as much!' and the bad press will go away (fingers crossed)."

Because by volunteer-copping to something, so to speak, one can sometimes inoculate oneself against future criticism.

Mark's screw-up was in admitting that he wanted to bump his book up into the Top 10.

Or... was it a screw-up? Could Mark actually have admitted his true motives to the book shop owner when he popped in to the shop that day? The proprietor surely would have wondered why Dawson wanted to buy that many hardbacks of his own book! And if Mark felt comfortable with the guy, sure Mark would have told him the truth, why not. Mark did not anticipate that Nielsen UK would have a red light flash on their console when on their bestseller list a book bumps into the Top 10 via 400 purchased copies from only one store.

So, thanks to himself not thinking through the consequences of his actions, Dawson kept doubling down on defiance and denial. But he's in fact trapped by the bookstore owner. That guy knows how many books Dawson bought, and why.

The "virtual book signing" thing, what Nielsen mentioned as a discounted possibility, that is the only part now that leaves me puzzled. What's that about?... Was that a story Mark told?

_Nielsen told the Bookseller that after initially believing that the sales had been part of a virtual book signing, it had concluded that they "did not meet its criteria"._
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/22/author-loses-spot-in-top-10-bought-400-copies-of-his-own-book-mark-dawson-the-cleaner


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

Hmm, lot's to ponder from your post!

The podcast happens on a particular day of the week. I haven't been listening of late, but I remember Mark saying that the schedule is nested in such a way that listeners get him, Bryan, Joanna, and Lindsey in a particular order in a week. Nothing wrong with that but purchasing books for "advance disclaimer confession" on the show must be pre-planned then as part of a contingency plan. Before media spreads the news in case he gets caught. 

It's tough to believe that Mark wouldn't have suspected that a red light flash would go off at Neilsen. I mean, they must be having all those signals for "sudden abnormal suspicious sales", and that too from the same bookstore. However, yes, the bookstore proprietor could have been the whistleblower. Not like the gunshop owner in Terminator who said to Arnold, "Good, I can close my store early." The bookshop owner wouldn't have wanted to screw her store business unless she had a excellent rapport with Mark or had received a lumpsome to hush up. So, the proprietor could be a whistleblower or a co-conspirator.  

Perhaps  accessing the security footage at the bookstore would provide more leads into the story?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

VisitasKeat said:


> Perhaps accessing the security footage at the bookstore would provide more leads into the story?


That sounds a wee bit extreme. This isn't exactly a case for Unsolved Mysteries here.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> That sounds a wee bit extreme. This isn't exactly a case for Unsolved Mysteries here.


It's not a mystery but a crime. A real-world crime.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

Maybe I am in the minority but I never bought into all these "entrepreneurs" and their podcasts telling you how to make it as an author.

Been around long enough to remember the similar BS in the 80s with the guy from Hong Kong on a yacht claiming he could make you a millionaire in real estate. Same thing.

Anyone with a ton of money and smarts can buy their way up lists/load of on reviews etc... That is why rules are important.

That whole cast of characters are not "independent authors", they are brands and businesses first and who do they make money off of...is the independent author trying to make it.

I wonder how many authors got suddenly very nervous when this all happened.

Mark


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

VisitasKeat said:


> It's not a mystery but a crime. A real-world crime.


No it really isn't. Unethical? Probably. Gaming the system? Almost certainly. An actual crime? Um ... no.


----------



## MMSN (Feb 27, 2019)

You might want to look up the UK's (criminal) Fraud Act:

"Section 1 creates a general offence of fraud and introduces three ways of committing it...

In each case: 

the defendant's conduct must be dishonest; 
his/her intention must be to make a gain; or cause a loss or the risk of a loss to another. 
No gain or loss needs actually to have been made. 
The maximum sentence is 10 years' imprisonment.

Fraud by false representation (Section 2)
The defendant: 

made a false representation 
dishonestly 
knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading 
with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss."


----------



## AnnaBF (Aug 25, 2014)

VisitasKeat said:


> When this site's ownership changed, Bryan left the podcast show to Jazzy, to comment on revised t&c. Apparently he had gone fishing.


Who is Bryan? (And how dare he go fishing?) And what do they have to do with Mark buying 400 books at a bookstore?


----------



## Indy Strange (Aug 29, 2019)

VisitasKeat said:


> It's not a mystery but a crime. A real-world crime.


Stuff like this is going to give the more paranoid posters in the thread some ammo and derail this thread. Since this is a place where people feel comfortable talking about this situation without worrying about getting banned, it'd be nice to stick with what we've mostly already been discussing.


----------



## Maura (Aug 27, 2019)

Well, this thread has definitely highlighted that anyone who wants to buy a bunch of their own books to manipulate a bestseller list had better buy only a few from each of many stores. I bet there are people willing to do that, although getting to say a hundred stores in one day might take a gang. Let's call them Street Team gangs.


----------



## isaacsweeney (Jan 1, 2011)

We sure do place a lot of value on these lists. Consumers fail to realize that most "top sales" lists are products of back-end deals in many/most industries. They aren't necessarily good indicators of quality or hard work. I guess they lead to more sales. It's like Kim Kardashian who got famous for ... being famous ... which led to more fame. I'm not saying the guy's a good person or whatever - I don't know him or what his intentions were. But at least he's exposed that bestseller lists are sketchy. One more piece of media to be skeptical of.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

VisitasKeat said:


> It's not a mystery but a crime. A real-world crime.


This is nonsense. Please keep a sense of proportion.


----------



## MMSN (Feb 27, 2019)

I just Googled "Mark Dawson." First thing that came up was an ad for "Buy Books in Bulk."

Somebody's got a sense of humor.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

MMSN said:


> You might want to look up the UK's (criminal) Fraud Act:
> 
> "Section 1 creates a general offence of fraud and introduces three ways of committing it...
> 
> ...


Interesting, and someone else on this thread and on another forum I read mentioned Mark is banning people from criticising him over this on his paid members only SPF Facebook page. They mentioned that access to that page is a core part of the course, so perhaps this is some sort of breach of contract, but then, being a lawyer he probably has this covered with a disclaimer. Bottom line is this - whether laws have been broken or not is just technical - the real punishment Mark will face is losing all credibility among indie writers. The problem here is that they are a massive chunk of his income via the SPF course.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

AnnaBF said:


> Who is Bryan? (And how dare he go fishing?) And what do they have to do with Mark buying 400 books at a bookstore?


Well, upthread it was asked if this case would be discussed in podcasts. That's all. Well, Mr. Cohen runs the Sell More Books show. The show covers mainly indie author news than doing actual interviews with big name authors. So, why he behaved like an ostrich is puzzling. A new forum was created because of the new t&c, but Joanna replied arrogantly on Twitter. She said: "Never even heard about it!" But she talks about this forum on her show. She certainly was aware of the t&c controversy. So, puzzling that she was unaware of this new forum mostly comprising of senior kboards members. Their personal choices must be respected but their attitude certainly appeared hideous and dodgy. Why then do they consider themselves as propanents of the latest happenings in indie author circle when they are not raising awareness on pressing issues? Where is the intense analysis and objective discussion that hundreds and thousands of listeners crave for? Could it be that doing podcasts is just another means to do business and make money? What happened to ethical indie-journalism?

This is what some posters pondered about upthread. Because I used to be a podcast junkie, I'm able to share some of what I listened to here. Will they discuss Mark? Well, let's wait and watch! These are radical times for the community. Hope a lot of positive changes happen.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

isaacsweeney said:


> We sure do place a lot of value on these lists. Consumers fail to realize that most "top sales" lists are products of back-end deals in many/most industries. They aren't necessarily good indicators of quality or hard work. I guess they lead to more sales. It's like Kim Kardashian who got famous for ... being famous ... which led to more fame. I'm not saying the guy's a good person or whatever - I don't know him or what his intentions were. But at least he's exposed that bestseller lists are sketchy. One more piece of media to be skeptical of.


Well, like some unnamed poster stated a few weeks ago (before he or she yanked the post), these lists can apparently be the result of a certain amount of padding through in-company purchases of books. Whether the statement in that post was actually true or not I have no idea.

I'm sure some sort of shenanigans is possible -- I mean KU was gamed through click farms -- the possibilities for gaming _any _system are endless.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

MMSN said:


> You might want to look up the UK's (criminal) Fraud Act:
> 
> "Section 1 creates a general offence of fraud and introduces three ways of committing it...
> 
> ...


Criminal fraud is about direct financial deception. This absolutely does not count as fraud, and would not be remotely contestable in court. The point where it falls down is "cause a loss to another," because sales rankings are not a zero sum game.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

ShaneCarrow said:


> The point where it falls down is "cause a loss to another," because sales rankings are not a zero sum game.


Unless you're the writer who got dumped out the Top Ten that week and lost publicity and sales because of what happened.


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

For some perspective on book list manipulation, you might want to read about The New York Times bestseller list. It has had a long, questionable history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Best_Seller_list

I'm not saying that what Mark Dawson did was right, but as others have said, it's certainly nothing new. He probably thought that buying 400 books was no big deal.

I suspect that a substantial portion of his income comes from his online courses, which have had good ratings. I wonder if they will be impacted by what has happened. Until now he had a pristine reputation.


----------



## MMSN (Feb 27, 2019)

ShaneCarrow said:


> Criminal fraud is about direct financial deception. This absolutely does not count as fraud, and would not be remotely contestable in court. The point where it falls down is "cause a loss to another," because sales rankings are not a zero sum game.


No, criminal fraud can be non-financial. As the Code says, what must be lost is a 'thing of value.' (For example, the parents who paid Rick Singer to get their kids into college committed criminal fraud.) In Dawson's case (IMLO) it was Nielsen who lost a thing of value (their business reputation).

See e.g. this article entitled "Non-Financial Fraud's Growing Threat."

https://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2013/may/15/non-financial-frauds-growing-threat/#:~:text=However%2C%20a%20type%20of%20fraud,the%20public%20or%20regulatory%20body.&text=Far%20from%20being%20victimless%20crimes,serious%20havoc%20throughout%20the%20economy.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

I mentioned about accessing the video footage as even the store owner could be guilty of conspiracy. So, she cannot get away with the act if that's the case.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## blubarry (Feb 27, 2015)

VisitasKeat said:


> Well, upthread it was asked if this case would be discussed in podcasts. That's all. Well, Mr. Cohen runs the Sell More Books show. The show covers mainly indie author news than doing actual interviews with big name authors. So, why he behaved like an ostrich is puzzling. A new forum was created because of the new t&c, but Joanna replied arrogantly on Twitter. She said: "Never even heard about it!" But she talks about this forum on her show. She certainly was aware of the t&c controversy. So, puzzling that she was unaware of this new forum mostly comprising of senior kboards members. Their personal choices must be respected but their attitude certainly appeared hideous and dodgy. Why then do they consider themselves as propanents of the latest happenings in indie author circle when they are not raising awareness on pressing issues? Where is the intense analysis and objective discussion that hundreds and thousands of listeners crave for? Could it be that doing podcasts is just another means to do business and make money? What happened to ethical indie-journalism?
> 
> This is what some posters pondered about upthread. Because I used to be a podcast junkie, I'm able to share some of what I listened to here. Will they discuss Mark? Well, let's wait and watch! These are radical times for the community. Hope a lot of positive changes happen.


I think you'll be waiting a long time if you think Cohen will speak out against Mark considering his own even more shady past working with RH on boxset grifting... I mean gifting. There's a video that's still circulating from the lawsuit where he breaks down just how to do it. I've seen a certain amount of moral ambiguity from those who put themselves out as "experts", but I suppose that's to be expected when money is involved.


----------



## wearywanderer64 (Jan 27, 2013)

MMSN said:


> No, criminal fraud can be non-financial. As the Code says, what must be lost is a 'thing of value.' (For example, the parents who paid Rick Singer to get their kids into college committed criminal fraud.) In Dawson's case (IMLO) it was Nielsen who lost a thing of value (their business reputation).
> 
> See e.g. this article entitled "Non-Financial Fraud's Growing Threat."
> 
> https://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2013/may/15/non-financial-frauds-growing-threat/#:~:text=However%2C%20a%20type%20of%20fraud,the%20public%20or%20regulatory%20body.&text=Far%20from%20being%20victimless%20crimes,serious%20havoc%20throughout%20the%20economy.


Just try defrauding the taxman out of a dollar and see how long you'll last.


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi) put out a statement yesterday, July 27:
_*
Bulk Purchase of Mark Dawson's The Cleaner*

As per above, ALLi operates a code of standards for our members and a voluntary ethical code for the wider author community. We do not normally comment on individual author choices. However, Mark Dawson's bulk self-purchase of The Cleaner has been reported in the press, discussed on social media and on author forums, including our own. Self-Publishing Formula, of which Mark is CEO, is a respected author-education company that has helped many indie authors to succeed in book advertising, promotion, and selling more books, and an ALLi partner member. The two organizations have been mutually supportive and many ALLi members and advisors have asked for a specific response.

As a highly successful author, and CEO of Self-Publishing Formula, Mark Dawson is an industry leader who has always expressed an interest in behaving ethically and fairly. He has consulted the ALLi Watchdog numerous times on ethical questions and inquiries about service providers, retailer rules, and ethical codes. With regard to buying _The Cleaner_, he openly described on his podcast and elsewhere how he went about what he believed was a legal strategy for registering sales and moving his book up the Sunday Times bestseller list: emailing overseas fans and inviting them to make advance purchases which he would personally fulfill through bulk buying the book in a qualifying UK bookstore.

However, in order for such purchases to count towards his book's bestseller ranking, those sales would need to be trackable UK purchases and independently verified. In the absence of such assurances, we consider it right and reasonable that Neilsen Bookscan corrected the count._

https://selfpublishingadvice.org/statement-from-the-alliance-of-independent-authors-re-author-in-store-bulk-purchases/

It's interesting that ALLi is choosing not to weigh in on whether Mark did anything wrong. ALLi also does not mention some of the more controversial aspects of the Mark Dawson "bulk purchase," as they call it. Namely, that

- before he got caught, Mark tweeted a braggy thanks to his readers for putting his book in the Top 10, which to appearances made Mark seem like he, Mark, had had nothing to do with the Top 10 landing;

- after he got caught, Mark's uncorroborated excuse that before his bulk purchase he had asked his trad publisher if he, Mark, could buy his hardbacks direct from the publisher, and that the publisher said no--I find that that strains credulity;

- Mark's sorry-not-sorry attitude after he got caught and him bullying questioners and demanding apologies on Twitter;

- and, most of all, Mark's open admission on his own podcast that his intent with his purchase of 400 hardbacks was to bump his book up into the Top 10.

I guess as ALLi says, ALLi has done a lot of business with Mark and they also presumably want to keep doing business in the future. So it's prudent for them not to address the shadier aspects of the episode, and sidestep passing judgement on Mark, and for ALLi to only say that Nielsen did the right thing.

But if the "ALLi Watchdogs" are not going to address the ethics... it makes one wonder why ALLi made a statement at all.

edit: formatting.


----------



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

Using terminology to describe what's happened here as: "_Nielsen Bookscan corrected the count_" is weasel-wording akin to: "_mistakes were made_".


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

I am not a member of ALLI. Why? Look at who thier advisors are...they are all service providers who make money in the industry AND they charge for membership.

So their press release is basically PR to protect one of their own.

Just because something is non-for-profit does not mean they represent the greater good for all authors. 

Mark


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

Maybe Alli should read their own documents...the part about misleading about ranking on book lists....

https://selfpublishingadvice.org/alli-campaigns/ethical-author/


----------



## MMSN (Feb 27, 2019)

markpauloleksiw said:


> Maybe Alli should read their own documents...the part about misleading about ranking on book lists....
> 
> https://selfpublishingadvice.org/alli-campaigns/ethical-author/


I took a look: "I do not promote my books by making false statements about... their position on bestseller lists..."


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Please keep this thread focused on the book-buying scandal. Material that strays too far afield will be edited out, as just happened with a post. Thanks, and carry on.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

Triceratops said:


> The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi) put out a statement yesterday, July 27:
> _The two organizations* have been mutually supportive _


_

That explains everything, and in covering up the fraud ALLi have now brought themselves into disgrace, too. What he did clearly breaks their written rules.

*Alli and Mark's SPF company._


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

Maura said:


> Well, this thread has definitely highlighted that anyone who wants to buy a bunch of their own books to manipulate a bestseller list had better buy only a few from each of many stores. I bet there are people willing to do that, although getting to say a hundred stores in one day might take a gang. Let's call them Street Team gangs.


Very good point. Street team gangs are tough to crack as they easily beat the red signals. But the chances of whistleblowing is very high too. And the risk of backstage extortion and blackmails.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

MMSN said:


> No, criminal fraud can be non-financial. As the Code says, what must be lost is a 'thing of value.' (For example, the parents who paid Rick Singer to get their kids into college committed criminal fraud.) In Dawson's case (IMLO) it was Nielsen who lost a thing of value (their business reputation).
> 
> See e.g. this article entitled "Non-Financial Fraud's Growing Threat."
> 
> https://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2013/may/15/non-financial-frauds-growing-threat/#:~:text=However%2C%20a%20type%20of%20fraud,the%20public%20or%20regulatory%20body.&text=Far%20from%20being%20victimless%20crimes,serious%20havoc%20throughout%20the%20economy.


This is an example from the US, a country with far more permissive litigation laws.

By all means attempt to sue Mark Dawson but I imagine it will be a pretty quick day in court.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Well, ALLi sold themselves out with that statement. 

It seems the new position is: bulk-buying is okay if you can come up with a good excuse. 

So all those people who scammed the NYT list in the past just had to say "I was filling overseas orders!" and apparently it's all good? 

In some alternate world perhaps ALLi is releasing an actual statement on ethics more like "bulk-buying for the purposes of list manipulation is wrong and members engaging in such behaviors will be banned from the organization". 

It really is unbelievable the degree of mental gymnastics some people, and now organizations, are engaging in. 

Is bulk-buying to manipulate a bestseller list ethically wrong? Yes.

How about we claim it was to fill overseas orders? Oh, well, that's different!

I so so so wish the original Guardian article author had asked Mark Dawson the simple and easy question: did you have the right to buy author copies direct from your publisher? 

That's the question that needs answering. I hope every time Dawson shows up anywhere, that question does too until he tells the truth.


----------



## MMSN (Feb 27, 2019)

ShaneCarrow said:


> This is an example from the US, a country with far more permissive litigation laws.
> 
> By all means attempt to sue Mark Dawson but I imagine it will be a pretty quick day in court.


You are confusing criminal law with civil law.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

You specifically characterised Dawson's actions as criminal fraud.


----------



## Brian D. Anderson (Nov 4, 2019)

Unethical behavior that's admitted, perpetrated without shame, and there for all to see is still unethical behavior. That he announced it on a podcast is irrelevant and doesn't absolve him. Best seller lists are not ads to be purchased. I wonder what author was bumped because Dawson had the cash to buy his way up the rankings? He wasn't in the top ten because his book didn't sell enough copies. Therefore he didn't deserve the spot. Someone else did.
Defending this sort of behavior is what has kept a perpetual stain on indie for the entirety of my ten year career. It's bad enough to scam your way to the top. But when you're at the top and you scam to stay there, that's just grimy. 
I don't know Dawson. I've never met him. And I don't know anything about his self-publishing methods other than the commercials I've seen pop up on occasion. But I do know I'll avoid him should I find myself at the same conference. I have kept myself clean for a long time despite temptations and opportunities to wallow in the mud. I won't be seen associating with people who think "gaming the system" is nothing more than a method to sell books.


----------



## Loelia (Jan 2, 2020)

I'm rather surprised it didn't occur to anyone involved - either Dawson himself or the bookseller - that the optics of something like this aren't good.

Still, as a (casual) K-pop fan I'm curious about something. In K-pop fandoms (which are, as you may know, very committed) it's not at all uncommon for fans to engage in bulk-buying and chart manipulation. People in different countries gather money and send it to a party that bulk-buys the album at a particular time, in a particular place, in order to boost the album's ranking on a particular chart. The sums they gather are at times huge, and often in effect donations; many of the donors don't even want a physical copy of the album, or else they already own one (or several). They're still real people, though. Real buyers, real fans. But the bulk-buying is 100% strategic rather than organic.

I doubt many book fandoms would be that committed, but still. Would something like this disqualify an author's ranking if the author themselves weren't buying the book in bulk?

If not, I don't understand why Dawson didn't get someone else to organise something like this for him, but what do I know.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

Loelia said:


> I'm rather surprised it didn't occur to anyone involved - either Dawson himself or the bookseller - that the optics of something like this aren't good.
> 
> Still, as a (casual) K-pop fan I'm curious about something. In K-pop fandoms (which are, as you may know, very committed) it's not at all uncommon for fans to engage in bulk-buying and chart manipulation. People in different countries gather money and send it to a party that bulk-buys the album at a particular time, in a particular place, in order to boost the album's ranking on a particular chart. The sums they gather are at times huge, and often in effect donations; many of the donors don't even want a physical copy of the album, or else they already own one (or several). They're still real people, though. Real buyers, real fans. But the bulk-buying is 100% strategic rather than organic.
> 
> ...


Good reasoning. I understand from what angle you're coming. That's why I said street team gangs are tough to crack. You cannot compare Mark with k-pop stars. I mean, indie publishing is a very small community even when taking publishing as such at a global level. Amazon has leverage only in certain countries. So authors like Dawson are not really famous in the actual sense. He cannot be compared with k-pop superstars and their street team gangs. I always think twice when someone approaches me for donation cos God knows in what channels they would be diverting the surplus.

Instead of obsessing with street team gangs and their practices, I think we need to ponder upon how an algorithm needs to be designed so that it takes care of bulk purchases that has resulted due to different street team members buying from different shops or from the same shop. Nielsen and others need more robust signalling algorithms.


----------



## Loelia (Jan 2, 2020)

VisitasKeat said:


> Good reasoning. I understand from what angle you're coming. That's why I said street team gangs are tough to crack. You cannot compare Mark with k-pop stars. I mean, indie publishing is a very small community even when taking publishing as such at a global level. Amazon has leverage only in certain countries. So authors like Dawson are not really famous in the actual sense. He cannot be compared with k-pop superstars and their street team gangs. I always think twice when someone approaches me for donation cos God knows in what channels they would be diverting the surplus.
> 
> Instead of obsessing with street team gangs and their practices, I think we need to ponder upon how an algorithm needs to be designed so that it takes care of bulk purchases that has resulted due to different street team members buying from different shops or from the same shop. Nielsen and others need more robust signalling algorithms.


Heh, no indeed, authors - let alone indie authors - aren't comparable to K-pop stars. But K-pop sales numbers are also on another level compared with the numbers required for bestselling book charts. I'm sure there are authors out there who have 400 or 1000 rabid fans who might organise something like this. I just wonder whether the author's ranking would be disqualified if the author himself isn't the one doing the bulk-buying.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

Loelia said:


> Heh, no indeed, authors - let alone indie authors - aren't comparable to K-pop stars. But K-pop sales numbers are also on another level compared with the numbers required for bestselling book charts. I'm sure there are authors out there who have 400 or 1000 rabid fans who might organise something like this. I just wonder whether the author's ranking would be disqualified if the author himself isn't the one doing the bulk-buying.


Does it matter if the author manipulates or his fans manipulate? Wrong is wrong. Upthread some posters discussed grey areas that cloud the question you are pointing to. Which is why I proposed more robust algorithms. Dawson would have got away in all probability had he asked some fans to do bulk purchases. Moreover, the timing of the purchase is important too. The way it's orchestrated and executed. So, it must be pre-planned with extreme caution and accuracy. God knows how many authors have got away with a well-trained street team. In this sense, Dawson would have been wary of backstage blackmails and extortion in case he had a street team in place. Or perhaps he didn't have a street team? The difference between a fan and a follower: A fan is a fanatic. It's derived from 'fanatic'. The fan will blindly obey the instructions of the author. But a follower is very discriminating as to what is right and what is wrong. To be a fan is to be stupid but to be a follower is to be intelligent. I think the author's ranking would be disqualified if it becomes known that his street team screwed the list.

Book shops must provide unique customer ids. This will greatly help the new robust signalling algorithm. Social Security Number, Face recognition, and fingerprint scanning may help in this regard.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

VisitasKeat said:


> Does it matter if the author manipulates or his fans manipulate? Wrong is wrong. Upthread some posters discussed grey areas that cloud the question you are pointing to. Which is why I proposed more robust algorithms. Dawson would have got away in all probability had he asked some fans to do bulk purchases. Moreover, the timing of the purchase is important too. The way it's orchestrated and executed. So, it must be pre-planned with extreme caution and accuracy. God knows how many authors have got away with a well-trained street team. In this sense, Dawson would have been wary of backstage blackmails and extortion in case he had a street team in place. Or perhaps he didn't have a street team? The difference between a fan and a follower: A fan is a fanatic. It's derived from 'fanatic'. The fan will blindly obey the instructions of the author. But a follower is very discriminating as to what is right and what is wrong. To be a fan is to be stupid but to be a follower is to be intelligent. I think the author's ranking would be disqualified if it becomes known that his street team screwed the list.
> 
> Book shops must provide unique customer ids. This will greatly help the new robust signalling algorithm. Social Security Number, Face recognition, and fingerprint scanning may help in this regard.


Going into a local bookshop, possibly owned by someone you know, and buying 400 copies cannot be done unless you explain why you are doing it. In this case, we don't know if that explanation was "because I want to manipulate the bestseller list" or "because I want to send books to readers in the US". These options depend on how well you know and trust the owner, but either one sounds plausible. Street teams are harder. First you have the possibility of blackmail, especially with a big name who has a lot to lose, and second, how many are on your team? 400 who buy one copy each? 4 who buy 100 copies each? Let's go down the middle and say you have 20 trusted people, so in this case they each have to buy 20 copies. I think a bookshop owner would be suspicious of someone coming into a shop and buying 20 copies of one book at the same time and might contact Nielson - and this has to happen 20 times across the country - so 20 bookshop owners each have to not be suspicious of 20 copies being bought buy one person. Chances are, several if not all, would smell a rat.

When you break it down, street teams are not an easy way to manipulate lists. Buying from your publisher also does not work. A good way to manipulate the list is to do precisely what happened here, and know that even if you're caught out you're getting international publicity. As for fingerprints and face scans etc. I know I would never buy a book under such circumstances and I love books more than most.


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

On Mark Dawson's Wikipedia page, different editors this past week have revised back-and-forth over the episode, with different versions.

A couple days ago, the scandal was addressed like this:

_*Bestseller List Controversy: "The Cleaner"*

In 2020, Dawson's book "The Cleaner" reached number 8 in the Hardback Fiction section of "The Sunday Times" bestseller list. This was after Dawson bulk purchased 400 copies of "The Cleaner". Before the purchase, "The Cleaner" had been in position number 13. However, the book's chart position was recalculated by Nielsen BookScan after Dawson mentioned the bulk purchase on his podcast. Dawson has denied any wrongdoing; instead, he stated his intention was to fulfill overseas orders for "The Cleaner"._

Now it reads like this:

_*Sales figures for "The Cleaner"*

In 2020, Dawson's book "The Cleaner" reached number 8 in the Hardback Fiction section of "The Sunday Times" bestseller list after he purchased 400 copies of the book, seeing it to have previously been in position number 13. Nielsen BookScan initially approved the sales, believing them to have been part of a virtual book signing. The book was removed from the list and the list was recalculated after Dawson mentioned placing the order on his podcast "The Self Publishing Show", his stated intention being to find overseas readers to purchase the book copies from him._

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Dawson_%28writer%29&type=revision&diff=970173954&oldid=970166643


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

Triceratops said:


> On Mark Dawson's Wikipedia page, different editors this past week have revised back-and-forth over the episode, with different versions.
> 
> A couple days ago, the scandal was addressed like this:
> 
> ...


"Dawson mentioned the bulk purchase on his podcast."

Replaced with

"Dawson mentioned placing the order on his podcast."

"Bulk purchase" is missing in the new writeup. How strange!

Also, name of podcast is mentioned for added credibility.


----------



## MMSN (Feb 27, 2019)

I think the important change was '*fulfill *overseas orders' to '*find* overseas readers'.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

MMSN said:


> I think the important change was '*fulfill *overseas orders' to '*find* overseas readers'.


Yes, this is important, which is odd. The revision up to this point looks like someone is trying to run cover for Mark, but this last sentence is much more honest and damning because it implies clearly he bought them without having any buyers.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

Redgum said:


> Going into a local bookshop, possibly owned by someone you know, and buying 400 copies cannot be done unless you explain why you are doing it. In this case, we don't know if that explanation was "because I want to manipulate the bestseller list" or "because I want to send books to readers in the US". These options depend on how well you know and trust the owner, but either one sounds plausible. Street teams are harder. First you have the possibility of blackmail, especially with a big name who has a lot to lose, and second, how many are on your team? 400 who buy one copy each? 4 who buy 100 copies each? Let's go down the middle and say you have 20 trusted people, so in this case they each have to buy 20 copies. I think a bookshop owner would be suspicious of someone coming into a shop and buying 20 copies of one book at the same time and might contact Nielson - and this has to happen 20 times across the country - so 20 bookshop owners each have to not be suspicious of 20 copies being bought buy one person. Chances are, several if not all, would smell a rat.
> 
> When you break it down, street teams are not an easy way to manipulate lists. Buying from your publisher also does not work. A good way to manipulate the list is to do precisely what happened here, and know that even if you're caught out you're getting international publicity. As for fingerprints and face scans etc. I know I would never buy a book under such circumstances and I love books more than most.


Good observations.

What if one person buys from 20 different shops, each located in different towns? Say he commutes in train or even a truck for that purpose.

And this method is repeated by the other 19 street team members.

So, all the 400 sales would appear normal not only to the algorithm but also to the shopkeepers.

Say, shopping hours are 10AM till 9PM. So, that's 11 hours solid.

Assuming, one person shops only in a particular shop in any given hour, we have 11 pigeon holes.

So, total possibilities for manipulating a shop

= (20C11) * (11P11)

= (20!/(9!*11!) * (11!/0!)

= 20!/9! ways

Therefore, total ways for manipulating sales using 20 shops =

20 * (20*19*18...*10) ways.

Jeez, that's a hell lot of ways to organise this manipulation. Which is why probability of detection is so less. Which is why customer's SSN needs to be taken into consideration for checking purchases of same title in a day or in a sequence of days.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

When you think about the whole sordid tale...I wonder...what else has been going on before this?

People don't suddenly try to game the system for the first time after..."success"

Mark


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

VisitasKeat said:


> Which is why customer's SSN needs to be taken into consideration for checking purchases of same title in a day or in a sequence of days.


Yeah, no. This is where the trade off between personal privacy and need to know comes in. We're not talking about buying plutonium here. If someone and their street team wants to waste that much of their time and energy on going to twenty different stores to buy up enough books to make a list that will make them a sad and pathetic person who craves external validation to an unhealthy degree but their being that person does not mean that every single person who buys a book must therefore give up their personal identifying information in order to make a book purchase just to prevent this from happening.

And honestly book availability is very likely to thwart that plan anyway. Bookstores stock books they think will sell and absent an elaborate scheme to generate an appearance of demand so that physical copies are actually on the shelves available to be bought, there wouldn't be 400 copies of the book at those stories to be purchased in the first place.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

CassieL said:


> Yeah, no. This is where the trade off between personal privacy and need to know comes in. We're not talking about buying plutonium here.


Anyone asking me for my SSN so I can buy a book can go pound sand (except less politely).

I mean, seriously, if someone decides to devote hours upon hours of Bond-villain level planning to book purchases, then I'm willing to give them that one. Pretty sure Interpol has better things to do with their time.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

CassieL said:


> Yeah, no. This is where the trade off between personal privacy and need to know comes in. We're not talking about buying plutonium here. If someone and their street team wants to waste that much of their time and energy on going to twenty different stores to buy up enough books to make a list that will make them a sad and pathetic person who craves external validation to an unhealthy degree but their being that person does not mean that every single person who buys a book must therefore give up their personal identifying information in order to make a book purchase just to prevent this from happening.
> 
> And honestly book availability is very likely to thwart that plan anyway. Bookstores stock books they think will sell and absent an elaborate scheme to generate an appearance of demand so that physical copies are actually on the shelves available to be bought, there wouldn't be 400 copies of the book at those stories to be purchased in the first place.


From one of your recent posts I understand you used to work in a bookstore. So, you speak from experience which I give due weightage.
But a small correction...
Not 400 copies available per store but just 20. This is the simple case study I took up in my previous post based on what Redgum posted before that. In fact, the higher an author is on the list, the lesser the copies each street team member needs to buy.

Without unique identification methods, we would have more Dawsons... and we had God knows how many thousands of them in the past. SSN is just one suggestion but including any similar methods is paramount to address the issues raised in this thread.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

markpauloleksiw said:


> When you think about the whole sordid tale...I wonder...what else has been going on before this?
> 
> People don't suddenly try to game the system for the first time after..."success"
> 
> Mark


Yeah, this could be the tip of the iceberg. And even more shocking is the fact that he used to be a lawyer. Nice role model, huh?!

But I still feel that the question I raised upthread still holds merit.

Who screwed Dawson?

Who influenced him and convinced him?

Was he terribly drunk the previous night (say while partying) so that he still had a big hangover and a clouded mind when he went to the store? Was he convinced while being terribly drunk?

What food did he eat previous night? Was he drugged and blackmailed?


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

VisitasKeat said:


> Not 400 copies available per store but just 20.


Go walk through a bookstore (if it's safe for you where you live) and see how many titles there are where the bookstore actually has 20 copies of a specific hard cover title on the shelves to buy. It won't be many even at a large store like a Barnes & Noble. And if it is it'll be new releases in that type (hard cover, mass market) that are expected to sell well. So maybe at a typical B&N you'd walk in the door and see two center displays with say fifteen titles each that are in hardcover with that many copies available. Otherwise there's maybe a copy or two of each hard cover shelved in the genre section of the store.

I worked at an independent bookstore so we'd have maybe ten copies of the most popular hard cover titles and if an unexpected title made the list probably fewer copies than that. Especially if it wasn't around the holidays.

I think it's pretty common now to find an author who is very active on social media and well-known within their genre but whose books aren't even on the shelves at a local bookstore. I know I've run into that more than once when I heard of someone and wanted to buy their book. I could order online just fine, but they weren't stocked at all in physical bookstores.


----------



## Blocked Writer (Oct 23, 2015)

If someone wants to buy 4 copies of a book, one for each grandkid, is that ok?

If someone wants to buy 20 copies of a book, one for each employee, is that ok?

If someone wants to buy 400 copies of a book, one for each client, is that ok?

If the list rank is meant to be indicative of a book’s quality, then each of those purchases would be legit, because the purchaser thought so highly of the book that she was willing to even buy them to give to others.

The issue here is not the quantity of books purchased, but the intent behind the purchase. Dawson didn’t buy 400 because he thought it was a great book. He bought 400 to give other people the impression that it was selling better than it was (i.e. a better book).


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Blocked Writer said:


> If someone wants to buy 4 copies of a book, one for each grandkid, is that ok?
> 
> If someone wants to buy 20 copies of a book, one for each employee, is that ok?
> 
> ...


He bought them to sell on to overseas readers who had requested them.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

CassieL said:


> Go walk through a bookstore (if it's safe for you where you live) and see how many titles there are where the bookstore actually has 20 copies of a specific hard cover title on the shelves to buy. It won't be many even at a large store like a Barnes & Noble. And if it is it'll be new releases in that type (hard cover, mass market) that are expected to sell well. So maybe at a typical B&N you'd walk in the door and see two center displays with say fifteen titles each that are in hardcover with that many copies available. Otherwise there's maybe a copy or two of each hard cover shelved in the genre section of the store.
> 
> I worked at an independent bookstore so we'd have maybe ten copies of the most popular hard cover titles and if an unexpected title made the list probably fewer copies than that. Especially if it wasn't around the holidays.
> 
> I think it's pretty common now to find an author who is very active on social media and well-known within their genre but whose books aren't even on the shelves at a local bookstore. I know I've run into that more than once when I heard of someone and wanted to buy their book. I could order online just fine, but they weren't stocked at all in physical bookstores.


Just because you couldn't find books of certain authors doesn't mean it's the same disappointment for others.

Moreover, your bookstore's (where you worked) marketing strategies need not be consistent with other bookstores. So, some stores may stock more than 10. Who knows?


----------



## Blocked Writer (Oct 23, 2015)

Doglover said:


> He bought them to sell on to overseas readers who had requested them.


As others have noted above, he could accomplish the same without buying them at retail.

Re. his intention, it's quoted in one of the earlier linked articles: "We'd like to get to the top 10 ... we've been trying to think of ways we can do that that would count those sales as sales for the chart," he said.

So, he purchased at retail so that his purchases would impact the chart.

By the way, if the "retail" side of each of these transactions was actually meant to be in the US, then the sales figures don't belong in the UK chart. Nielsen made this clear by removing them.

Anyway, the point of my earlier post was that people ought to be able to buy any number of books that they want to without privacy invasions designed to protect the integrity of a third party's list (although in retrospect I did not make that clear).


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Let's keep in mind that the book in question is NOT a new release--or even a recent release--but was in fact published six years ago (2014).  If I walk into a random bookstore, I may be lucky to find two or three copies of a six-year-old book.  I have no idea if the sudden order of 10 or 20 or 50 copies of the same (not new) book would raise any eyebrows.


----------



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

I may not like a certain thing this author did, but he's hardly Hannibal Lecter. Some of the posts in this thread are way off in Cloud Cuckoo Land. I don't usually advocate for the locking of threads where there's still meaningful discussion to be had, but reading some of this stuff... maybe it's time to move on?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Corvid said:


> I may not like a certain thing this author did, but he's hardly Hannibal Lecter. Some of the posts in this thread are way off in Cloud Cuckoo Land. I don't usually advocate for the locking of threads where there's still meaningful discussion to be had, but reading some of this stuff... maybe it's time to move on?


Some posts over the last few days have been speculative, but I'm not seeing anything worthy of shutting the thread down, at this point. We do try to keep threads open unless the level of conflict therein makes management too difficult, given the moderation resources at hand. This one has required very little intervention and has stayed pretty well focused on the Dawson event and the larger issue of list manipulation.


----------



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> Some posts over the last few days have been speculative, but I'm not seeing anything worthy of shutting the thread down, at this point. We do try to keep threads open unless the level of conflict therein makes management too difficult, given the moderation resources at hand. This one has required very little intervention and has stayed pretty well focused on the Dawson event and the larger issue of list manipulation.


Fair enough. I do think some of the Cloak & Dagger stuff runs fairly far afield, but I'll be the first to admit in any given situation that even though I'm freely spouting an opinion, I also don't know nothin' from nothin'.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

Doglover said:


> He bought them to sell on to overseas readers who had requested them.


Is this right, though? I follow Mark on FB and I watched the 400 copy thing unfold in real time. Unless I missed something, I'm not sure he had 400 specific orders for those books up front and waiting. I think he bought them, signed them, and then people could request them. Apologies if this is not correct, but I think they were bought speculatively. I also agree very much with the contributor who made the comment about there being a limit to what we can do to stopping list manipulation, and if someone is really that obsessed with success they will find a way, I suppose. I'm not having a fingerprint scan to buy a book, or even showing ID!

Have any of the podcasts gone out yet? I know a lot of indie authors are very interested to hear how they will deal with this issue. It is, after all, pretty much the biggest "scandal" in indie fiction for a long time, and if it just gets papered over and shut down people will draw negative conclusions about why that has happened. For now, it stands as a solid warning to other indies (and trads, I guess) to stay on the right side of the rules and play fair.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

markpauloleksiw said:


> When you think about the whole sordid tale...I wonder...what else has been going on before this?
> 
> People don't suddenly try to game the system for the first time after..."success"
> 
> Mark


Interesting, and while possible, I'm not sure we can deduce earlier skulduggery from this incident, however tempting. I might be giving Mark more credit than he deserves but I think his success is down to three factors, all honest. 1) He writes solid, page-turning thrillers. 2) He got a rapid understanding of how to use social media advertising very ruthlessly. 3) He got into self-publishing fairly early when indie writers still stood a fair chance of making it, unlike today (ironically, partly because of success stories like him). Now, post-success, he can lay out huge sums of money on FB and Amazon Ads (as he has publicly admitted) and guarantee the visibility required to reach lots of potential readers.

So why cheat now? Because of the lingering feeling that somehow success only counts if it's "trad" held by many authors. This was a chance to get an indie book into paperback, into the mainstream, and then by Jove, right up in the grille of trad publishing by hitting the Sunday Times Top Ten. As Romeo once said, O mischief, thou art swift to enter in the thoughts of desperate men!


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

VisitasKeat said:


> Yeah, this could be the tip of the iceberg. And even more shocking is the fact that he used to be a lawyer. Nice role model, huh?!
> 
> But I still feel that the question I raised upthread still holds merit.
> 
> ...


Transferring 400 books from bookstore to his truck or whatever is tedious.

So, were the books home delivered?

Or, did a group of people accompany him to the store? If so, how many?

Or, could it be the case that someone else represented him at the shop?

After all things said and done, could it be that Dawson is innocent if it can be proven that his mental state was altered the previous night?


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

Doglover said:


> He bought them to sell on to overseas readers who had requested them.


But did the readers write Dawson first, or did Dawson write the readers first and solicit the sale from them?

The month of May offers a clue.

In May, Mark Dawson wrote to his newsletter fans and said that the hardback of his old book The Cleaner was going to hit brick-and-mortar book shelves in late June. He said that every hardback purchase would get him closer to the Sunday Times bestseller list. He said that if the book placed on the Sunday Times list, that that would in turn ensure the book buyers who decide placement in the brick-and-mortar stores would pay more attention to the subsequent paperback edition, which will arrive later this year. Dawson then promised that anyone who pre-purchased the hardback via his link would be entered in a drawing to win, as he called it, some John Milton goodies.

He wrote openly of his desire to reach readers beyond Kindle, readers who prefer brick-and-mortar book stores.

Dawson had made a connection between landing high on the Sunday Times hardback bestseller list, and a future economic benefit for himself. It wasn't just vanity. Hitting high on the list would influence the book buyers who could help him reach new readers, the ones who preferred physical books. A strong showing out of the gate with the hardback would make the chain bookstore buyers take him seriously.

The whole reason Dawson signed with Welbeck, a trad publisher, in the first place was to try to break into the brick-and-mortar world. He has said that on a number of occasions. The _The Cleaner_ hardback was the first one to arrive. If it did well, it would set up _The Cleaner_ paperback to be positioned better in the stores when it arrives later this year. And from there all the other Dawson paper books that will be arriving down the line.

It's momentum. The more juice out of the gate, the better.

It is not a stretch to believe that the reason Dawson had been repeatedly plugging _The Cleaner_ hardbacks to his fans--signed hardbacks, for which he would charge no more than ten pounds sterling (about $12), with free overseas shipping no less--was because Dawson wanted to hit the Sunday Times bestseller list, hard.

Dawson was trying to drive the sales. Nothing wrong with that.

However, it conflicts with his story after he was caught. His story now is that he was simply trying to respond to all the readers who were badgering him for a signed copy of the hardback, and so he felt obliged to fulfill the demand, personally; he lifted the burden upon his shoulders, took one for the team.

But in fact to a large extent he himself had created the demand. He wasn't responding to readers who unsolicited had wanted a signed hardback. He had been plugging the hardback for weeks. The tail was wagging the dog.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

Triceratops said:


> But did the readers write Dawson first, or did Dawson write the readers first and solicit the sale from them?
> 
> The month of May offers a clue.
> 
> ...


Desperate people do desperate things.

The thing is, he can publish those e-mail letters of proof on his site. But still, it won't help his case. Wrong is wrong.


----------



## Eskimo (Dec 31, 2013)

Triceratops said:


> But did the readers write Dawson first, or did Dawson write the readers first and solicit the sale from them?
> 
> The month of May offers a clue.


What did Mark know -- and when did he know it? I'll have to check Mark's age and see if he was in Dallas on 11/22/1963. You never know....


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

THe mechanics of the how just confuse the basic fact...

BUYING YOUR OWN BOOK TO MANIPULATE RANKINGS IS WRONG!

When you try to rationalize it, you lower the bar and anyone with financial means will do the same.

Mark


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

Long post. Apologies for the eye fatigue.

Mark Dawson talked about his own purchase of 400 of his hardcover books yesterday, July 31, in his podcast. (He has also discussed it before, but he said that this would be the last time.)

Full and unedited transcript follows. Any comments or questions from me are in brackets []. Of note, this was not a live podcast but a prerecorded and edited show that is owned and run by Mark. As they mention in the transcript, episode was recorded Monday July 27 and premiered Friday July 31.

*The Self Publishing Show, episode 237: Self Publishing Sisters: Keeping it in the Family*
youtube.com/watch?v=xXDTQEsKGRw

Transcript begins around 00:02:25. Mark was joined by James Blatch, his regular co-host.

[...]

After the guests, excerpt around 01:07:00:

[...]

Excerpt around 01:09:50:

[...]

* one of the articles about Mark Dawson's purchase of 400 hardbacks in The Guardian claimed that the book initially hit the 13 spot on the chart, and then after that Dawson made the decision to try and boost it higher:

*An author bought his own book to get higher on bestseller lists. Is that fair?*
Monday 20 July 2020
https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2020/jul/20/an-author-bought-his-own-book-to-get-higher-on-bestseller-lists-is-that-fair

_On the latest episode of his Self Publishing Show podcast, Dawson explained why he did it. When Nielsen released its midweek chart, Dawson had realised that The Cleaner was sitting at No 13, having sold around 1,300 copies that week -- just outside the coveted top 10. He hit on the idea of buying the book himself in the UK, to sell to readers overseas. "We'd like to get to the top 10 ... we've been trying to think of ways we can do that that would count those sales as sales for the chart," he said.

After sending an email to gauge interest, around 400 people in the US said they would buy the book if he bought the copies himself first. So Dawson went to a children's bookshop in Salisbury. "I said, 'would you be interested if I placed an order for 400 hardbacks of my own book?'," said Dawson on the podcast. "They were like, 'Yes, of course.'"

Several authors on social media have since shared their concerns over Dawson's strategy, including thriller writer Clare Mackintosh, who said it was "disingenuous" that Dawson, when celebrating his top 10 spot on Twitter, had not also shared that he had personally bought almost a quarter of the books that got him there. Dawson maintained he was just fulfilling orders, though on his podcast he specified that he had expressions of interest from abroad rather than firm sales._

edit: formatting.

_This post has been edited to remove extensive quotations of a podcast transcript, at the request of the copyright holder. The entire transcript is available here: https://selfpublishingformula.com/episode-237/. Quotation of public sources is permitted at KBoards, but if a copyright holder demands their material be taken down, we take a look at the individual situation vis-a-vis the doctrine of fair use and make the best judgment we can, as non-lawyers. In this case, the quotations were massive and were not being critiqued or analyzed in a significant way. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

Have to say, after listening, and reading the transcript of the podcast, I'm feeling much more willing to give Mark the benefit of the doubt here. It is entirely possible that the timing just coincided for him rather poorly, in that, the time he'd decided to take upon himself to fulfill those non-UK orders also was within the window of time which would have seen his chart position rise from 13 to 8. 

Yes, he'd also mentioned he did want those self-generated orders to count towards sales for the benefit of the chart, but it's also possible he did that knowing those kind of self-generated buys are standard industry practice in the trad world, and therefore he wouldn't have thought he was doing anything unethical in the least.

I think there's enough gray area here that I'm not as comfortable casting aspersions as perhaps I had been. I think I might've been too quick to judge, and maybe been to harsh on Mark previously. Yes, I do understand that people can and will be less than honest, especially in those times where they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar - but, I've had positive experiences with Mark's business in the past, and he always came across as an honest broker (which is why I'd said I was disappointed in a previous post).

Of course, I could be wrong about what's really what, but in my estimation, listening/reading this latest podcast... he comes across as genuine to me.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

Corvid said:


> Have to say, after listening, and reading the transcript of the podcast, I'm feeling much more willing to give Mark the benefit of the doubt here. It is entirely possible that the timing just coincided for him rather poorly, in that, the time he'd decided to take upon himself to fulfill those non-UK orders also was within the window of time which would have seen his chart position rise from 13 to 8.
> 
> Yes, he'd also mentioned he did want those self-generated orders to count towards sales for the benefit of the chart, but it's also possible he did that knowing those kind of self-generated buys are standard industry practice in the trad world, and therefore he wouldn't have thought he was doing anything unethical in the least.
> 
> ...


It's not what you or I think about the case. Or anybody else's opinion, for that matter.

He may be a great guy in personal life. He may have helped a lot of authors. He may have rendered a great service to the indie community. His courses and his novels may be world-class. And he may be showered with sympathy waves while a hungry kid sticking a finger into a candy jar gets whipped with a cane...

But...

Wrong is wrong.

No amount of rationalization would help justify his act.

So, no use in creating "100% rationalizing, blackhole-like, quicksand-like circles."

There is only one escape door out of the mousetrap. And that is to medically prove that his mental state was altered prior to committing the heinous act. In that case, he can boldly attend writing conferences in the future.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

Just curious....have those anxious readers received the book?

The whole podcast attempt to justify it and make him out to be the victim is sad. There is an author out there who got screwed...the person whose rank was number 11 on the original list.

Mark

P.S. the ratings for his book on Goodreads is taking a hit...since late July there are more 1 star ratings


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

My thoughts on the podcast, and I will use direct quotations from it to make those points.



> *Dawson:* it has been a difficult week, no two ways about it, *but it hasn't taken a shine off*, a really exciting experience I've worked with some great people, and you know it's, it's one of those things, we'll deal with it, *but I don't want people to think that this has been an ordeal*, because *that wouldn't be true at all.*


Second time I have quoted Shakespeare, but here the lady doth protest too much. He has clearly been hit by this but wants us to think it's nothing. Understandable.



> *Dawson:* So um I, we spoke, I spoke to, to Welbeck and we tried very very hard or they tried very hard to find some ah way that those sales could be fulfilled to um the readers.


Interesting deviation to "we" here, in between the two "I"s. We all know Mark runs a big operation and I'd imagine lots of people were drafted in to bail out the canoe. also, did Welbeck, or did Welbeck not, offer to sell Mark copies at a discounted publisher/wholesale price to fulfil the speculative overseas order? They will not clarify this, for obvious reasons.



> *Dawson:* So, I kind of did the indie thing I suppose, and I thought, well, maybe perhaps I can do it.


I've tried to be polite in all this but this is despicable. No one knows more about publishing than Mark and to suggest grifting the charts is the "indie thing" to do is grossly insulting to independent authors. And yes, he does know he grifted the charts.



> *Dawson:* I, I don't think, and I still don't think, there was anything wrong in that at all.


Operation Double Down goes on.



> *Blatch:* Actually that was a deliberate choice, to get a bit of cash going over their desk as well


Now I've heard it all. This was an act of goodwill to local book retailers all along. Nothing to see here, move along please.



> *Dawson:* we can get on to what exactly the suggestion was in a minute,


Trying to downgrade the outright accusation of gaming the system to a mere suggestion. This is slippery stuff.



> *Dawson:* And those sales have now been taken away, discounted by Nielsen. I am *completely *fine about that --


The lady is still protesting, but not very convincingly at this point.



> *Dawson:* I am, I mean I've been very very impressed with Nielsen throughout this,


This is an attempt to frame the deliberate purchase of 25% of the total counted books to reach the Top Ten as a silly misunderstanding resolved by working together with Nielson and what a great bunch of guys they are at Nielson, too. No hard feelings. Yeah, right.



> *Dawson:* And, and the good news is that the book is selling strongly even after all this kerfuffle has taken place.


Another attempt to downgrade list manipulation to a "kerfuffle".



> *Dawson:* And something, I really want to make this point that should be obvious and this is a point lots of people have made to us in emailing us their support, is that you have been completely transparent about this all the way through.


No mention of all the writers he banned from the SPF forum for daring to criticise what he did, even though they had paid money to be in that forum. Nice.



> *Blatch: *this is you doing what indies do,


As I mentioned above, trying to make grifting and cheating out to be some cool indie tactic is despicable. First, Mark is only indie in name - he has massive resources and can buy himself more advertising and visibility than many midlist trad authors get from their publishers. Second, this is insulting to genuine indie writers, who, I might mention, supply him with around half his income via the SPF course. When they sat around and brainstormed the line they were going to feed the public ti get themselves out of this mess, this was not one of their brighter ideas. It insults ethical indies and encourages unethical ones to cheat, just like he did.



> *Dawson:* And so I spoke to the MD [managing director?] of Nielsen who I have to say was fantastic, a really nice guy, um and we had a very good, two very good discussions, um where I explained what happened, he explained his position from where, you know from Nielsen's point of view. Um, and you know his, his view was, and you know they put out a statement to, to kind of codify this and also we had some discussion um beyond that, and, and they concluded that it was an innocent error. And, which is absolutely correct, and they didn't, he didn't feel that I acted unethically, or that I tried to game the system, which is kind of what the, the, the article [one of the two Guardian articles?] was *suggesting*. So, I mean his view was that it was like a virtual book signing, so, I had, the readers wanted signed copies, I signed them, I, I sent them off. And, you know the only rule as we said, the only rule that was broken was that those books in this instance went to non-UK, non-UK readers. Um, if it wasn't for that, um, I think, those books, those sales would all have been counted. So, you know I know that now, that's not a mistake I'll make twice.


As above, this is another tactic to make it look like Mark and Nielson were on the same side with the nasty press and jealous trad authors on the other. The point about gaming the system was not a suggestion - note that word again - but a direct and undeniable reporting of the facts.



> *Blatch: *No, no, we're done on that one.


Of course it's heavily in Mark's - and all his employees' - interest that this gets forgotten about as soon as possible. It might go away from the internet but people won't forget it, especially indie writers.

I'm not impressed with this response, but I had an inkling this was going to the line they took after the way Mark behaved on Twitter before he deleted his account. Accepting the obvious, which is that Mark, just like the rest of us here, knew full well buying the books retail was list manipulation, absolutely the best response would have been to fess up and apologise. I for one have lost all respect for him after this - but here's the Nixon bit I mentioned earlier - the scamming part was wrong and unethical, but this cringing display of denials is quite another. All too sad.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

VisitasKeat said:


> There is only one escape door out of the mousetrap. And that is to medically prove that his mental state was altered prior to committing the heinous act.


No more repetition of this shot in the dark, please.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

Becca Mills said:


> No more repetition of this shot in the dark, please.


Okay, Becca, but I took that shot because the case needs to be examined from all angles, so that co-conspirators don't get away.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

One great concern while considering SSN is that data may be misused by FBI and the government. However, an independent agency appointed by the concerned stakeholders can act as the watchdog.


----------



## nail file (Sep 12, 2018)

VisitasKeat said:


> One great concern while considering SSN is that data may be misused by FBI and the government. However, an independent agency appointed by the concerned stakeholders can act as the watchdog.


And ripe with the opportunity for identity theft.

Needless to say, I can't imagine anyone actually believing that an 'independent agency' could 100% safeguard their privacy. Especially when money's involved.

Identity theft is a real thing, but beyond the scope of this conversation.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

nail file said:


> And ripe with the opportunity for identity theft.
> 
> Needless to say, I can't imagine anyone actually believing that an 'independent agency' could 100% safeguard their privacy. Especially when money's involved.
> 
> Identity theft is a real thing, but beyond the scope of this conversation.


Alternatively, customers can be authenticated using their mobile phone numbers.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

I've personally decided that the continued absolutely absurd statements in this thread about getting video footage, collecting social security numbers, giving Mark a drug test, etc. are actually being made by supporters of Mark's to cast this whole thing in such an absurd light that people decide it was all a-okay because those comments are trying to say, "look at the extreme to which people will take things if you start to look for bad acts."

So I'm done here. I don't condone what he did and no amount of back and forth will change that opinion, but I'm also not out to make this into more than it is.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

The previous post (before this one) is very vitriolic. Not good for a thread where forum decorum hasn't been breached. I'm the only one who mentioned certain things said in the previous post. So, "supporters" is a wrong word here. No support or finger pointing by me but only an objective analysis.

As things stand, as of now, Dawson is innocent before the laws of the land unless proven otherwise by a...<fill up the blanks. I promised Becca that I won't repeat about certain things>


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

VisitasKeat said:


> Okay, Becca, but I took that shot because the case needs to be examined from all angles, so that co-conspirators don't get away.


To keep the thread open, let's keep posts grounded in known facts and workable solutions going forward. The more speculative posts in the thread are the only ones triggering reports.


----------



## boxer44 (Aug 6, 2016)

I've been publishing for over thirty years, mostly non-fiction but some novels.  Never has a publisher refused to either sell to me at wholesale, or often given at least some free promo copies then sold at wholesale if I needed more.

In my eyes, the issue is buying and counting these books as sales to climb a list.  Regardless of the reasons, excuses, justifications, or strategy - that one issue stands at the top of the "do not buy retail and claim it as sales", particularly with the "I didn't know it" result follows.  He knew it.

It reminds me of a politician that gets caught with his pants down, and resigns "for family reasons" just before the "pants down" photo and story hits the press. He hopes no one will notice, or it will get lost in the shuffle, or something bigger will kick it off the news. That's just attempting to protect an image already lost.

When an author is in charge, as much as this author is in charge, the 'already filmed so we played it first' podcast reason sounds like hogwash.  Anyone of those could have been dumped, or gone live and admitted it and apologized BEFORE the book/list information hit the public.

Never heard of this guy before this post, have not read his work and will not in the future.


----------



## Indy Strange (Aug 29, 2019)

Triceratops said:


> Long post. Apologies for the eye fatigue.
> 
> Mark Dawson talked about his own purchase of 400 of his hardcover books yesterday, July 31, in his podcast. (He has also discussed it before, but he said that this would be the last time.)
> 
> ...


I would probably make a lot of comments about this podcast episode, but it's so awkward and bending over backward to appease Dawson that I can't stop laughing. It must be nice to be considered so '*Naive*' when it comes to self-publishing but have people willing to spend $300+ on courses from me.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

boxer44 said:


> In my eyes, the issue is buying and counting these books as sales to climb a list. Regardless of the reasons, excuses, justifications, or strategy - that one issue stands at the top of the "do not buy retail and claim it as sales", particularly with the "I didn't know it" result follows. He knew it.


Succinctly put.


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

This is the second of three podcasts where Mark Dawson talked about his purchase of 400 of his own hardbacks. We're going in reverse order here; a couple of days ago up-thread I posted the transcript of the third and (so far?) last podcast Mark recorded wherein he spoke of his hardback purchase. So, one more podcast to go after this. That podcast conversation is a long one, nine minutes. I'll try to post it here in a day or two. Unless the mods lock the thread. 

In this episode below, Mark speaks about his delight in hitting number 8 on the Sunday Times hardback bestseller list as a result of him purchasing 400 of his own hardbacks. The previous week, when Mark's book had first debuted on the list, before Mark made his buy, the book had landed at 13.

Full and unedited excerpt transcript follows. Any comments or questions from me are in brackets []. This was not a live podcast but a prerecorded and edited show that is owned and run by Mark Dawson. Episode was recorded Monday July 13 and premiered Friday July 17.

*The Self Publishing Show, episode 235: Collaboration for Authors: Writing in Someone Else's World*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3Uc6G2EVfA

Transcript begins around 00:00:48. Mark was joined by James Blatch, his regular co-host.

_This post has been edited to remove a quotation of a podcast transcript, at the request of the copyright holder. The entire transcript is available here: https://selfpublishingformula.com/episode-235/. Quotation of public sources is permitted at KBoards, but if a copyright holder demands their material be taken down, we take a look at the individual situation vis-a-vis the doctrine of fair use and make the best judgment we can, as non-lawyers. In this case, the quotation is limited but it's not being critiqued or analyzed in a significant way. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## MMSN (Feb 27, 2019)

"just to be a Sunday Times Top Ten bestseller, which is, that was the whole, um, objective of the exercise... it was touch and go cause we weren't sure that those sales would all count"

Innocent. Totally innocent.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

"...but, um, last, end of last week we were just trying to figure out ways to, um, get books to non-UK readers who had bought them, um. And then that occasioned me going down to the local book shop and ordering 400 copies of my own hardback.... _your honour_."

But seriously - "non-UK readers who had bought them" - is this right? I'm still not sure those American readers had bought them in advance. He bought them and then said he'd sign them and if you want them I'll sell you one. Am I wrong or right about that? It's irrelevant to the wider point because even if they had been bought in advance they are still non-UK sales so don't count on the UK Top Ten list and are still gaming the system. But if it's not true this is a bare-faced lie to his listeners.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

I don't care how much people twist themselves into pretzels to excuse this. The man admitted _himself_, more than once, that it was done to move his book up the best selling list. What else do you need to pronounce this unethical? Seriously, some people...

The fact is this: Mark Dawson is not some newbie who got sold a Kindle get rick quick scheme. He's a professional, an educated man, one who's been around self publishing for years. He knew what he did was wrong, and would cause people to go crazy when it was found out. But, I'm guessing he figured all the "good" he's done for the indie community would negate it (and in some cases, he's right, it seems some will forgive all).

And Mark, you know darn well that this is not how indies behave, in general. The vast majority of us simply want to sell books to people who want to read them. We aren't out there doing things to get us further up the charts, we aren't bulk-buying books and expecting people to be okay with it. We aren't doubling down and making it look like all self publishers are lying, cheating schemers out to make a buck. Get real, dude. Admit you did wrong and maybe people will stop talking about it.

And I've lost all interest in ALLi, too. Sheesh, how mealy-mouthed can you get?


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

You know, reading through all of this thread over the past week or so, and not ever having watched a Mark Dawson vid, and hardly even knowing who the guy is, I've reached this conclusion: whatever he did was on impulse. Perhaps it was that one chance to grab the brass ring and see one's book finally on a big, national newspaper's chart. And the way it was done would appear somewhat legitimate, right? After all, they would end up being _real_ sales.

Things people do on impulse, when a door opens, can sometimes backfire -- as we have seen. I would gather he didn't sit in his house and ponder over the decision and its ramifications for a week, agonizing over whether to do it or not. It probably was something done on the spur of the moment, maybe with some help by others who weren't giving the possible ramifications a ton of thought, either.

All just pure speculation here, of course, but we've all devoted 9 thread pages so far attempting to take it all apart when it probably was just something done by impulse.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Those podcasts and still not a whisper of answering the question: did Mark Dawson have the option to buy author copies from his publisher?

Answer is almost certainly yes, except those books wouldn't have been counted for the list. 

Mark needs to answer this question.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

........ said:


> Those podcasts and still not a whisper of answering the question: did Mark Dawson have the option to buy author copies from his publisher?
> 
> Answer is almost certainly yes, except those books wouldn't have been counted for the list.
> 
> Mark needs to answer this question.


He hasn't addressed this point in any of his podcasts and now he has said he's drawing a line under it so I doubt we'll ever know. To echo unkownwriter's comment above, Mark is a very astute businessman and I'd put money on there being very few indies out there who know the system better than he does, if any. Would he negotiate a deal with Welbeck where he was not allowed to buy copies from them? Doubtful. He knew what he was doing. This is why I reject jb1111's theory about impulse.

Why he got himself into such a pickle here is because of his SPF company. This company trades on his (deserved) reputation as a very astute businessman and independent author and publisher. That's the whole shtick - pay me because I know this game inside out. Yet now he argues he had no idea what all the "kerfuffle" (to quote him) is all about.

So which is it? Did he game the system on purpose and lie about it to cover it up, but remains an expert in the field of self-publishing who commands people's respect? Or is he a naive fool who is misrepresenting himself as an expert in self-publishing, who didn't know a Basis 101 fact about publishing and lists? This is the pickle.


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

This is the first podcast episode where Mark Dawson reveals his purchase of 400 of his own hardbacks. When Mark drops the news he seems to catch his co-host James Blatch off guard.

It appears from the episode that Mark purchased his own 400 hardbacks on the same day that he recorded this show, Monday July 6. Mark also said in the podcast that he had previously in his newsletters solicited interest for selling signed hardbacks, and that some people had in turn emailed him with their interest or possible interest in buying. Dawson also spoke of his challenges trying to figure out how to charge credit cards, take addresses and run fulfillment -- "how do we take payment, and how do we get [the hardbacks] shipped?" -- and his efforts to set up on his website a store to sell paper books.

Full and unedited excerpt transcript follows. Any comments or questions from me are in brackets []. This was not a live podcast but a prerecorded and edited show that is owned and run by Mark Dawson. Episode was recorded Monday July 6 and premiered Friday July 10.

*The Self Publishing Show, episode 234: How to Automate Your Amazon Ads - with Dierk Demers*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCgXPU2bGTw

Transcript begins around 00:01:40. Mark was joined by James Blatch, his regular co-host.

[...]

Beginning around 00:13:12

[...]

edit: formatting.

_This post has been edited to remove a quotation of a podcast transcript, at the request of the copyright holder. The entire transcript is available here: https://selfpublishingformula.com/episode-234/. Quotation of public sources is permitted at KBoards, but if a copyright holder demands their material be taken down, we take a look at the individual situation vis-a-vis the doctrine of fair use and make the best judgment we can, as non-lawyers. In this case, the quotation is limited but it's not being critiqued or analyzed in a significant way. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

This is all about a man's ego. No more. No less.

He seemed perplexed that his book was not in as many retail stores as possible.

Here is what I don't understand. This bookstore...IS A CHILDREN"s BOOKSTORE....would never carry a novel not meant for children. So the store had likely no copies. There are quite a few people who seem to have been caught in this web. Very strange how the "accounting" for this transaction took place.

Mark


----------



## MMSN (Feb 27, 2019)

Well at least now we have the "proper" terminology.

Buying your own books to make the top ten list is 'taking an executive decision.' It's not the bad names the rest of us have been calling it; at worst it's only 'grandiose.' But I do take exception to the interviewer's name for it of, 'You've gone old-school!'

I do however give the interviewer the "Understatement of the Year Award!" for his assessment that 'you're going to be very frustrated if [the whole thing goes ker-boom.]'


----------



## LaBelleOtero (Jul 2, 2018)

Redgum said:


> So which is it? Did he game the system on purpose and lie about it to cover it up, but remains an expert in the field of self-publishing who commands people's respect? Or is he a naive fool who is misrepresenting himself as an expert in self-publishing, who didn't know a Basis 101 fact about publishing and lists? This is the pickle.


I'm not a publishing expert. Most of my info is kind of dated.
But this I know, because it's a very old game: it is standard practice for agencies to buy books from the bookstores they know are counted by Neilson in the first week of a release, providing the publisher/author is willing to pay to play. It happens a lot with political figure books (as I recall from what I read) as well as others. The original article I read described how they did it and got around Neilson in detail. Sorry I don't have the link, and it was some years ago now. It was (is?) such a pervasive practice that I remember walking away from that article thinking that 50% of the bestseller lists were... meaningless, contrived shit.
Anyway, I'm having a really hard time believing that marketing guru Mark Dawson knows less than I do about how Neilson works.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

LaBelleOtero said:


> Anyway, I'm having a really hard time believing that marketing guru Mark Dawson knows less than I do about how Neilson works.


That's the crux of it. No one with any knowledge of indie publishing (i.e. those who SPF targets as customers) can deduct anything other than "nefarious aforethought". if I can put it like that. The mysterious absence of any explanation of whether or not Welbeck offered him discount copies also looms large. To me, it looks like they planned the whole thing in advance, including riding the free publicity if they got caught. Whether that strategy works or not, we'll see. The two things I will take away from this, above all the others, were 1) Mark and James talking on their podcast about how gaming the system was the "indie thing to do" and 2) Mark throwing people off his SPF FB page who had paid to be there, just because they described his actions as unethical.


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

Mark Dawson claims, and The Guardian seems to agree, that he did not break the rules in buying his own books for a "virtual book signing." Rules and laws aside, whether or not he acted immorally or unethically, is a separate issue.

But, let's go back to the rules thing. Okay, an author buys lots of copies of their own book for a book signing, virtual or otherwise. I feel like the author can abide by the rules *if*

a. he sells to his readers *every single one* of those copies he bought, and he has no copies left over at the conclusion of the book signing; and

b. he sells every single one of those copies *in the same week that Nielsen is reporting book sales.*

Meaning, if Dawson failed to sell even one of those 400 books by Saturday July 11, the last day of that reporting week, then he gamed the system.

Nielsen BookScan gets point-of-sale data from many sources every week. The reporting period runs Sunday to Saturday. The best selling books are listed, in the UK territory, as Sunday Times bestsellers. But the sales are supposed to correspond to actual purchases by people that week.

If actual readers did not need to buy the copies on the reporting week, for the sales to count, then that would be a problem. There would be nothing to stop any Big Author from buying thousands of books, sticking them in a storage container, and then selling them off as signed copies over weeks, months, years. Big Authors could hit number one in the charts every single time.

And Nielsen knows it. But, Nielsen makes allowances for bulk buys that happen with author signings on a particular day, or at the most, a particular week. Because actual readers are actually buying the books, on that week. So, those book buys count toward tracking.

But warehousing, aka "sitting on the copies," is cheating.

Dawson made clear in his podcast recorded July 6/premiered July 10 that as of that day, July 6, the same day he bought the 400 books, that he had only received some e-mails from readers that amounted to expressions of interest. He had not actually charged any credit cards nor shipped any books to his readers. He had made zero sales.

And then in his next podcast recorded July 13/premiered July 17, he mentioned that every one of those 400 books, all 35 boxes of them, were still sitting in his garage. He didn't say if he had even yet charged any credit cards or shipped any books.

But his store website was still not operational. On July 12 in his public Facebook account, Mark mentioned that he still had not created a method for non-UK people to purchase the hardcover: "I'll have a link for non-UK readers to get a signed hardback in the next few days." https://www.facebook.com/markdawsonauthor/photos/a.566475940084705/3174712145927725/

In the last podcast recorded July 27/premiered July 31, Dawson said: "the readers wanted signed copies, I signed them, I, I sent them off. " So to be clear, with that statement Dawson was saying

1. that he had sold every one of those 400 books by that time, 3 weeks after he had purchased them in his local book shop;

2. that he had paid free shipping to the USA, which as he said came to 18 pounds sterling per book airmail (18 x 400 = 7,200 pounds), or 10 pounds surface mail (10 x 400 = 4,000 pounds). But he sounds so cagey about it, in that podcast, that an impartial observer might wonder if he actually still had boxes of those books in his garage.

Any way he spins it, Mark Dawson bought those books during the Nielsen reporting week of July 5 - July 11, however it seems in that week at minimum he sold none. It sounds from his own words that he simply on impulse wanted to bump his book into the Top Ten. He made an "executive" decision. So he whipped over to the local book shop and put 400 of his own books on his Mastercard. He figured he would sort out the actual sales later. And he was pleased with his own thinking outside of the box.

But what he didn't count on was that Nielsen takes the integrity and truthfulness of their data very seriously. Nielsen's computers pinged that 400 sales had registered from only one shop. So they called Welbeck, the trad publisher -- who almost certainly were shocked -- and Welbeck in turn gave Dawson's number to Nielsen. Dawson then told Nielsen that he had simply bought the books for a "virtual book signing."

Did Nielsen specifically ask Mark Dawson if those books were or would be all sold by July 11? We don't know what Paul Walker, the Nielsen UK & Ireland Managing Director, asked Dawson that day. Or what Dawson told him.

But if Dawson keeps insisting that he did not game the system, I would like him to please specifically state what Paul Walker asked him on that day, and what Dawson in turn told him.

edit: formatting.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

Triceratops said:


> Mark Dawson claims, and The Guardian seems to agree, that he did not break the rules in buying his own books for a "virtual book signing."


Even if he had a virtual book signing, which in this case I'm not sure is exactly what happened, he should still have bought those books from his publisher, not retail. He broke the rules and he knew he was breaking them.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

FYI, at the request of the copyright holder (SPF), I've removed extensive quotations from The Self-Publishing Show podcast from three posts in this thread, as well as from a fourth post that quoted one of the edited posts.

As I noted in my editing notes, requests from copyright holders for removal of material from the site put moderators in the position of having to judge fair use. We do our non-lawyer best to handle those decisions. In this case, the three posts basically reproduced the transcripts, rather than critiquing or commenting on the material (one of the criteria on which fair use hinges). Reproducing extensive amounts of material verbatim simply for the sake of members' convenience doesn't fall under fair use, so I thought the copyright holder's request had merit and took the material down. (NB: I have *not* removed podcast quotations from a fifth post that subjects those quotations to significant critique -- to my mind, that falls squarely under fair use.)

If you think we've made the wrong call on this or any other such issue, please push your concerns up the pay-scale to our VerticalScope (company that own KBoards) liaison, Philip, who can be PM'd at vsAdmin.

The transcripts reproduced in the three posts are all available on the Self-Publishing Show site. My editing note on each post contains a specific link.

_
ETA point of correction: Self-Publishing Formula is the copyright holder for the podcast, not Mark Dawson himself. I've changed my post above accordingly. Apologies for the error._


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

One would have thought a certain author would be busy licking all those stamps and putting books in envelopes for all those overseas buyers...instead of reading boards....


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

Becca Mills said:


> FYI, at the request of the copyright holder (SPF), I've removed extensive quotations from The Self-Publishing Show podcast from three posts in this thread, as well as from a fourth post that quoted one of the edited posts.
> 
> As I noted in my editing notes, requests from copyright holders for removal of material from the site put moderators in the position of having to judge fair use. We do our non-lawyer best to handle those decisions. In this case, the three posts basically reproduced the transcripts, rather than critiquing or commenting on the material (one of the criteria on which fair use hinges). Reproducing extensive amounts of material verbatim simply for the sake of members' convenience doesn't fall under fair use, so I thought the copyright holder's request had merit and took the material down. (NB: I have *not* removed podcast quotations from a fifth post that subjects those quotations to significant critique -- to my mind, that falls squarely under fair use.)
> 
> ...


Hello Mark! Yes, I know you're reading this. How proud you must be, sending Cease And Desist notices to a little self-publishing bulletin board on the net. I suspect your takedown demand was pure bluster, since as you know I was very careful to state on each transcript that the SPF show is owned and run by yourself, and I also quoted your every word and pause to the letter. Nothing added, nothing removed. Still, I expect what really got under your skin was my very clear and correct argument, a few posts up, that you gamed the system. So, since you can't quash free speech, especially where facts are involved, you did the next best thing and sent a Cease And Desist on the transcript copyright. Well done. I hope you realize that by doing that, you are acknowledging that there is something here on this thread that you don't like? It probably was not your best move, public-relations wise, but then given your behavior on Twitter recently, your own PR isn't your strong skill.

Becca, sorry for the hassle. If Mark chooses to escalate this further and demands more edits and/or takedowns, including and especially my post above that begins "Mark Dawson claims, and The Guardian seems to agree", then I will indeed petition Verticalscope the owner of this little bulletin board, as well as petition journalists in the UK and elsewhere to come take a look and also have a listen to me. I don't mind discarding my anonymity, and one of the few, the very few, advantages about being not rich like myself is that as Dylan said, when you ain't got nothing you got nothing to lose. So if Mark cares to sue me in court, I am more than happy to risk losing my treadmill and my china.

I have made a fact-based argument using public evidence about how Mark, in my opinion, gamed the system with his purchase of 400 of his own hardbacks to make the Sunday Times Top Ten Bestseller List. If Mark would like to dispute that argument publicly, I would be happy to listen.



markpauloleksiw said:


> One would have thought a certain author would be busy licking all those stamps and putting books in envelopes for all those overseas buyers...instead of reading boards....


Quite. Mark, we didn't create this situation, you did. Aren't you busy enough?

_Edited: a few words have been removed. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## blubarry (Feb 27, 2015)

Triceratops said:


> I don't mind discarding my anonymity, and one of the few, the very few, advantages about being not rich like myself is that as Dylan said, when you ain't got nothing you got nothing to lose. So if Mark cares to sue me in court, I am more than happy to risk losing my treadmill and my china.


One of the things that has always bothered me about Mark as a very public publishing individual has been certain behavior he displays when someone disagrees with him. The twitter demand for an apology was terrible, especially since he was not innocent.

_Edited to removed several sentences that either got off topic or seemed to break our WHOA rule. "WHOA" stands for "What Happens on Amazon [Stays on Amazon]." It means we don't want drama imported from other sites, preferring to stick with our own homegrown drama, thank you very much. ("Amazon" in this case = the old Amazon forums, which were notoriously contentious, but the rule goes for all outside sites.) Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

Triceratops said:


> So if Mark cares to sue me in court, I am more than happy to risk losing my treadmill and my china.


Mark cannot sue you for anything. First, neither you nor this forum or anyone on it have done anything wrong at all. He's the only one who has done anything wrong. Second, he's had quite enough negative publicity already.

I must say this whole episode has not been good to watch. I have never looked at any of his SPF paid courses because (and this is personal) I see "Get Help" courses as mostly snake-oil and believe if you want to get ahead then you must cut your own way through the ice. But, as I have mentioned earlier on the thread, I rate Mark as an author (Milton, not the PI at all). He has something genuine and solid in Milton and as an author he's pretty much at the top of the game - and then hubris arrived.

_Edited to remove a couple sentences. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Folks, focus on the book-buying incident and the larger issues with lists is getting lost in favor of a much broader range of criticism, and even some name-calling. I'm going to make some edits to existing posts. To keep this open, we need to stay focused on the incident addressed in the OP and get back onto more civil terrain.

ETA: I've made some edits and removed three posts.


----------



## Kathy Dee (Aug 27, 2016)

Redgum said:


> I have never looked at any of his SPF paid courses because (and this is personal) I see "Get Help" courses as mostly snake-oil and believe if you want to get ahead then you must cut your own way through the ice.


I think he has shot himself in the foot with regard to the SPF course and perhaps that is why he is busy monitoring this thread - who knows? But the facts are simple: he cheated and he knows it. Sales of his course are almost certainly going to suffer as a consequence.


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

Kathy Dee said:


> I think he has shot himself in the foot with regard to the SPF course and perhaps that is why he is busy monitoring this thread - who knows? But the facts are simple: he cheated and he knows it. Sales of his course are almost certainly going to suffer as a consequence.


Agreed. The saddest thing is that we, as an industry, now lost a great example of a successful author who made it as selfpubber. It was a great success story, regardless of some haters not liking him selling actually HELPFUL courses (which is crazy) but now there will always be an asterisk to his name due to this slip up as an indie. Such shame. We need these stories untained.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

All this reminds me of a blog post by David Gaughran.

https://davidgaughran.com/2019/09/05/black-hat-riddle-scamming-amazon-self-publishing/

The purpose was to elevate honest hard working authors over those "black hats" who scam.

The whole buying books to move up lists falls into the "black hat" category. Integrity is not who you say you are but, what you do.

Mark


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

Kathy Dee said:


> I think he has shot himself in the foot with regard to the SPF course and perhaps that is why he is busy monitoring this thread - who knows? But the facts are simple: he cheated and he knows it. Sales of his course are almost certainly going to suffer as a consequence.


They might suffer, but judging from the comments on his FB page by his followers, I wouldn't count on it. If anything, they might go up, especially if word goes round that he has used dirty tricks to get ahead. A lot of people don't mind that at all. This also opens onto the wider issue of the death of independent writing, which if trends continue is going to have had a lifetime of something like 2007 - 2022. Once, Amazon was a platform for *independent writers*. Now it is a platform for multi-millionaire writer wannabes, publishing houses and grotty little stables sucking up indies to give them 30%.

This grisly end was inevitable, but it's the readers who suffer the most. Once again, readers are spoon-fed titles chosen for them by commissioning editors and are increasingly denied the chance to find quality independent writing. Amazon has killed all other platforms so there is no hope there. Dawson himself has spoken about the saturation of the ebook market, and that is one of the reasons he gave for trying so hard to get into paperback and into physical book stores. The desperation that drove him to buy 400 of his own books to get into the Sunday Time Top 10 may have been reflective of his concern about the future of ebook publishing. What we really need to do is forget about worrying about people like Dawson buying up all the visibility and cheating the system and start thinking about how a platform for genuine independent writers can be created again, just as people like CreateSpace were thinking about 15 years ago.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Redgum said:


> This grisly end was inevitable, but it's the readers who suffer the most. Once again, readers are spoon-fed titles chosen for them by commissioning editors and are increasingly denied the chance to find quality independent writing. Amazon has killed all other platforms so there is no hope there.


This seems more than a little hyperbolic. Indie publishing isn't coming to an end, grisly or otherwise. And Amazon hasn't killed the other platforms. Maybe in the US Amazon is where it's at, but the world isn't made up of just the US. There are plenty of other countries where Kobo outsells Amazon. And Google and iBooks aren't going anywhere, either.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

ShayneRutherford said:


> This seems more than a little hyperbolic. Indie publishing isn't coming to an end, grisly or otherwise. And Amazon hasn't killed the other platforms. Maybe in the US Amazon is where it's at, but the world isn't made up of just the US. There are plenty of other countries where Kobo outsells Amazon. And Google and iBooks aren't going anywhere, either.


We're not there yet. Give it a few more years and the vast majority of readers will be buying only via subscriptions. I don't know many authors but those I do know have all reported massive income drops as soon as they leave Kindle Unlimited, especially in the US. I hope you're right, but I can't see it. The only place I see any hope is in the non-English speaking market which is relatively untapped, but then you have expensive translation fees.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Redgum said:


> We're not there yet. Give it a few more years and the vast majority of readers will be buying only via subscriptions. I don't know many authors but those I do know have all reported massive income drops as soon as they leave Kindle Unlimited, especially in the US.


I would say that's common because it takes time to build up on those other platforms. You can't just show up to iBooks be all "I'm here! Give me my best seller tag!"

A better indicator would be asking folks, say, 6 months after they've leave KU if they've managed to build it back.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Redgum said:


> We're not there yet. Give it a few more years and the vast majority of readers will be buying only via subscriptions. I don't know many authors but those I do know have all reported massive income drops as soon as they leave Kindle Unlimited, especially in the US. I hope you're right, but I can't see it. The only place I see any hope is in the non-English speaking market which is relatively untapped, but then you have expensive translation fees.


That's a small segment. There are many authors, myself included that left KU and are killing it wide.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

Paperbacks still sell. That is the hard truth many authors who pinned their dreams of ebook on have not fully grasped yet. It will be the same for audiobooks. 

As authors, you need to think about avoiding the "commoditization" of ebooks...which is what is happening. Pretty soon, you will be giving away everything.

The subscription model is not the end all or be all of everything. Book readers have their tastes and will buy what they want and not limited themselves to what is merely available by subscription.

I think people have underestimated the resilience of paperback/hardbacks.

Mark


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

A person called Dale Links opined on the Mark Dawson scandal last week. Dale Links has released many videos about self-publishing on Youtube and elsewhere. He also sells among other things a "DIY publishing course."

On August 4, Dale published a Youtube video expressing his opinions about Mark Dawson buying 400 copies of his own hardback to hit the Sunday Times Top Ten. Dale Links sounds largely sympathetic to Dawson.

Dale does make an error. He says in his video that Mark Dawson sold and shipped out the 400 copies on the same week that Dawson had bought them. However, a week after Dawson bought the hardbacks, Dawson himself said on his podcast recorded July 13/published July 17 that the 400 books were still sitting in his garage.

In his video Dale says that his own problem with an author buying his way onto a bestseller list is a practical issue: the average self-published UK author makes less than 11,000 pounds sterling a year. Thus, Dale says, most authors can't afford to buy copies of their own books at a bookstore.

At the video's conclusion, Dale sidesteps the question of whether Mark Dawson did anything wrong. Dale instead places the burden on the list-makers themselves to fix the problem, asking of the NY Times and Sunday Times lists, "How can they [the lists] mitigate these instances [of authors buying their own books] so the bestseller lists will accurately reflect the buying audience?"

The video has over 100 comments.
*
Buy Your Way Onto a Best Seller List?*
Self-Publishing with Dale
Published Aug 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlgOZME63Ls


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

RBC said:


> Agreed. The saddest thing is that we, as an industry, now lost a great example of a successful author who made it as selfpubber. It was a great success story, regardless of some haters not liking him selling actually HELPFUL courses (which is crazy) but now there will always be an asterisk to his name due to this slip up as an indie. Such shame. We need these stories untained.


What's curious is that Mark Dawson could indeed have reached the Top Ten by following the rules. He didn't have to do it the way he did.

If, for example, Mark had devoted a long weekend to signing books at every venue he could arrange in London (or maybe even just at WH Smith's bookstores--I think they had had the exclusive signed hardcover for the UK?), Mark almost certainly could have sold 400 hardbacks at the bookstore registers, and he then would have hit the Top Ten, fair and square.

Moreover, if Dawson had prepped in advance and taken a whole week to embark on a book tour of Britain--London on Monday, Leeds on Tuesday, Manchester Wednesday etc, he would have gotten thousands of hardback sales registered inside the Nielsen tracking week and Dawson then for the rest of his life could have put "#1 Sunday Times Bestselling Author" on his books. Fairly.

Dawson has over 11,000 subscribers on his Youtube SPF podcast alone. When you add in Dawson's newsletter subscribers, Twitter followers, SPF course payee graduates and all the rest, Dawson could have blasted out calls to action and driven more than enough foot traffic to his hardcover signings to have sold more than enough hardbacks at the bookstore cash registers to have hit the top. And he would have done it in accordance with the rules.

When you're a big author, you can through your own efforts fair-and-square hit the lists, high, if you're willing to go through the hassle of book tours and signings. But if you're arranging it yourself it requires preparation, sacrifice, enduring hassles, and dealing with humans across the signing table from you who are paying 13 pounds retail for your book. It's a lot.

But if you want it badly enough and you have a big audience, you can do it fair and square.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

One angle we have not discussed much is the role of the publisher. Dawson signed with them in October 2019 in a print only deal.

The publisher seems to have gotten a pass on the discussion but would not they be a driving force in getting this book into the top ten!

Mark


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

Triceratops said:


> What's curious is that Mark Dawson could indeed have reached the Top Ten by following the rules. He didn't have to do it the way he did.
> 
> If, for example, Mark had devoted a long weekend to signing books at every venue he could arrange in London (or maybe even just at WH Smith's bookstores--I think they had had the exclusive signed hardcover for the UK?), Mark almost certainly could have sold 400 hardbacks at the bookstore registers, and he then would have hit the Top Ten, fair and square.
> 
> ...


I'd agree he probably could have done it better. But don't agree it's the book signings that would be saviour in the COVID environment. UK hasn't handled it perfectly and I wouldn't blame anyone for wanting to stay home and not doing signings or limiting them. There probably were other ways to do it, one of which would have been to ask his UK author friends to promo his book in emails etc.

Also this is where Publisher comes into play. Maybe they should have done more too.

And one thing that may have lead Mark to this, slip up, is the pressure. I think he must feel a TON of pressure to succeed with the first book on new publisher deal. Not only for future of his books and his money but also from huge amount of indie community watching him succeed or flop etc. That is HUGE pressure. We'll never know that probably. I honestly wouldn't be surprised this was a reason why he made a short-term win decision that backfired.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Nothing says "I totes did nothing wrong, this is just a big kerfuffle" than takedown notices for publicly available podcast transcriptions used as part of fair use for the purposes of criticism. 

As noted above, the role of the publisher should be questioned as it's beggers belief that Mark Dawson didn't the option to buy wholesale copies direct from them. Virtually all trad print contracts have such clauses. Authors use them for book tours or sending copies to friends/family. 

I'd put good money on it that Dawson had this clause and will never speak to it because to do so means the entire rotten mess comes undone immediately.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Triceratops said:


> Mark Dawson claims, *and The Guardian seems to agree*, that he did not break the rules in buying his own books for a "virtual book signing."


Except, didn't The Guardian rescind his Top Ten Bestseller status?



Triceratops said:


> But, let's go back to the rules thing. Okay, an author buys lots of copies of their own book for a book signing, virtual or otherwise. I feel like the author can abide by the rules *if*...


An author can abide by the rules if they buy author copies from the publisher. Likely at a discount.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

Despite his massive social media following and some bluster, I'm not sure Mark sells quite as many ebooks as some seem to think. His books are quite expensive for their length, and that helps with the income stream, but he has gone on the record to say the ebook market is saturated and that is why he was so keen to get paperbacks into 3D stores. In my opinion, he saw the launch of The Cleaner in paperback as not just another income stream, but as potentially pivotal to his future success. If I'm right, this would have driven him to do anything to succeed, and the rest is history.

The one piece of the jigsaw puzzle still missing is if Welbeck offered him discount copies. With that information, a full picture, including motive, could be put together. I don't know the terms of his contract with Welbeck, obviously, but I believe from a press release from Mark Smith of Welbeck Publishing Group in September 2019, it was stated ALL the Milton books had been signed. If they had all been signed, then I doubt Mark would have felt much pressure to ensure the first one got in the Top Ten. It's a done deal to publish all of them already.

As an aside, in that press release, Smith mentions that the Milton series has sold over a million copies around the world and yet on Mark's latest Milton cover he has the header "three million copies sold". Who is right? Welbeck at one million, or Dawson at three million? Milton is overwhelmingly his biggest seller, so is it possible the 8 Rose books and boxsets have accumulated twice as many sales as Milton, at two million?


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

I am surprised the publisher has not faced more scrutiny.

We don't know the details of Dawson's deal with his publisher but, its possible there was a "bonus" provision for making a best seller list.

Interesting. If you check Welbeck's website, their largest team is in children's books (smalles is fiction)....coincidentally that is where the "offside" sale took place at a children's bookstore.

Mark


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

markpauloleksiw said:


> I am surprised the publisher has not faced more scrutiny.
> 
> We don't know the details of Dawson's deal with his publisher but, its possible there was a "bonus" provision for making a best seller list.
> 
> ...


Other authors in the past would have utilised the"bonus provision", if that's the case. So, how come Neilsen didn't detect their rank manipulations?


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

Whoever was behind the rank manipulation must have been aware of certain flaws in the Nielsen algorithms. Perhaps, the algorithm didn't detect Dawson's book only because the sales happened from a children's bookstore? Which is why he was able to hit the top 10 in the first place? Say the algorithm  assigns identification numbers for authors, genres, subgenres, and bookstores. So, in the logical programming constructs -- if then loop, for loop, while loop, and so on -- exceptions may arise where Dawson's novel genre was not set to synch with the parameters and variables meant for sales arising from children bookstores. So, the filter detecting unusual bulk sale was bypassed in all probability.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

markpauloleksiw said:


> Paperbacks still sell. That is the hard truth many authors who pinned their dreams of ebook on have not fully grasped yet. It will be the same for audiobooks.
> 
> As authors, you need to think about avoiding the "commoditization" of ebooks...which is what is happening. Pretty soon, you will be giving away everything.
> 
> The subscription model is not the end all or be all of everything. Book readers have their tastes and will buy what they want and not limited themselves to what is merely available by subscription.


Having your eBooks on KU is 'giving away everything'? Please explain. I've read numerous authors here on KB who say otherwise. They claim to make money off of KU.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

jb1111 said:


> Having your eBooks on KU is 'giving away everything'? Please explain. I've read numerous authors here on KB who say otherwise. They claim to make money off of KU.


Plenty of people make money wide, too.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

^^^^^^ I am aware of that. But I was responding to Mark's statement that KU is akin to giving eBooks / content away free.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

jb1111 said:


> ^^^^^^ I am aware of that. But I was responding to Mark's statement that KU is akin to giving eBooks / content away free.


I know. My comment was also for Mark, but adding on to yours. That's why I quoted your comment. In retrospect, I see how that could have been confusing.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

VisitasKeat said:


> Whoever was behind the rank manipulation must have been aware of certain flaws in the Nielsen algorithms. Perhaps, the algorithm didn't detect Dawson's book only because the sales happened from a children's bookstore? Which is why he was able to hit the top 10 in the first place? Say the algorithm assigns identification numbers for authors, genres, subgenres, and bookstores. So, in the logical programming constructs -- if then loop, for loop, while loop, and so on -- exceptions may arise where Dawson's novel genre was not set to synch with the parameters and variables meant for sales arising from children bookstores. So, the filter detecting unusual bulk sale was bypassed in all probability.


I think it's much simpler than that: Nielson weren't checking. Sales figures were coming in from the shops, being automatically compiled and then some overworked person glances at it for five seconds before hitting publish.

Nielson sells themselves on the back of reliable data - that's why what Dawson did is so bad for them. It shows how easily they were manipulated and not caught.

So they participate in the story rather than stomping him into the ground. Too much egg on their face.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I know. My comment was also for Mark, but adding on to yours. That's why I quoted your comment. In retrospect, I see how that could have been confusing.


Fair enough... And your point is a good one, also.


----------



## VisitasKeat (Oct 15, 2018)

........ said:


> I think it's much simpler than that: Nielson weren't checking. Sales figures were coming in from the shops, being automatically compiled and then some overworked person glances at it for five seconds before hitting publish.
> 
> Nielson sells themselves on the back of reliable data - that's why what Dawson did is so bad for them. It shows how easily they were manipulated and not caught.
> 
> So they participate in the story rather than stomping him into the ground. Too much egg on their face.


"automatically compiled" -- the loophole in this is what I was mentioning. This flaw can be exploited if someone at Nielsen shares it with the author or a publisher. I'm not saying someone did but just that we should also take into consideration such a possibility. Of course, what you say about the overworked person is also possible.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

........ said:


> I think it's much simpler than that: Nielson weren't checking. Sales figures were coming in from the shops, being automatically compiled and then some overworked person glances at it for five seconds before hitting publish.
> 
> Nielson sells themselves on the back of reliable data - that's why what Dawson did is so bad for them. It shows how easily they were manipulated and not caught.
> 
> So they participate in the story rather than stomping him into the ground. Too much egg on their face.


I agree with this, and I would say Nielson are as grateful as Mark Dawson for this whole disgrace to be receding into the past now. This latest attempt to dupe the system really got me thinking over the last few weeks, not just about ethics and cheating and how reality can be bent inside out to justify just about anything, but how there is no realistic way to stop cheating like this. At the end of the day, the way this business works is like a giant honour system, and unfortunately there will always people who are driven to game it. Watching those people go from strength to strength while more honest writers tumble down the ranks really exposes the dark side of the writing business.


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

Redgum said:


> I agree with this, and I would say Nielson are as grateful as Mark Dawson for this whole disgrace to be receding into the past now. This latest attempt to dupe the system really got me thinking over the last few weeks, not just about ethics and cheating and how reality can be bent inside out to justify just about anything, but how there is no realistic way to stop cheating like this. At the end of the day, the way this business works is like a giant honour system, and unfortunately there will always people who are driven to game it. Watching those people go from strength to strength while more honest writers tumble down the ranks really exposes the dark side of the writing business.


All good points.

To my mind, the biggest loophole that this scandal exposed was the notion of a "virtual book signing."

After Dawson bought his 400 hardbacks and hit #8, Nielsen was going to let it stand, at first. Nielsen had thought that Dawson was holding a "virtual book signing." (Let's put aside for the moment Dawson's own subsequent admission that a week later, all 400 hardcovers were still sitting in his garage.)

Nielsen only kicked Dawson out of the Top Ten when it turned out that Dawson intended the copies for non-UK readers. So if Dawson had been claiming to sell those 400 hardbacks to UK readers, then as far as Nielsen was concerned, Dawson's bulk buy would have been perfectly fine. But Dawson contractually could not sell signed hardcovers to his own UK fans. Dawson couldn't sell to his UK fans because his trad publisher had already inked a deal with the WH Smith chain bookstore to be the exclusive sales agents of Dawson's signed hardbacks in the UK.

Thus it seems that any Big Author who bulk-buys to land a Sunday Times Top Ten appearance--or even a #1 spot--can use the "virtual book signing" line if or when Nielsen comes calling, just as long as they also say that they are selling only to UK readers.

Presumably a "virtual book signing" in a legit sense means that Big Author bulk-buys their own hardcover from retail stores tracked by Nielsen, then Big Author sells the signed hardcovers direct to fans -- all the copies, every single copy, within that same tracking week.

However, there's no way for Nielsen to verify that those "virtual book signing" books actually all get bought and shipped to real readers. Any Big Author could buy the hardcovers, get them tracked, get listed in the Sunday Times Bestseller Chart, and then leave the books still sitting in Big Author's garage a week later. Or a month. Or a year...

The New York Times puts a dagger symbol, like a flag, next to any charting title that has had bulk buys. Nielsen should do the same. It won't eliminate uncertainty about who's gaming the system and who's not, but it would be better than no flags at all.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> Moreover, if Dawson had prepped in advance and taken a whole week to embark on a book tour of Britain--London on Monday, Leeds on Tuesday, Manchester Wednesday etc, he would have gotten thousands of hardback sales registered inside the Nielsen tracking week and Dawson then for the rest of his life could have put "#1 Sunday Times Bestselling Author" on his books. Fairly.


All that work, and deal with a virus? No way. Far simpler to find a store that a huge order from would hit the list, and pay retail. Cheaper, easier, and quicker. I believe there's never been an attempt to send these out to readers, it was all about getting enough copies from one store in a short enough time period so he'd pass #10.

It wouldn't have done any good to buy author copies from the publisher. The sales wouldn't have made him hit the list. They don't count. It's the same reason Amazon doesn't count author copies in sales ranking. It's cheating to buy a lot of copies to increase ranking. Dawson knows this. I know this, and I don't sell enough to even be a blip on a radar, anywhere. I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but then, I'm not selling courses telling people I know how this all works.

I'm not buying the "oh, I didn't know" crap. Come on. He knows how contracts work, how rules work. If he doesn't, he needs to give back that law degree and step away from advising self publishers how it works.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

unkownwriter said:


> All that work, and deal with a virus? No way. Far simpler to find a store that a huge order from would hit the list, and pay retail. Cheaper, easier, and quicker. I believe there's never been an attempt to send these out to readers, it was all about getting enough copies from one store in a short enough time period so he'd pass #10.
> 
> It wouldn't have done any good to buy author copies from the publisher. The sales wouldn't have made him hit the list. They don't count. It's the same reason Amazon doesn't count author copies in sales ranking. It's cheating to buy a lot of copies to increase ranking. Dawson knows this. I know this, and I don't sell enough to even be a blip on a radar, anywhere. I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but then, I'm not selling courses telling people I know how this all works.
> 
> I'm not buying the "oh, I didn't know" crap. Come on. He knows how contracts work, how rules work. If he doesn't, he needs to give back that law degree and step away from advising self publishers how it works.


What surprised me was that he thought those non-UK sales would count for a UK list.

Ironically, he would have gotten away with it if he'd kept his mouth shut instead of detailing the strategy on his podcast.

He basically put the spotlight on it that way--when it otherwise would have gone unnoticed and he'd have a garage full of books--but the top 10 bragging rights he wanted.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

The sad part is that there really is not much of penalty for getting caught when you think about it.

True believers won't be swayed and sadly, it seems some other authors find this to be defensible and dare I say, would do the same.

Mark


----------



## Rick Partlow (Sep 6, 2016)

markpauloleksiw said:


> Paperbacks still sell. That is the hard truth many authors who pinned their dreams of ebook on have not fully grasped yet. It will be the same for audiobooks.
> 
> As authors, you need to think about avoiding the "commoditization" of ebooks...which is what is happening. Pretty soon, you will be giving away everything.
> 
> ...


Maybe. But I've been publishing for 9 years and the number of paperbacks I've sold have been less than a hundredth of the money I've made. And while I haven't made a fortune, I have made enough to live off of for the last 4 years. Ebooks make me money. KU makes me money. Audiobooks have made me money. Paperbacks have made me next to no money.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Rick Partlow said:


> Maybe. But I've been publishing for 9 years and the number of paperbacks I've sold have been less than a hundredth of the money I've made. And while I haven't made a fortune, I have made enough to live off of for the last 4 years. Ebooks make me money. KU makes me money. Audiobooks have made me money. Paperbacks have made me next to no money.


I make between 40-50k monthly just on paperback. Most indies are not focusing there. I am starting to. I think there is a lot of growth potential with print.


----------



## botolo (Feb 28, 2017)

Justawriter said:


> I make between 40-50k monthly just on paperback. Most indies are not focusing there. I am starting to. I think there is a lot of growth potential with print.


Do you sell on Amazon and promote on Amazon Ads or do you sell also from your website?


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

botolo said:


> Do you sell on Amazon and promote on Amazon Ads or do you sell also from your website?


Mostly on Amazon but have started recently on Ingram and that is doing well too. I don't sell on my website, yet. I only just recently started advertising the paperbacks some on AMS--I was noticing that my ebook AMS ads were generating quite a few paperback sales, so I started adding the paperbacks into the ads as well--via the group ad function with AMS.


----------



## Rick Partlow (Sep 6, 2016)

Justawriter said:


> I make between 40-50k monthly just on paperback. Most indies are not focusing there. I am starting to. I think there is a lot of growth potential with print.


Your numbers seem very impressive, but I have to ask two things: what percentage of your monthly income is that and what genre?


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Rick Partlow said:


> Your numbers seem very impressive, but I have to ask two things: what percentage of your monthly income is that and what genre?


Romance and that is about 20% of my monthly income.


----------



## Rick Partlow (Sep 6, 2016)

Justawriter said:


> Romance and that is about 20% of my monthly income.


My genre isn't quite as lucrative as yours, unfortunately. And I think, though I have no study before me to prove it, that it is also less likely for readers of my genre to buy paperbacks.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Rick Partlow said:


> My genre isn't quite as lucrative as yours, unfortunately. And I think, though I have no study before me to prove it, that it is also less likely for readers of my genre to buy paperbacks.


Could be. Everything can vary by genre. Only way to know for sure is to test it. If you are doing AMS ads, try one for a paperback and see how it goes.


----------



## blubarry (Feb 27, 2015)

Justawriter said:


> Could be. Everything can vary by genre. Only way to know for sure is to test it. If you are doing AMS ads, try one for a paperback and see how it goes.


That's amazing what you're making. How are you pricing? That's the area where I think indies struggle. Are you going through KDP or Ingram?


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

blubarry said:


> That's amazing what you're making. How are you pricing? That's the area where I think indies struggle. Are you going through KDP or Ingram?


Both. I price so that I make $2-3 per book. So on average that looks like 11.99-14.99


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

Rick Partlow said:


> Maybe. But I've been publishing for 9 years and the number of paperbacks I've sold have been less than a hundredth of the money I've made. And while I haven't made a fortune, I have made enough to live off of for the last 4 years. Ebooks make me money. KU makes me money. Audiobooks have made me money. Paperbacks have made me next to no money.


Dawson said in one of his May newsletters that he was wanting a big splash and hopefully (for him) a high Sunday Times debut for his hardback release of _The Cleaner_. He said though he had done well in the ebook world, that it was harder to get a book into the hands of readers who prefer a physical item. He said that he wanted the chain bookstore buyers to take seriously the paperback release of _The Cleaner_, coming later this year. So clearly Dawson desired a lot of momentum out of the gate for a bookstore presence.

Dawson is a lot of things, but he's not stupid. He was willing to fork over thousands of pounds out of his pocket for free shipping--4,000 pounds sterling (400 hardbacks x 10 pounds per book, and that's just surface mail not including mailing envelopes).

If Dawson was willing to lose that much money--and in all likelihood more since airmail is almost twice as expensive--then Dawson believed, and must still believe, that there is a very good reason for him to gain bookstore readers.

So the question is: what's his reason?

There may be possibilities that we are so far overlooking. I'm speculating, but it might be easier to get a deal for a movie or a TV series for your books if your books are also sold in brick and mortar book shops, even if, as Dawson constantly reminds everyone, he has sold three million books. And then of course if or when the movie or series adaptation of the book premieres, then you the author sell a whole lot more books.

It's hard for me to believe that Dawson wanted a physical presence in bookstores simply out of vanity. If he was willing to subsidize bookstore launch for thousands of pounds, you can bet that somehow there is money to be made.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

A reminder to keep the focus on the Dawson incident and its implications for traditional bestseller lists. General discussion of paperback/hardcover sales for indies belongs in its own thread. Further off-topic posts will be removed without comment. Thanks.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Triceratops said:


> Dawson said in one of his May newsletters that he was wanting a big splash and hopefully (for him) a high Sunday Times debut for his hardback release of _The Cleaner_. He said though he had done well in the ebook world, that it was harder to get a book into the hands of readers who prefer a physical item. He said that he wanted the chain bookstore buyers to take seriously the paperback release of _The Cleaner_, coming later this year. So clearly Dawson desired a lot of momentum out of the gate for a bookstore presence.
> 
> Dawson is a lot of things, but he's not stupid. He was willing to fork over thousands of pounds out of his pocket for free shipping--4,000 pounds sterling (400 hardbacks x 10 pounds per book, and that's just surface mail not including mailing envelopes).
> 
> ...


Vanity is likely, lots of people do those bulk buys just to have bragging rights. He also runs the courses, so being able to say he listed could help sell the course I would think.

I doubt it would matter much with film deals unless it got it onto their radar.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

I belive his dad was an actor or something like that and he worked as lawyer in the "entertainment" field so I doubt he would need this to get a film deal.

The answer most likely lies in his publishing contract.

Mark


----------



## MMSN (Feb 27, 2019)

Triceratops said:


> Dawson is a lot of things, but he's not stupid. He was willing to fork over thousands of pounds out of his pocket for free shipping--4,000 pounds sterling (400 hardbacks x 10 pounds per book, and that's just surface mail not including mailing envelopes).


If unknownwriters' "I believe there's never been an attempt to send these out to readers" is correct, that's just so incredibly, incredibly sad.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

Triceratops said:


> If Dawson was willing to lose that much money--and in all likelihood more since airmail is almost twice as expensive--then Dawson believed, and must still believe, that there is a very good reason for him to gain bookstore readers.
> 
> So the question is: what's his reason?
> 
> ...


An interesting angle. I've already given my view on this, which is based on Mark having talked about how the ebook market is totally saturated and only going to get worse. This is probably the reason he is so keen to have a solid launch into paperbacks and 3D stores and went to such dubious lengths to achieve it. And he says he has sold three million, but Welbeck are under the impression Milton has sold 1 million. I have a hard time believing Milton has sold 1 million but the Rose books and some boxsets have sold two million. The numbers don't seem to add up.

In reply to markpauloleksiw - Mark was a barrister I believe but the story about his father being actor Keith Barron is nonsense. In fact, he recently addressed this on his FB page.


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

Justawriter said:


> Vanity is likely, lots of people do those bulk buys just to have bragging rights. He also runs the courses, so being able to say he listed could help sell the course I would think.


I didn't think of the courses angle. You're right, that brag would be a good selling point.



Redgum said:


> An interesting angle. I've already given my view on this, which is based on Mark having talked about how the ebook market is totally saturated and only going to get worse. This is probably the reason he is so keen to have a solid launch into paperbacks and 3D stores and went to such dubious lengths to achieve it. And he says he has sold three million, but Welbeck are under the impression Milton has sold 1 million. I have a hard time believing Milton has sold 1 million but the Rose books and some boxsets have sold two million. The numbers don't seem to add up.


Maybe Dawson is saying all his books have sold three mil, but Welbeck is saying the Milton books have sold one? Milton's a subset of the aggregate, so perhaps that's the discrepancy. I do think Mark wants to get into brick and mortar stores to find more buyers, as he's said. But I wonder if there's more to it.

Probably the closest big-name author comps to Dawson are Harlan Coben and Lee Child. Dawson himself affects the comparison to Child, on Dawson's Amazon sales pages anyway. But Lee Child has seen Jack Reacher made into major motion pictures, and Coben's got a big fat Netflix deal. And what has Dawson got? Nada. So far.

If I were a studio exec, I'd look askance at Dawson's "three million sold" brag. I'd wonder, okay, how many of those were 99-cent sales? How many of those ebook buyers were snapping up a bookbub deal, hoarding? How many 99-cent buyers actually read the books? How many of those alleged three million people would also want to tune in to a TV series about Milton or whoever, or go see a Milton movie? How do I know that the three million sales is even true?

If a writer's on the NY Times or Sunday Times hardcover bestseller list, there's really no ambiguity about it; lots of readers bought a $13-and-up hardcover book (with bulk buys flagged). It might give a studio peace of mind about an IP property's built-in audience. If those buyers will pay that much for a hardback, they'll also likely buy a movie ticket.

I can't help thinking that, quality aside, physical books bookstores are the last frontier for what separates Dawson from Coben and Child et al. Maybe Dawson just wants to get into that club, for reasons of movies or TV deals, or maybe even just for his own validation. And he was so close he could taste it.

Edit: terms.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

Triceratops said:


> Maybe Dawson is saying all his books have sold three mil, but Welbeck is saying the Milton books have sold one? Milton's a subset of the aggregate, so perhaps that's the discrepancy.


Perfectly possible, but a glance at the Amazon rank shows the 11 Rose books sell substantially less than the Milton books, as do the boxsets. I find it surprising to learn that these much less well-known books have sold twice as many copies as the flagship Milton series, but apparently, they have.



> I do think Mark wants to get into brick and mortar stores to find more buyers, as he's said. But I wonder if there's more to it.


Mark is very plugged into the Kindle market, and I have said elsewhere, excluding the new release spike, his ranks possibly indicate lower sales than he once enjoyed (although still very strong sales). He has always been well ahead of the curve and his desperation to get into physical stores makes me think he has dwindling faith in ebooks.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

I have been only at this 30 months. I have no history in the great expectations of ebooks from 6-7 years ago. I,too, believe the ebook market is super saturated. The same strategies are being repeated...

1) Write a series
2) Discount or give away (get a Bookbub).

etc...

What is happening is the people are fed up of emails/unsolicited ads.  So I think you will see more series rottng on the vine. People download the freebies but never read them. This is more likely to happen more often.

Also, if you are writing a series...you better pump them out. Why? Because readers have a zillion choices and if you are not fast enough, they will lose interest and move on. 

And here is the kicker...authors market by targeting other authors audience.

So in this landscape, maybe paperbacks are the future/past or at minimum remain very viable.

Dawson would recognize this...and his foray into hardcover..speaks volumes.

Mark


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

markpauloleksiw said:


> I have been only at this 30 months. I have no history in the great expectations of ebooks from 6-7 years ago. I,too, believe the ebook market is super saturated. The same strategies are being repeated...
> 
> 1) Write a series
> 2) Discount or give away (get a Bookbub).
> ...


The biggest change I have seen is that these days the cost of marketing and advertising is so high that only people bringing serious money into the game are able to get visibility quickly. It is no coincidence that so many of the most successful authors (at least in the UK) either obviously started with big bucks or have eventually let on they did (selling businesses, etc). This is frustrating because good authors with normal budgets cannot find readers, and those readers cannot find the authors. But it's fair in a free market and they're not doing anything wrong in buying their way into everyone else's shelfspace.

And this is why this Mark Dawson story has caused such a reaction. Mark has talked about how he spends something like $500 a day marketing. He can push competing authors right off the shelves and reach massive numbers of new readers. And yet he still felt moved to cheat to get on a bestseller list. For me, the Occam's Razor explanation is that he's shorting ebook futures - and if *he* is worried about it, then everyone should be. Just a theory - he might just be greedy.


----------



## Rick Partlow (Sep 6, 2016)

markpauloleksiw said:


> I have been only at this 30 months. I have no history in the great expectations of ebooks from 6-7 years ago. I,too, believe the ebook market is super saturated. The same strategies are being repeated...
> 
> 1) Write a series
> 2) Discount or give away (get a Bookbub).
> ...


Is this what Dawson advocates?  Because that's not what I have seen be successful.
I've never taken one of his courses, so I honestly don't know what he recommends.


----------



## AnthonyBrown86 (Mar 27, 2020)

markpauloleksiw said:


> Maybe Alli should read their own documents...the part about misleading about ranking on book lists....
> 
> https://selfpublishingadvice.org/alli-campaigns/ethical-author/


Just a great source, thank you!


----------



## Triceratops (Jun 13, 2020)

Dawson's back on Twitter. He had to return, since if you deactivate your account for over 30 days, Twitter deletes it.

twitter.com/pbackwriter

Dawson's retweeted a lot of posts from Welbeck, his paper book publisher. The posts all plug non-Dawson books. So Dawson's trying to stay in Welbeck's good graces it seems. Dawson's not tweeted a word about _The Cleaner_, or his bookstore presence. However he's teasing a possible comic book development deal for another book series he's written. Maybe Welbeck's involved in that?

Mark's removed all brag from his Twitter page. No mention of Sunday Times, or millions sold. Just the names of his various series. Either Dawson's swallowed a humble pill, or he's pausing the flex for now.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Redgum said:


> An interesting angle. I've already given my view on this, which is based on Mark having talked about how the ebook market is totally saturated and only going to get worse. This is probably the reason he is so keen to have a solid launch into paperbacks and 3D stores and went to such dubious lengths to achieve it.


If he's so worried about ebook market saturation, to the point that the only way he feels he can keep his career going is to get a trad publisher, that doesn't really say a lot for his courses, does it?


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

ShayneRutherford said:


> If he's so worried about ebook market saturation, to the point that the only way he feels he can keep his career going is to get a trad publisher, that doesn't really say a lot for his courses, does it?


I have no idea how successful his courses are but you make a good point. You need to be a good, persistent writer to get ahead, and Mark cannot teach this. All he can teach is how to tweak keywords and get slick cover art, etc. Some people need to hear that, and I'm certain his SPF has benefited many people, as well. Mark is very hard sell - I'm thinking now that he's going to formulate a much more intelligent way to get Saint Death into the Sunday Times Top Ten list, because I just don't think he can live with the embarrassment of this and will want to tuck it into bed in a way that satisfies him. Look out for that.


----------



## Redgum (Mar 12, 2015)

Triceratops said:


> Mark's removed all brag from his Twitter page.


There's lots of pictures of his hardback gracing the shelves of various countries around the world. The point has to be made - you did not bring me down, and I am stronger than ever. He's a good novelist. He should focus on producing more content and he'd get further ahead without all this garbage following him around.


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

Redgum said:


> I'm thinking now that he's going to formulate a much more intelligent way to get Saint Death into the Sunday Times Top Ten list, because I just don't think he can live with the embarrassment of this and will want to tuck it into bed in a way that satisfies him.


"Saint Death"...seriously? I'll never claim to be amazing at titles, but these ultra-manly cliches kill me. Maybe I'll title the next book "ManForce", "Testosterone Vengeance", or "These Hands, That Fist".


----------



## Michael Parnell (Aug 25, 2014)

NikOK said:


> "Saint Death"...seriously? I'll never claim to be amazing at titles, but these ultra-manly cliches kill me. Maybe I'll title the next book "ManForce", "Testosterone Vengeance", or "These Hands, That Fist".


   Sounds like the start of a great series, followed soon by number four: Phallic Firefight.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Looks like there's no new info, so the thread has bottomed out in making fun of Dawson's titles -- not the sort of thing we do here. Please drop me a PM if there are concrete new developments regarding the 400-books incident, and we'll consider reopening.


----------

