# Has Amazon jumped the shark?



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

In its fifth season, the TV show _Happy Days_ featured an episode in which one of the main characters, Fonzie, jumped over a shark tank on water skis. This particular moment has been singled out as The Moment when _Happy Days_ began a long and inexorable descent into mediocrity, irrelevance and eventual cancellation.

This episode occurred five years into the series, which lasted another seven years. Not a bad run for a series that had supposedly reached its creative peak and descended into irrelevance after "jumping the shark."

With all of Amazon's bad press over the Hachette situation, now seeping into Amazon's relationship with independent publishers over the Kindle Unlimited mess, I'm beginning to think that the bloom is off the Amazon lily for authors.

I've made more than 90% of my writing income the past four years from Amazon. I've been exclusive to Amazon, and not. I order a lot of merchandise from Amazon.

But at this point, I'm thinking that Amazon may have jumped the shark. Become too powerful, too demanding, too greedy, too much of a bully to publishers and self-publishers.

I'm thinking that an anti-Amazon backlash... which already exists among many people... might have reached critical mass.

I'm thinking that Amazon may have "jumped the shark" with Kindle Unlimited.

I know that passions are running high over KU, and I hope that I'm not over-reacting. But as I look on the history of Amazon that's brought us to this point, I don't know. It feels to me that a line has been crossed.

When Amazon tells us that KU isn't about making money but about "exposure," alarm bells go off inside my head. My "exposure" is someone else's "profit."

When I see a program that rewards quantity over every other aspect of the craft of writing, a company that is absolutely unable and/or disinterested in distinguishing between a short story and a chapter and a novel, I think... that company has lost all credibility.

For the first time in four years as a self-publisher, I'm beginning to think that Amazon has let drop its facade as a company devoted to readers and to authors and revealed itself as a soulless corporate zombie bent on feasting on the flesh of the living.

It has jumped the shark.

As _Happy Days_ showed us, it can take years for the spiral to wind down. But I wonder if this time, this moment in the history of Amazon, isn't going to be looked back upon as the moment when Amazon lost its way, when Amazon jumped the shark, when KU became the "New Coke" of Amazon's book business.


----------



## No longer seen (Aug 17, 2013)

You may be right -- only time will tell for sure, none of us are psychic -- but I wouldn't bet on it.

Your "New Coke" analogy is probably right on. But that happened 3 decades ago. And Coca-Cola is 
a bigger, stronger company than ever.

Some companies seem to attracts lots of hate (justified or not, I'm not trying to argue about their individual faults or merits),
and just keep going. Wal-Mart and McDonalds.

I'm convinced the future of fiction publishing is electronic and (mainly) self-publishing. Amazon could 
succumb to a better competitor. So far, Google, Apple, Kobo, and Nook are failing to be that better
competition.

K Unlimited is apparently a response to competition from Oyster and Scribd. I can't see those two 
overtaking and beating Amazon.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

My unproven opinion: Nope. Not even close.


----------



## A.E. Williams (Jul 13, 2014)

At the risk of being a bit contrarian, allow me to chime in:

As a READER of Kindle, I have mostly stuck to items of which I have been interested, paying whatever cost seemed reasonable. At times, I have purchased ebooks, fiction and non-fiction, for somewhat less than their print counterparts, primarily related to the information I required. (IT specific titles, mainly.) 

I had not thought about the author end until last year, when I published an ebook for the field. I found the publication process easy to understand, and the ability to get my book out to my peers in this fashion a plus. The price I asked was less than others, but I felt my authority in the field would sway buyers to purchase it at that level.

Forward to now, where I have made a lot more $$ on my sci-fi serial, in 6 months, than I did the non-fic. 

It seems just as I was getting to learn the ropes and get ramped up on understanding this particular set of rules, they changed the game. 

Not too happy about that.

You may have seen my post questioning Amazon about their reasons, and specifically how this affects a small volume self-pub author.

Their response was pretty boilerplate.

Now, I am not one to jump ship into unknown waters at the first sign of change. (There be sharks down there, matey!)

But, to Mr. Strnad's point, the fact is that Amazon is in the business of making a profit on ALL its categories of products.

I purchase a ton of stuff from them. It's been a very rewarding experience, and I have saved mucho bucks doing so.

Do I now complain if that methodology is turning against my particular items? This is a bigger issue than just ebooks.

It speaks to our consumerist culture, to the abandonment of traditional outlets, and the emergence of instantaneous price matching on a global scale.

What actually makes any product worth any amount, or more or less than its competition? 

THE MARKET DEMAND.

And, what drives that? PERCEPTION OF SCARCITY.

How do we, as authors, position our works as to be able to capitalize on that?  How is a J.K. Rowling, or Stephen King more in DEMAND than say, anyone else?

MARKETING. HYPE. FACE TIME.

And of course, we hope the quality of the writing comes through.

In the end, much of this will end up being timing, luck, and the ability to recognize the direction these winds of change are blowing.

For now, and since my profile is small, I will tend to float along - "A leaf on the wind" if you will.

Were I a larger target, or more established, I feel that this action by Amazon might be akin to Walmart moving into my neighborhood, and scarfing up Whole Foods as well.

It's going to be interesting to say the least.

Perhaps, we all just need to develop a taste for shark fin soup?

A.E. Williams


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Let's see.  There are two other book subscriptions.  Both are either computer/apple friendly but not kindle (the ereader) friendly.  So no, they did not jump the shark.  They probably answered customer requests.
Now it seems to me just from watching that if you want to sell at Amazon, they do not force you to be exclusive.  If you want in KU and Select then you (the author) have made the choice to be exclusive.


----------



## 3rotic (Mar 28, 2013)

The kerfluffle amongst authors about KU, and even the Hachette/Amazon thing, is a tempest in a teapot. Most people don't care. At all.

Also, could someone point me to where Amazon said KU is for "exposure", rather than profit? I fear I might've missed that in the deluge of KU threads lately. If Amazon really has said something along these lines, then yeah, that's ridiculous.

Is it just me or am I picking up some serial-hatred in this thread, too?

EDIT: I found the thread about "exposure". Ugh.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Nothing Amazon does can influence my taste and choices as a reader. The process - for a writer - is write, publish, cross fingers and & hope it sells. The process for Amazon is to reach readers. Nothing has changed, nothing is likely to change that affects those overall processes. If Amazon exposes more writers, provides a greater selection of material for readers, some writers will benefit, some will lose out. Readers will benefit. 

What would help readers, and some writers, would be a process like Netflix where the catalogue presented to readers was targeted based on previous purchases and review comments. That will happen. At the moment there is too great a choice, too many potentially interesting books not attracting the attention of readers who might like them. Netflix never suggests a romance, dystopian teenaage angst, anything with dragons, swords, magic or extreme gore to me. Amazon often does.


----------



## Marilyn Peake (Aug 8, 2011)

I seem to remember the same anger and concerns when Netflix and Hulu started up. Kindle Unlimited reminds me of those companies. It will most likely take customers and authors a while to get used to KU, but I think it will probably motivate people to read and buy books more than they currently do. Imagine readers binge-reading in the same way that TV show viewers binge-watch TV series.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Part of the problem with the OP is that it implies that Amazon is a service organization for authors. Amazon never had a 'facade as a company devoted to readers and to authors' except in some authors' imaginations. It is a corporation set up to make a profit for shareholders. "Jumping the shark" would imply they have lost sight of that. They very much have not.

It just happens that frequently our interests align with Amazon's. That isn't always the case and most certainly will not always be. Whether KU is best for which authors is another question. To judge that will take time and each of us will need to judge for ourselves depending upon our individual situation and goals.


----------



## Robert Bidinotto (Mar 3, 2011)

^^^ This.


----------



## WCHoffman (Apr 24, 2014)

The best part of this thread IMHO is that you had to explain "Jump The Shark" made me smile.


----------



## 3rotic (Mar 28, 2013)

Drew Gideon said:


> I'm sitting here wondering why, when Oyster and Scribd fired up their reading subscription models, no one blinked an eye. It was "a good idea". It was "innovative". It was "responding to customers' requests".
> 
> But now that Zon has done the same thing, suddenly we should all be heading for a bunker, because Jeff Bezos, riding an 800-pound gorilla, is now falling from the sky.
> 
> ...


Stop it, you're being too reasonable. If everyone agreed with you we wouldn't have 40+ pages of discussion from self-proclaimed experts.


----------



## Avis Black (Jun 12, 2012)

Why don't you wait until your foot's been chomped off _before _ declaring that you've been damaged?


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2014)

> We live in the technological age. Changes come fast and furious, and what's hot today is obsolete next month.


Chaos is not productive. The problem is that Amazon changed the value proposition for readers and substituted that value model for the one we KDP members signed up for. It puts us in a situation where we are competing with ourselves.

On the one hand, you can send Amazon the money and get our book for free, or you can send the author some of the money and buy the book. That puts the author at a disadvantage, especially when Amazon gets to control the message by putting a big zero next to our purchase price. I won't go so far as to say its unfair competition, but its certainly confusing for readers, and when readers get confused it costs the author money.

Amazon claims this is meant to offer us exposure. If they really wanted to offer us exposure they would let us write them a check to get our book in front of our readers.

I pulled my entire library out of KDP Select, because I want peace and quiet and a stable platform from which to sell my books. I don't want any more gimmicks or changes. Amazon needs to leave us alone and let us build our market.

They also need to learn that our books are not theirs to do with as they please. I object on principle to Amazon announcing this program to me the day it goes live. That was presumptuous and arrogant.

We used to be all in with KDP Select: almost three dozen titles. But if Amazon thinks I'm just another author, that's fine. As far as I'm concerned, now they're just another bookstore.



> Given the widespread knowledge of technology combined with the current political climate, and the universe's disinterest on whether humans live or die, either of those could happen any day.


This is far more fatalistic than any comment that's been made about Kindle Unlimited.


----------



## 3rotic (Mar 28, 2013)

abdanna said:


> They also need to learn that our books are not theirs to do with as they please.


Right, well, if you're publishing through KDP, then you kinda sorta signed an agreement that basically says they are.


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2014)

> Right, well, if you're publishing through KDP, then you kinda sorta signed an agreement that basically says they are.


We signed no such agreement. There are terms under which Amazon is allowed to exercise my exclusive rights in my works. I reserve the perpetual option (in about 140 countries) to withdraw permission to exercise those rights.

Amazon authored those terms, and we agreed to them. Now they have changed the terms, and we have narrowed Amazon's license in response.

A partial list of our exclusive rights can be found here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Drew Gideon said:


> I'm sitting here wondering why, when Oyster and Scribd fired up their reading subscription models, no one blinked an eye. It was "a good idea". It was "innovative". It was "responding to customers' requests".


Those guys paid fair rates though. And you opted into them instead of it being a super-secret surprise.

But no, they haven't jumped the shark, because respecting content creators isn't a thing they do. It's like expecting Happy Days to provide useful tips on marine biology.

What they do is make money. Okay, well apparently they're not good at that when it comes to actual profit, but they're really good at expanding in vast, flailing surges. And until investors get tired of that or vendors get tired of feeding them and feeding them and getting less and less in return, no, they haven't jumped the shark.

Because they're not that kind of show.

KU is just a bad episode, like that Simpsons where Skinner turns out to really be Armin Tamzarian. It's painful, it's ill conceived, and in a few months, we will never speak of it again.


----------



## 3rotic (Mar 28, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> KU is just a bad episode, like that Simpsons where Skinner turns out to really be Armin Tamzarian.


Dude. Spoilers.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

There are likely people on this board younger than those spoil...

Oh god, now I feel old.


----------



## trublue (Jul 7, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> My unproven opinion: Nope. Not even close.


This^^

Amazon understands self self preservation. They are always adding some new component. I think Amazon will be just fine. I'm glad of that as the other places I use do not make the sales I make from Amazon.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

I don't know how anyone can make any kind of determination a whole three days in.


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2014)

This is new for Amazon too. Sales are being replaced by borrows. They are conquering a new market and they are going all in. They are after the 170 million library users, who are now unable to read our books, because libraries are boycotting our books. As soon as we get them into Kindle Unlimited, we will have more readers and thereby more income. You need to give Amazon time to bring in the readers into KU. Or you can do your part by asking your readers and email lists and website users to sign up for a free KU subscription. As an indie writer you are responsible for your own success. Be active! Bring in subscribers! If Kindle Unlimited succeeds, we indies succeed!


----------



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

Amazon has certainly jumped the shark.  Everyone, please, pull out of Select. I'll wait here - to see what actually happens (instead of conjecture). Do it now!


----------



## David Wisehart (Mar 2, 2010)

abdanna said:


> Chaos is not productive.







Varys: I did what I did for the good of the realm.

Baelish: The realm. Do you know what the realm is? It's the thousand blades of Aegon's enemies-a story we agree to tell each other over and over, until we forget that it's a lie.

Varys: But what do we have left, once we abandon the lie? Chaos. A gaping pit waiting to swallow us all.

Baelish: Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, given a chance to climb, they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

drno said:


> This is new for Amazon too. Sales are being replaced by borrows. They are conquering a new market and they are going all in. They are after the 170 million library users, who are now unable to read our books, because libraries are boycotting our books. As soon as we get them into Kindle Unlimited, we will have more readers and thereby more income. You need to give Amazon time to bring in the readers into KU. Or you can do your part by asking your readers and email lists and website users to sign up for a free KU subscription. As an indie writer you are responsible for your own success. Be active! Bring in subscribers! If Kindle Unlimited succeeds, we indies succeed!


You keep postings almost identical messages on various KU themed threads. At least you've dropped the, 'BOOM TIME FOR INDIES' tag line, but you still come across as a recruiting agent for KU. Isn't there rules about spamming these boards?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

abdanna said:


> Chaos is not productive. The problem is that Amazon changed the value proposition for readers and substituted that value model for the one we KDP members signed up for. It puts us in a situation where we are competing with ourselves.


I assume that you have never heard of disruptive innovation. "A disruptive innovation is an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually goes on to disrupt an existing market and value network, displacing an earlier technology." Amazon is and always has been big on employing it.

If you don't like the way KDP is run, you can certainly unpublish your books there.


----------



## 3rotic (Mar 28, 2013)

drno said:


> If Kindle Unlimited succeeds, we indies succeed!


Nice try, Jeff Bezos.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> If you don't like the way KDP is run, you can certainly unpublish your books there.


This sort of defeatist (or rather 'I want you to be defeatist because I don't agree) attitude never ceases to be obnoxious.


----------



## 3rotic (Mar 28, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> This sort of defeatist (or rather 'I want you to be defeatist because I don't agree) attitude never ceases to be obnoxious.


Because we're talking business here, I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment. It's a voluntary arrangement, so if a particular retailer doesn't suit your needs or align with your goals in a meaningful way, feel free to jump ship. I have nothing but disdain for people who try and use this line of reasoning for most other things, however. My favorite? "If you don't like it in America, why not leave?" In most cases, it's a pretty frail line of reasoning.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

> From: drno on Today at 07:59:32 AM
> If Kindle Unlimited succeeds, we indies succeed!





3rotic said:


> Nice try, Jeff Bezos.


 

The bit our 'Jeff' wrote about using your mailing list to recruit KU sign ups, which might sound like a good possibility to some, could be very bad advice. Unless you decide you're going into KU 100%, it could seriously impact on your mailing list numbers, your future marketing flexibility and your relationship with your fans.

Sorry Jeff, you've been outed. Now get back to the job of global domination. And don't forget to play a few games of Monopoly during your lunch break.


----------



## Jash (Apr 4, 2013)

Jan Strnad said:


> But I wonder if this time, this moment in the history of Amazon, isn't going to be looked back upon as the moment when Amazon lost its way, when Amazon jumped the shark, when KU became the "New Coke" of Amazon's book business.


I doubt it. I don't think it's nearly as big a deal as people are making it out to be. First the sky was falling and now it's jumping the shark and all this less than a week after the launch of something that has not and almost certainly will not change the way the vast majority of people consume books.

This thread and others like it remind me of the way twenty-four hour news channels report big stories. It's just speculation and a whole lot of nothing over and over again because the actual news can be summed up in a couple of minutes.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Jash said:


> I doubt it. I don't think it's nearly as big a deal as people are making it out to be.


We have seen two entire industries changed by this model - three if you count massively Multiplayer Online Games such as World of Warcraft that charges a monthly subscription for access - and you think it's no big deal?

Block Buster thought it wasn't a big deal when Netflix launched. Spotify completely reshaped music retail. How could you think it's no big deal?

The question is, why _wouldn't_ it work? We have two very successful real-world models to indicate people like consuming culture this way. If you don't think these models apply to written literature, and that readers won't consume books this way, then tell us why.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

I really wouldn't be too concerned about what a random KDP support person said about Unlimited. I've had crazy answers from KDP support before. I know that anyone who comes from the freelance world is (rightly) suspicious when the word "exposure" is offered instead of payment, but, really, isn't that what permafrees do? And that's a pretty winning strategy.

I don't see a massive issue with someone saying KU is about exposure. I've seen plenty of writers here say that they will use the program exactly like that - throw in a short/first in a series as a "loss leader" etc. 

I think we all need to be a little less skittish. We don't know what borrow rates will be yet - which will answer at least some of the questions we all have. And we don't know how much sales will be cannibalized (for those inside or outside the program). Maybe it will be huge. But maybe it will grow the pie in unexpected ways. 

I remember in December 2011 the exact same worries about KDP Select and borrow rates. That worked out pretty okay. This program has *potentially* bigger impact, so the stakes are higher, but let's wait and see before thinking the worst.


----------



## David Wisehart (Mar 2, 2010)

Bad choice of words by KDP support. Instead "exposure" think "discoverability."

I love the idea of Kindle Unlimited. I hope it works.

Change is good for those who adapt.

David


----------



## Jash (Apr 4, 2013)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> We have seen two entire industries changed by this model - three if you count massively Multiplayer Online Games such as World of Warcraft that charges a monthly subscription for access - and you think it's no big deal?
> 
> Block Buster thought it wasn't a big deal when Netflix launched. Spotify completely reshaped music retail. How could you think it's no big deal?


Because you can make anything look like a big deal by cherry-picking outliers.... and even then not particularly good ones given that Spotify still isn't profitable and outside of WoW subsciption based MMORPGs are struggling to the extent that a new model is slowly becoming dominant. Now try and make the same argument including all the industries where subscription models failed or (more appropriately) subscription models have existed side-by-side with traditional models for decades.

KU is a big deal because Netflix is not an argument. What does "Block Buster thought it wasn't a big deal when Netflix launched" even mean in this context? Sometime in the past, in a different industry, one company thought one pricing model was not a big deal and they were wrong. What arguement is that even supposed to support?


----------



## Paul Huxley (Feb 27, 2014)

Amazon is interested in making money. It can only make money from authors if we publish with them and make money ourselves. If KU doesn't make money for each party then it will go away. If it works it will stay. Capitalism is Darwinism.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Jash said:


> Because you can make anything look like a big deal by cherry-picking outliers.... and even then not particularly good ones given that Spotify still isn't profitable and outside of WoW subsciption based MMORPGs are struggling to the extent that a new model is slowly becoming dominant. Now try and make the same argument including all the industries where subscription models failed or (more appropriately) subscription models have existed side-by-side with traditional models for decades.
> 
> KU is a big deal because Netflix is not an argument. What does "Block Buster thought it wasn't a big deal when Netflix launched" even mean in this context? Sometime in the past, in a different industry, one company thought one pricing model was not a big deal and they were wrong. What arguement is that even supposed to support?


How is Netflix an outlier? And WoW? Or Wildstar which just launched with a sub model? And ESO, which has 700,000 paid subscribers? And how is Spotify an outlier? They haven't turned a profit yet, true, but then again Amazon has minimal profits, neither did facebook for many years, and Twitter has never turned a profit. Are they outliers as well?

My question remains; why won't readers consume cultural products this way when evidence from the music, video, and gaming industries indicates consumers of cultural products have embraced the system?


----------



## Frank Zubek (Apr 27, 2010)

Marilyn Peake said:


> I seem to remember the same anger and concerns when Netflix and Hulu started up. Kindle Unlimited reminds me of those companies. It will most likely take customers and authors a while to get used to KU, but I think it will probably motivate people to read and buy books more than they currently do. Imagine readers binge-reading in the same way that TV show viewers binge-watch TV series.


 Ahhhhhh.... binge reading. I agree that would be great and yet I fear that's ONE fad that will never catch fire with the masses. Oh, sure, voracious readers out there who ALREADY binge read will always be there but I doubt that's a hobby that will spread. Nice thought though.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

I'm just curious because I don't see too many authors in these KU threads addressing the issue. How is it good to completely alienate the readers you have on other sites? Won't that lead to disappointed fans? And in the long run, won't that hinder exposure? What about series? The reader has bought the first two books and all of a sudden, they don't have access to the final installment? Will they follow the writer to Amazon and read on a cloud reader because they don't own a Kindle? Or will they just be too annoyed to do that? And this might seem a bit gullible considering it's all about business, but are there any writers who feel they actually owe the readers who supported them early on more than that?


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

yodaoneforme said:


> Amazon has certainly jumped the shark. Everyone, please, pull out of Select. I'll wait here - to see what actually happens (instead of conjecture). Do it now!


Haha! This. I just read a blog that said exclusivity is the death of a writing career, especially those starting out. But most of the people I know writing for a living these days started on KDP Select, and we started by GIVING BOOKS AWAY FOR FREE. And complaining that we could only do it 5 times in 90 days. We wanted to give MORE books away for free!

Now Amazon is paying for what feels like a free read to the customer, and the sky is falling. Now exclusivity is death to writers. So strange.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

katrina46 said:


> I'm just curious because I don't see too many authors in these KU threads addressing the issue. How is it good to completely alienate the readers you have on other sites? Won't that lead to disappointed fans? And in the long run, won't that hinder exposure? What about series? The reader has bought the first two books and all of a sudden, they don't have access to the final installment? Will they follow the writer to Amazon and read on a cloud reader because they don't own a Kindle? Or will they just be too annoyed to do that? And this might seem a bit gullible considering it's all about business, but are there any writers who feel they actually owe the readers who supported them early on more than that?


I can't speak for anyone else, but I doubt there is a single author who *likes* exclusivity. The exclusivity requirement is exactly what is giving so many writers pause before they enroll (myself included). On the other hand, everyone has to eat and this is a tough game. I wouldn't criticize anyone for making a decision like this in terms of their career.

So, yes. We think about this all the time. It's a huge consideration.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> My unproven opinion: Nope. Not even close.


+1

And when JRT and I start agreeing on stuff... watch out!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> Haha! This. I just read a blog that said exclusivity is the death of a writing career, especially those starting out. But most of the people I know writing for a living these days started on KDP Select, and we started by GIVING BOOKS AWAY FOR FREE. And complaining that we could only do it 5 times in 90 days. We wanted to give MORE books away for free!
> 
> Now Amazon is paying for what feels like a free read to the customer, and the sky is falling. Now exclusivity is death to writers. So strange.


+1 here, too.

But then, Hugh and I agree on stuff more often than JRT and I...


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Colin said:


> You keep postings almost identical messages on various KU themed threads. At least you've dropped the, 'BOOM TIME FOR INDIES' tag line, but you still come across as a recruiting agent for KU. Isn't there rules about spamming these boards?


Colin, if we banned members for posting the same ideas in multiple posts across multiple threads, there would be very few authors left here. If you find a member's posts don't interest you, ignore them. If you have difficulty ignoring posts, you can put the member on "Ignore."

Don't know how to put people on Ignore? Go to your Profile, select Modify Profile and then Buddies/Ignore List and then "Edit Ignore List." Adding a name to the text box will pop up members whose names match what you've typed, to help you put the right member on ignore. Select the member and tap on "Add." Their posts will be hidden to you, though not the fact that they've posted, and you will have the option to view the post anyway. Their PMs will also be blocked.

Let's keep the discussion on ideas, OK. If you think a discussion has merit, contribute to it. If you don't, move on.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Haha! This. I just read a blog that said exclusivity is the death of a writing career, especially those starting out. But most of the people I know writing for a living these days started on KDP Select, and we started by GIVING BOOKS AWAY FOR FREE. And complaining that we could only do it 5 times in 90 days. We wanted to give MORE books away for free!
> 
> Now Amazon is paying for what feels like a free read to the customer, and the sky is falling. Now exclusivity is death to writers. So strange.


I'm coming up on my one-year "quit my six-figure day job" anniversary-thanks to the Select tools Hugh mentioned. No death certificate issued.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

dgaughran said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but I doubt there is a single author who *likes* exclusivity. The exclusivity requirement is exactly what is giving so many writers pause before they enroll (myself included). On the other hand, everyone has to eat and this is a tough game. I wouldn't criticize anyone for making a decision like this in terms of their career.
> 
> So, yes. We think about this all the time. It's a huge consideration.


Well, that's refreshing to hear. I'm guilty of it myself. We get so caught up in the business side we forget writers are nothing without the people who support them by buying their books and this whole thing has consequences for them, too.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

katrina46 said:


> I'm just curious because I don't see too many authors in these KU threads addressing the issue. How is it good to completely alienate the readers you have on other sites?


It's not.



> Won't that lead to disappointed fans? And in the long run, won't that hinder exposure?


Yes and yes.



> What about series? The reader has bought the first two books and all of a sudden, they don't have access to the final installment? Will they follow the writer to Amazon and read on a cloud reader because they don't own a Kindle? Or will they just be too annoyed to do that?


I guess if you have an established series and readership at other venues, then some of them are screwed. I did a short story for StoryFront that is completely unreleated to any of my other books and got hundreds of email complaining that it was only available on Amazon. And I don't have the readership of many others. A lot of people refuse to use Amazon like some refuse to shop at Walmart. So yes, you'd be hacking those readers off in a major way.



> And this might seem a bit gullible considering it's all about business, but are there any writers who feel they actually owe the readers who supported them early on more than that?


I do.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Jan Strnad said:


> For the first time in four years as a self-publisher, I'm beginning to think that Amazon has let drop its facade as a company devoted to readers and to authors and revealed itself as a soulless corporate zombie bent on feasting on the flesh of the living.


Amazon began life in Jeff Bezos' garage in Bellvue, a town in Washington State bordering Redmond the home of Microsoft. If Amazon ever has a facade about being devoted to readers it is odd that this "Wall Street whizz kid" would relocate from the US capital of books to the US capital of tech. Of course if Amazon is actually, and always has been, a tech company that saw books as a way to lure in customers then basing yourself beside the country's greatest pool of programming talent makes a lot more sense.

For further history see http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/21/amazon-20-years-jeff-bezos-history-bestsellers-legal-battles


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2014)

> Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder.


It's a television show.

My point stands. Chaos is not productive. Productive accomplishment requires orderly circumstances. Amazon has now proven they are not capable of providing an orderly environment. If they are willing to capriciously change the rules on us like this after we put years of work into building a readership, then we have no reason to believe they won't change the rules again in the future. Who knows how much the next change will damage the value of our work? Your guess is as good as mine.

But I'm not going to wait around to find out.



> "A disruptive innovation is an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually goes on to disrupt an existing market and value network, displacing an earlier technology."


That all sounds very exciting, but that's not what happened here. Amazon didn't replace an earlier technology. They changed how much authors get paid, and in the process, they set up a system where authors are forced to compete with themselves and Amazon at the same time.

Amazon is certainly free to disrupt whatever market they want. Except when they propose to do it with my copyrights.



> If you don't like the way KDP is run, you can certainly unpublish your books there.


How is KDP run?


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

dgaughran said:


> I really wouldn't be too concerned about what a random KDP support person said about Unlimited. I've had crazy answers from KDP support before. I know that anyone who comes from the freelance world is (rightly) suspicious when the word "exposure" is offered instead of payment, but, really, isn't that what permafrees do? And that's a pretty winning strategy.


I agree. One (horribly written) customer service email highlighting exposure proves nothing. Amazon is free to set the fund. They might keep it at 2 $ per borrow, or let it decline to 0.2 $ per borrow. We can't know that. And we don't even know how the volume will change. If they aim for 1 $ per borrow and the volume doubles, we lost nothing (assuming regular sales remain constant). KU is an attractive deal for readers, it is not that far-fetched to assume that the volume goes up. One might add that the exposure that comes from borrows lowering the rank does indeed translate into more income from regular sales. I've seen regular sales go up by around 30 % in the past few days. That certainly isn't working for free.

I never really considered Select to be attractive. To be honest, I stayed in the program for convenience and the few advantages (free days, some borrows) it had to offer. Is it really that surprising that Amazon is trying to make it more attractive? They have to justify the demand for exclusivity somehow. Select authors have the chance to get additional exposure and an unknown income from the pool by borrows, while those not in Select have the chance to get exposure and income from other channels. The playing field seems relatively level.

Amazon is trying to gain market share. This is absolutely rational. I would never consider working for a company that does not try to gain the upper hand in the market by all means capitalism has to offer. Such a company is doomed to fail. If a monopoly situation arises from Amazon's success, it is the job of the states and courts to enforce the limits set forth by them, not mine or Amazon's.


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

Whether you like it or not,_ it is what it is_. That was an oft used phrase when I was a young Marine. It is what it is, accept it and move on. Improvise, adapt, and overcome was another. Bend or break.....

I could go on. The point is, Amazon's not going away, regardless of how many times they "jump the shark". They are in the business of making money, which we all are, and they do it well. So, let's look at the money.

The reader sees the offer, "$9.99, All You Can Read". They do the math and decide to do it because they've been paying more due to the fact that they read a lot, or they decide not to, because they don't read much and can buy reading material cheaper. I see a lot of people who enrolled on an impulse will be opting out after the first month.

I don't see a lot of the 'big name' writers (at least not in the genre I read and write) getting into KU, so readers who bought in at first will be disappointed that the can't get 10 ebooks from their favorite authors who are usually priced at $12. So, we're basically competing against other indies for the readers that read more than three books a month in our individual genres and have run out of 'big name' authors and are finding we indies can tell a pretty good yarn, too.

If the money paid to authors is about equal to what we get from KOLL, then it's a winning situation for books in the $2.99 and under range. If our books are higher priced, we must ask ourselves if the loss of revenue to KU is more or less than what we could get from other channels. Only time will tell, a few days isn't enough to make a decision for me. My borrows initially were double the average, but are nearing triple already, while my sales haven't been affected much at all. Better in the last few days, but again, that's not enough time to create a trend.

Me? I'll be staying in Select for a while longer, at least. In June I had 183 borrows and so far in July, 261. I can't see giving that up right now. Even if 100% of my sales switched to decreased royalties by going to borrows, I'd still be earning double what I did in my day job, but I don't see that happening. Most of my readers are slow readers, taking over a week to read my books.

So, it is what it is and I'll bend and adapt to the changing landscape around me. It's how I've lived all my life and it's worked well for me.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

katrina46 said:


> Will they follow the writer to Amazon and read on a cloud reader because they don't own a Kindle?


One nitpick here--you don't have to own a Kindle to read KU books. You need a Kindle or Kindle app. You can read KU books on a smartphone, iPad or tablet if you want to. Not saying there aren't readers who won't want to do that--they'll want to read on their Kobo or Nook and authors should consider that--but you do not have to have a Kindle to read KU books... Just sayin'.

Unlike Prime--to read a Prime book you had to have a Kindle reader to check the book out.

Betsy


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

EelKat, thanks for the comments on the "summer slump". I've only really been doing this a year, and last year in June I'd just gone permafree, and August I'd just gotten a BookBub spot--so July and August were very good months for me!

It is painful missing the KU wave, but I wasn't in the program, and it would take me a while to pull down my stories from everywhere else, and I don't want to lose all the pretty reviews I have on B&N, Apple, and even Google Play.

But I've missed a lot of waves. Didn't get in early enough to the stock market to ride the bubble to the top in 1998ish (but knew enough when all the boys I met in 2000 said, "You have to invest in stocks yourself it's so easy!" to move all my mutual fund investments into money markets.) Missed the start of the real estate boom ... got in just before the bubble peaked, but bought a house half of what I could afford in a place I wanted to live instead of buying a big house as an "investment" like so many people pushed me to do.

Both my home value and my stock portfolio are very healthy at the moment.

I think the issue is continuing to write, and finding things I love to write about.


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2014)

One thing we should all consider during this tumult is this question:

What exactly is Amazon doing to *earn* the 30% to 65% of my cover price they take?

I've lurked around these boards for a while, and I lost count a long time ago of how many authors were frustrated by the fact they couldn't do anything to make their books visible. Amazon's job, without putting too fine a point on it, is to get books in front of readers. By all accounts in the overwhelming majority of cases, that is precisely what they fail to do.

Meanwhile, many authors here can hire some random guy on Fiverr with a Facebook page and drive their book into the top 1000.

If the authors are going to do all the work, why are we expected to give up to 65% of the money to Amazon?

Why can some guy on Fiverr drive so much traffic to a book page and Amazon can't? We're talking about the biggest bookstore ever built by man here! What exactly is the problem? Are they locking some authors out just on principle now? In the traditional publishing world, it was understandable that some authors didn't make the cut, because there's only so much shelf space to go around. But that's not true any more.

Amazon benefits tremendously by taking some unknown author and shining a spotlight on their book for a brief time. For all they know, that author could have the next blockbuster hit. It's happened before, as we all know. Is Amazon really so backwards-thinking they don't recognize the possibilities here? There's a guy on Fiverr who is out-Amazon-ing Amazon!

If they really want to provide us exposure, give us the option to buy space on the Kindle store front page for a thousand bucks an hour. The resulting surge in book sales will wash Kindle Unlimited out to sea.


----------



## J.L. Dickinson (Jul 12, 2014)

I don't believe Amazon, or the KU will be going anywhere. I think the KU program will be massively successful in terms of the number of Kindle users who subscribe. I for see the demographic of the books included in the program changing before very long however.

Why? Amazon is losing massive amounts of money with the program as it is in two ways. 1). The free month trial in which they are paying out to authors/publishers for books they aren't receiving a dime for (of course a temporary necessary loss ). 2.) As I understand it, they are currently paying the publishers (non Indie) the full price of the book when someone borrows it. How many borrows of these books at $5.99 and up does it take before Amazon is bleeding money at a $9.99 subscription rate? On average, how many books does a kindle owner read in a month? Amazon of course knows the answer, but I'll wager it's _easily_ more than one. These books (and the ones Amazon chose are massively popular) are in KU for now, to draw the subscribers in.

I don't see these titles remaining available in KU in the long unless the publisher is going to start accepting far less for borrows than they charge for the kindle editions bought out right. They won't do this. Eventually I see KU being vastly Indie, because Indie books are going to be what makes KU profitable. These 'traditionally' published titles are there to draw subscribers to the Indie books in the program.

This program is a win for indies, and a blow to 'traditional' publishing. Why? If you are signed up for this subscription where are you going to seek your entertainment first? Within the subscription you are paying for, or outside at additional costs?

Final assessment: Subscribers will average 3-4 book borrows per month. Indie authors will make about $2 per borrow. Amazon will net some profit. Another segment of the market will be largely taken away from 'traditional' publishers.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

J.L. Dickinson said:


> I don't see these titles remaining available in KU in the long unless the publisher is going to start accepting far less for borrows than they charge for the kindle editions bought out right. They won't do this. Eventually I see KU being vastly Indie, because Indie books are going to be what makes KU profitable. These 'traditionally' published titles are there to draw subscribers to the Indie books in the program.


You are assuming that any publisher would sign up to the same terms as a KDP indie. Publishers would negotiate being in KU on the same terms as they are on Scribd and Oyster, which means that they get the same per sale as per read. That being said, I expect KU to be dominated by indie publishers and therefore struggling to win customers from Scribd and Oyster. Most readers will want to stay with whoever can allow them to read Stephen King and lots of other star authors, not just a few parachuted in by Amazon in lieu of any mainstream publisher signing up.


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

I think part of what is making people nervous about KU is the exclusivity. The other subscription platforms don't require it. 

The Netflix analogy class short. You can find just about every movie on Netflix available on DVD, cable, streaming other places, or see them in the theater. 
You can watch Netflix on a TON of different devices. Still, not too many people would be interested in making movies if they were ONLY allowed to show them on Netflix. 
Of course, Netflix has original programming, just like Amazon has its own publishing imprints. That should be where the line is drawn for exclusives: Kindle Worlds, Kindle Singles, and Amazon imprints. 

To bully indie authors into exclusivity is worrisome. Most of the titles in KU are indie titles. Without them (us?), Amazon cannot make money. They do not produce a product. Writers do. We should be the ones "allowing" them the chance to make a share of the money we earn, not the other way around. 
Most of the other products Amazon sells are available in stores and through other online retailers, yet somehow, authors are falling into the trap of exclusivity.

No, I don't think the sky is falling. At the end of the day, I don't think KU will have that big of on impact on publishing in general. No more than Hulu has on the TV industry. But it is a slippery slope. Ask Borders Book or Blockbuster Video.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Colin, if we banned members for posting the same ideas in multiple posts across multiple threads, there would be very few authors left here. If you find a member's posts don't interest you, ignore them. If you have difficulty ignoring posts, you can put the member on "Ignore."
> 
> Don't know how to put people on Ignore? Go to your Profile, select Modify Profile and then Buddies/Ignore List and then "Edit Ignore List." Adding a name to the text box will pop up members whose names match what you've typed, to help you put the right member on ignore. Select the member and tap on "Add." Their posts will be hidden to you, though not the fact that they've posted, and you will have the option to view the post anyway. Their PMs will also be blocked.
> 
> ...


Betsy. I will continue posting and will keep within the guidelines - I always strive to be a good boy. And I am focusing the discussion on ideas. That doesn't mean everyone will like my ideas, but if I break the rules, feel free to get out the cattle prod.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> To bully indie authors into exclusivity is worrisome. Most of the titles in KU are indie titles. Without them (us?), Amazon cannot make money. They do not produce a product. Writers do. We should be the ones "allowing" them the chance to make a share of the money we earn, not the other way around.


I think that actually the reason they keep the exclusivity clause is because Amazon doesn't want us all to be part of KU. They're losing money on KU, not just now when they fill the pot from their coffers, but later too, when the voracious book-a-day people are on the $9.99 month plan. Even if those readers are only buying 99 cent books, that means over the course of a month Amazon was making $19.31 (=.65% x .99 cents x 30days) from their purchases. (And those voracious readers, the real "money losers" from Amazon's perspective are EXACTLY the ones who will sign up for KU).

But they are keeping those voracious readers from jumping ship and going off to Scribd or Oyster, and they HOPE that those readers will also buy books. Incidentally, Scribd has started SELLING ebooks, not just "renting" them. I think currently it is limited to books that people can borrow from their site, but I can see where they might start making deals with other publishers too.

My plan is to approach this in a mixed manner. I plan to offer a few titles in KU in the future (not drek, titles that were on my To-Write-List anyway). I think Amazon is hoping I do exactly that.


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2014)

Jan Strnad said:


> In its fifth season, the TV show _Happy Days_ featured an episode in which one of the main characters, Fonzie, jumped over a shark tank on water skis. This particular moment has been singled out as The Moment when _Happy Days_ began a long and inexorable descent into mediocrity, irrelevance and eventual cancellation.
> 
> This episode occurred five years into the series, which lasted another seven years. Not a bad run for a series that had supposedly reached its creative peak and descended into irrelevance after "jumping the shark."
> 
> ...


RE: your point about exposure...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE

If someone would be kind enough to edit this and embed the video, I would appreciate it. I can never get videos to embed here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## J.L. Dickinson (Jul 12, 2014)

Voelker58 said:


> I think part of what is making people nervous about KU is the exclusivity. The other subscription platforms don't require it.


Amazon has seen the future, and books are dead. The book was the death of the scroll. The scroll was the death of the stone tablet. And the E-Reader (regardless of device) is the death of the book. The masons chiseling into the stone tablets went extinct. The scribes copying scrolls by hand went extinct. Book publishers will go extinct. The traditional bound book of pieces of paper is becoming increasingly marginalized by the faster, cheaper, more efficient medium just as all previous methods of transmitting written language across time and distance did. Books will become in time, an antiqued novelty.

Amazon made it big being a distributor of books, and they have positioned themselves well to be the largest distributor of their successor the ebook. In the future not to long from now there will be no publishers. All authors will be 'Indie' authors. The way traditional publishers fight over the publishing rights of their best selling authors, distributors will fight for over the distribution rights of their bestselling authors. Yes Amazon wants exclusivity. The want 'big name author' to distribute only through them, not through a competing distributor as well. They don't want to share resources.


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

shelleyo1 said:


> I don't know how anyone can make any kind of determination a whole three days in.


Word.


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

Voelker58 said:


> To bully indie authors into exclusivity is worrisome.


Bullying?

Seriously?

BULLYING

You're using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## Bookslinger (Jan 12, 2014)

I don't see any of that being true. Everyone I know who was ordering from Amazon before still is. In the real world, most people don't even care about this stuff going on between Hachette and Amazon because they can't see how it directly affects them. It's mostly authors who care and people who work in publishing who care. Consumers just want cheap prices and Amazon still does a pretty good job with that. 

I know the KU thing is scaring some authors and I find it a little concerning myself, but I am going to give it a try. If it does't work, Amazon will probably drop it and move on to something else. Most of the stuff in your post sounds like fear-mongering to me.


----------



## btsc99 (Oct 12, 2012)

Voelker58 said:


> To bully indie authors into exclusivity is worrisome.


A Z-list author such as myself sees KU as a possible opportunity (albeit one that may have dark ramifications) to drag himself a couple of yards out of the primeval slime. Sadly this might be at the expense of higher life-forms that are above my pay-grade. C'est la guerre.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

C. Gockel said:


> Incidentally, Scribd has started SELLING ebooks, not just "renting" them. I think currently it is limited to books that people can borrow from their site, but I can see where they might start making deals with other publishers too.


Not starting to sell, they have always done so, especially if your book is too short and every view would trigger a payment - in which case it is for purchase only. Many trad pub are also there for purchase only, but that might be because of UK rights problems (although normally they tell me I can read it and when I click they apologise for not having rights in my region). Erotica will also be purchase only. Selling is not a new feature it was announced as part of the deal from Smashwords first spoke of the plans and Smashwords were the first company to be allowed to submit self-published titles to Scribd. Oh the nostalgia for those days when if stated that Select would lose its shine because Scribd made better business sense than KOLL and I was met with responses that the jury was out on Scribd. Well Amazon have well and truly returned a guilty as charged verdict on Scribd's success by launching KU.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

If you do not like what Amazon is doing, please quit giving Amazon any of your money.  Otherwise, you are still supporting their decisions.  Even if you pull out of Select, if you have your books at Amazon you are supporting them and their decisions.  
The only way to make a difference is if you leave Amazon completely.  
Maybe if all the authors that were griping about KU did that, then maybe Amazon would change their minds.  But staying with Amazon you still give them somewhere between 30-65% of what you are selling.  So Amazon has nothing to worry about.

Sorry just being a bit logical.


----------



## Carina Wilder (Nov 12, 2013)

For the first time, today I saw a random post on facebook by a reader who noted that Kindle Unlimited is for her a little like Netflix: inexpensive, but when she searches for titles she really wants, she finds almost none of them. This is under the free trial which is leading her to think it won't be worth subscribing. 

It's the adventurous readers, willing to pick up works by authors they don't know, who will subscribe. But lots won't. The first month will be very skewed and the numbers will be interesting. The royalties probably won't be great and in all likelihood a lot of writers will feel let down. As someone who's been in Select for a long time, my initial reaction was excitement, but it's shifted to something like tense apprehension. The good news is that there are options, and as with everything else we'll eventually be able to make an informed decision. 

Hopefully.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I looked at it and it is just not cost productive for this reader.


----------



## D-C (Jan 13, 2014)

exkitteh said:


> I have to disagree. As a reader, I hardly ever buy short stories or serials, but with KU (trial ofc) I've been more inclined to pick up short stories and try new authors that I wouldn't normally pay for. The shorts have been excellent for my breaks and lunches at work!


I've had more borrows on my short story in the last few days then virtually ever (It's a forgotten prequel that I'm not doing anything with) But I have a problem with this. Why should my 45 page shorty net me $2 when previously all I got was 35 cents? (Amazon, why are you paying me $2 for it - are you mad?) Yet, my full length novels get $2, losing me up to 42% profit? This is wrong. And if it continues, I'm pulling my full length novels (all but the first in the series) from KU because it's eating into my subsequent profits. KU will soon find itself stocked with just serials and short stories. I'm not bashing serials. I have a lot of respect for authors that can write successful serials. This is about numbers.

Edited to add - The 10% paid threshold is obviously a lot less pages in a short story, than a full length novel. So the chances of being paid for my shorty are higher too.


----------



## Carina Wilder (Nov 12, 2013)

> I looked at it and it is just not cost productive for this reader.


I feel like you could teach a course at Harvard on finding inexpensive books, Cin. It's like your superhero power, I think.


----------



## Melody Simmons (Jul 8, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> One nitpick here--you don't have to own a Kindle to read KU books. You need a Kindle or Kindle app. You can read KU books on a smartphone, iPad or tablet if you want to. Not saying there aren't readers who won't want to do that--they'll want to read on their Kobo or Nook and authors should consider that--but you do not have to have a Kindle to read KU books... Just sayin'.
> 
> Unlike Prime--to read a Prime book you had to have a Kindle reader to check the book out.
> 
> Betsy


Yeah, but as far as I know KU is only available in the US at the moment...wonder how soon that will change?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/22/amazon-kindle-unlimited-uk

According to that article (published just today) it may take a long time, months or never, plus the big five Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin Random House, Simon & Schuster and Macmillan have not made their titles available on Kindle Unlimited.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

TheRo said:


> I feel like you could teach a course at Harvard on finding inexpensive books, Cin. It's like your superhero power, I think.


Not just books. I think I have a PhD in cheap. Though now it is a choice, not a have too.


----------



## Carina Wilder (Nov 12, 2013)

> Not just books. I think I have a PhD in cheap. Though now it is a choice, not a have too.


That's what makes it such a skill. You're a Master, I think. I always thought I was good at it but then I came here and I have to acknowledge that I pale in comparison.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> Whether you like it or not,_ it is what it is_. That was an oft used phrase when I was a young Marine. It is what it is, accept it and move on. Improvise, adapt, and overcome was another. Bend or break.....
> 
> I could go on. The point is, Amazon's not going away, regardless of how many times they "jump the shark". They are in the business of making money, which we all are, and they do it well. So, let's look at the money.
> 
> ...


Instead of writing my own post, I'll just quote this! This is where I am too. Seeing what happens, and when I have more information, I'll make an informed decision. Wayne is wise.

Change Happens in this biz. This change seemed inevitable. But time will tell how it shakes out. Meanwhile the only thing fully under my control is writing books, so I'll focus on that.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

See the girl with the smiley purse.  If she is in a store and has her phone (cheap but smart) out, she is probably price comparing.  Oh and just let her know, she will lead you to the best deals.
Now back on topic, some readers will love KU and use it to their advantage and others will be no not for me.


Adding if Rosalind and Wayne could write 4 books a month then it would be very feasible for me.


----------



## RedGolum (Nov 2, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> I assume that you have never heard of disruptive innovation. "A disruptive innovation is an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually goes on to disrupt an existing market and value network, displacing an earlier technology." Amazon is and always has been big on employing it.
> 
> If you don't like the way KDP is run, you can certainly unpublish your books there.


 That is what the Kindle and ereaders as a whole have been. Disruptive innovation. I remember the screams from advertisers when the first TiVo was launched.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> If you do not like what Amazon is doing, please quit giving Amazon any of your money. Otherwise, you are still supporting their decisions. Even if you pull out of Select, if you have your books at Amazon you are supporting them and their decisions.
> The only way to make a difference is if you leave Amazon completely.
> Maybe if all the authors that were griping about KU did that, then maybe Amazon would change their minds. But staying with Amazon you still give them somewhere between 30-65% of what you are selling. So Amazon has nothing to worry about.
> 
> Sorry just being a bit logical.


I think that the logical thing is to support the Amazon programs you like and to opt out of the ones you don't. There's no need to throw out the baby with the bath water.


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

Michael Kingswood said:


> Bullying?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> ...


Um...to force someone (usually smaller or weaker) to do something they don't really want to do? That's not bullying?

JK Rowling: I want to put my books in KU, but I still want to do be able to sell them anywhere else I please.
Amazon: Sure thing. Whatever you want is fine with us.

Indie Author: I want to put my books in KU, but I still want to do be able to sell them anywhere else I please.
Amazon: Shut up and give me your lunch money!
Indie Author: Sorry. I won't ever ask for control of my own creative property again. Thanks for letting me sit at your lunch table, even though I'm not really cool enough.

This type of behavior wouldn't even fly in middle school.

Sorry that my 100% correct use of a word upset you so much. Although I do appreciate the Princess Bride style insult.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Jan,
You misunderstood my post.  
Some people say that Amazon is bullying and being unfair to indies.  
As long as you are giving one dime, it is supporting them.  
Let me rephrase:  
You say you don't like KU, fine don't use it or get out as soon as possible if you have chosen to be Amazon selective.  Since by agreeing to their TOS, you stated that you are fine with however they want to sell your books.
If you want to sell elsewhere, just go with KDP and you are good.  

If you do not agree with their policy and think it should be banned; well then vote with your money.  This means not giving Amazon one dime because they are in the business of making money.

Now to the bulliers and unfair to Indies.  Well no.
I am pretty sure, Hugh Howey is still indie and a few others.  
See in business here is the thing: the more money you make for the retailer, the more special benefits you get.
Nothing more, just simple business.
That is in any retail.
You are not a customer, you are a vendor.  Last time I looked you had the right to set your price within limits, you had the right to choose rather you want to be exclusive or everywhere, so what is the problem?

With any company, there are benefits for some but not all.  Customers and vendors.


----------



## Deborahsmith author (Jul 23, 2013)

Drew Gideon said:


> I'm sitting here wondering why, when Oyster and Scribd fired up their reading subscription models, no one blinked an eye. It was "a good idea". It was "innovative". It was "responding to customers' requests".
> 
> Actually there was and still is a lot of concern among publisher and authors about ebook subscription services in general. The reason Amazon's KU is higher profile is because Amazon is a thousand times bigger and more powerful than either Oyster or Scribd, and already controls a massive amount of book distribution. Ebook subscription services have the potential to gut profits for authors and small presses, just as music subscription services have done for musicians and songwriters. Netflix is not an apt comparison to ebook services since movie studios have made up for their losses in ways publishers and authors cannot--by shifting their movie making to big-ticket blockbusters that sell in foreign markets. Musicians can tour; film studios can fill theaters with giant sci fi spectaculars. But what will authors do when their book royalties dwindle to nearly nothing because the profits are going to subscription services instead?


----------



## Lefevre (Feb 1, 2014)

If you are measuring.....

I think Amazon might have actually "jumped the shark" when they announced the "drone delivery" program.

Just my 2 cents..


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Robert Reade said:


> If you are measuring.....
> 
> I think Amazon might have actually "jumped the shark" when they announced the "drone delivery" program.
> 
> Just my 2 cents..


I would hope a drone could find me easier than UPS. They delivered (UPS) my last package 2 streets over.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Amazon *is* the shark. 

But seriously, no, they have not jumped it.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> You say you don't like KU, fine don't use it or get out as soon as possible if you have chosen to be Amazon selective. Since by agreeing to their TOS, you stated that you are fine with however they want to sell your books.
> If you want to sell elsewhere, just go with KDP and you are good.


That's how I see it.



> If you do not agree with their policy and think it should be banned; well then vote with your money. This means not giving Amazon one dime because they are in the business of making money.


I don't know that anyone's suggested that KU be banned, exactly. Given the length of these discussions, it might be in there somewhere.  But if they have, it's not a sentiment I share. It's Amazon's business, they can do what they want. Besides, it would take millions of people turning off Amazon to make them notice. The best an individual could do would be to take satisfaction from shopping elsewhere.

There are stores in the news that I won't patronize, but they don't care. They don't even know I exist. I just shop elsewhere as a matter of conscience.



> Now to the bulliers and unfair to Indies. Well no.
> I am pretty sure, Hugh Howey is still indie and a few others.
> See in business here is the thing: the more money you make for the retailer, the more special benefits you get.


I agree with this sentiment as well. The authors/publishers who are getting treated better than the rest of us poor schlubs are the ones who will bring in subscribers. Check the comments on the reader side of this board... those who are passing up KU are largely doing so because the Big 5 aren't there. Being trad published still means something to a lot of folks.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Monique said:


> Amazon *is* the shark.
> 
> But seriously, no, they have not jumped it.


I like this comment a lot!


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Jan Strnad said:


> ......


Your New Coke analogy is wrong, because at the time Coca Cola panicked, and did not look at the whole picture. Sure, a lot of Coke drinkers in that taste test liked Pepsi, but after tasting, the vast majority of them still went into the Supermarket and bought Coke. Coca Cola went "ZOMG! They like the taste better, we must change!" without considering what their customers did afterwards.

It's been less than a week since Unlimited started, how about we wait a couple of months and see what happens?

Dav


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

> It's been less than a week since Unlimited started, how about we wait a couple of months and see what happens?


Where's the fun in that?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Jan,
I was not talking shopping there on my don't give Amazon a dime.
I was talking about authors/vendors pulling their stuff and not giving Amazon a commission from your sales.
I am gonna borrow one of your books as an example.
Let's take "One Last Time:a novel".  If you have the standard contract with Amazon, then every time someone buys that book, Amazon gets $1.79 + a small delivery free.  You get roughly $4.
So see every time you make a sale, you basically give Amazon $1.79.
Now if you sell big time, yes Amazon would notice if you left.  If you sell less than 1000 books a month, then no Amazon won't care.  
I hope I made this clear.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

On the New Coke, Coke was trying to get the Pepsi drinkers.  It was not a close enough match to make the switch and Pepsi had better deals for customers.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

Drew Gideon said:


> I'm sitting here wondering why, when Oyster and Scribd fired up their reading subscription models, no one blinked an eye. It was "a good idea". It was "innovative". It was "responding to customers' requests".
> 
> But now that Zon has done the same thing, suddenly we should all be heading for a bunker, because Jeff Bezos, riding an 800-pound gorilla, is now falling from the sky.
> 
> ...


Oyster and Scribd don't require exclusive titles. If you're looking for validity, I'd start there.


----------



## Deborahsmith author (Jul 23, 2013)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Amazon began life in Jeff Bezos' garage in Bellvue, a town in Washington State bordering Redmond the home of Microsoft. If Amazon ever has a facade about being devoted to readers it is odd that this "Wall Street whizz kid" would relocate from the US capital of books to the US capital of tech. Of course if Amazon is actually, and always has been, a tech company that saw books as a way to lure in customers then basing yourself beside the country's greatest pool of programming talent makes a lot more sense.}
> 
> Bezos has said for years that he chose books as his product because they offered all the right demographic features -- not because he loves books and wanted to be a bookseller. It's never been any secret that books are the gateway drug to sell bigger items. This is a very important point and doesn't get much discussion. If you stop thinking in terms of "But but . . . doesn't Amazon want to sell more books" and start thinking in terms of "How are they using books to build customer loyalty *this* time," the tactics make more sense -- and those tactics are not set up to benefit either books or authors.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Let's see I get books nearly everyday.  I wanted CSI:NY so I went to Amazon.  I needed a dog playpen so I went to Amazon.  CSI will be here tomorrow and the playpen next Tuesday. 
So yes, it is about everything.


----------



## Davout73 (Feb 20, 2014)

Jan Strnad said:


> Where's the fun in that?


Hell, if worrying over stuff and stressing out over life in general was a fun and worthwhile endeavor, my mother-in-law would be the greatest person to be around.

And let me tell you, there's not enough drugs in the world that will make spending more than an hour with her enjoyable...

I've tried most of them. I'm contemplating just grinding them up and putting them in her coffee....

Dav


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

Drew Gideon said:


> I'm sitting here wondering why, when Oyster and Scribd fired up their reading subscription models, no one blinked an eye. It was "a good idea". It was "innovative". It was "responding to customers' requests".
> 
> But now that Zon has done the same thing, suddenly we should all be heading for a bunker, because Jeff Bezos, riding an 800-pound gorilla, is now falling from the sky.
> 
> Why is that?


One of the whys could be that Oyster and Scribd don't demand exclusivity for unlimited reading and Amazon does. If writers remove their books from other sites and rush in to KU, Bezos will own the show, and Amazon will be able to dictate whatever it chooses.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> Jan,
> I was not talking shopping there on my don't give Amazon a dime.
> I was talking about authors/vendors pulling their stuff and not giving Amazon a commission from your sales.
> I am gonna borrow one of your books as an example.
> ...


Yes, that's what I understood. And I agree. I don't sell enough books to be on Amazon's radar, so I don't expect them to grant me any special deals. It's take-it-or-leave-it for me as far as KU is concerned. I'm leaving it. They don't care. I don't care that they don't care. They don't care that I don't care. Etc.

I can still sell my books through the regular channels. I'm happy to do business with Amazon on that basis.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Hi everyone,
So you are telling me that Life of Pi, Water for Elephants, Diary of a wimpy kid, Steven Covey, George Orwell, George Takei, Gary Chapman, Anthony Bourdain are all indies.  Oh and Pearl S. Buck.  Not to mention the Hunger Games, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter.

There are no trads in KU.  Those are respectively the most popular in KU.
Now as to indies, I just found Konrath (but not all his books), Crouch (same idea)..

This looks like a general mix though it still does not look like it will be worth it to me.


At Jan,
That works.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Marian said:


> One of the whys could be that Oyster and Scribd don't demand exclusivity for unlimited reading and Amazon does. If writers remove their books from other sites and rush in to KU, Bezos will own the show, and Amazon will be able to dictate whatever it chooses.


This. If anything, we need more vendors out there, not fewer. This step by Amazon makes that far less likely.

I'm still waiting to find out how it will be possible, in this vision, to promote your title, especially if you are a new writer without a mail list.
I'm assuming affiliate dollars do not apply. Does anyone know? If not, BookBub et al won't be interested in helping you push your title. So now you're on a list with a million titles. Spiffy. You better have a darn good cover.

I think one of the reasons that things are slower at Kobo, B&N, iTunes and Google Play is that there is no efficient way to advertise specifically to those readers. (although BookBub does have a decent reach there) A decent affiliate program, for one, would go far to remedy that. 
For our own sake and bottom line, we need those vendors to survive.


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> I don't see a lot of the 'big name' writers (at least not in the genre I read and write) getting into KU,


I wonder how many 'big name' writers are actually in KU I also wonder how many 'big name' writers have left Select over the past year or so, not that we could find out. Could part of the motivation for starting KU be to get more authors into Select because Select was losing them?


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

Quiss said:


> I think one of the reasons that things are slower at Kobo, B&N, iTunes and Google Play is that there is no efficient way to advertise specifically to those readers. (although BookBub does have a decent reach there) A decent affiliate program, for one, would go far to remedy that.
> For our own sake and bottom line, we need those vendors to survive.


This


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Michael Kingswood said:


> Bullying?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> ...


You're responding to a group of writers where there's a lot of Amazon resentment.

When one decides to be distrustful, logic tends to be rarer than normal.

It's out of the same mentality that says an employer who does not pay for your rent (even though you're paid a salary) is "denying you access to housing."


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Hey Wayne, 
3 out of 4 paid authors in the top 5 in your sub genre are in KU.    Oh and love where OUT is.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Voelker58 said:


> Indie Author: I want to put my books in KU, but I still want to do be able to sell them anywhere else I please.
> Amazon: Shut up and give me your lunch money!
> Indie Author: Sorry. I won't ever ask for control of my own creative property again. Thanks for letting me sit at your lunch table, even though I'm not really cool enough.


False parallel.

1. Amazon does not take away your rights for the rest of your life plus 70 years. Try getting away with that with a Big 5 publisher.

2. Signing up for Select is and always has been optional. I have books in and out of Select. Wow! Who'da thunk it?

Bullying charge refuted.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> On the New Coke, Coke was trying to get the Pepsi drinkers. It was not a close enough match to make the switch and Pepsi had better deals for customers.


Apropos of nothing (and perhaps surprising for a Coca-Cola loyalist)... I miss Crystal Pepsi. A lot.

(If you don't know what "a Crystal Pepsi" is... Google it.)


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Marian said:


> One of the whys could be that Oyster and Scribd don't demand exclusivity for unlimited reading and Amazon does. If writers remove their books from other sites and rush in to KU, Bezos will own the show, and Amazon will be able to dictate whatever it chooses.


But who is going to do that?

Don't you think most of us will try to _use_ KU to gain some greater visibility with a few "selected" titles, and keep their main catalog all over the place?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Andrew you are making too much sense.


----------



## Davina Hart (Jun 16, 2014)

CraigInOregon said:


> Apropos of nothing (and perhaps surprising for a Coca-Cola loyalist)... I miss Crystal Pepsi. A lot.
> 
> (If you don't know what "a Crystal Pepsi" is... Google it.)


Holy Crapoly! Crystal Pepsi! You went THERE! OMG! ;-)

I was one of three people on the planet that liked New Coke. lol. Of course, I was 9 years old.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Quiss said:


> This. If anything, we need more vendors out there, not fewer. This step by Amazon makes that far less likely.


Tell me this, Quiss:

When did it become Amazon's job to ensure there's more vendors and competition out there?

Amazon's job is to ensure their company does as well as possible.

Ensuring that other businesses do as well as possible is a matter for their own owners/CEO/board of directors, not Amazon's.

What did I miss? When did that not become the case?

I support multiple platforms and competition, yes. So long as they put income on my ledger, which is rare outside of Amazon.

People like to villainize Amazon by reminding folks (as if we didn't know), "they're a BUSINESS."

Well, as a writer, so am I. Just ask the IRS. I'm a self-employed sole proprietorship. I have to file the appropriate paperwork as such. One cannot say I'm not a business.

And let's say I have four vendors I regularly sell my work through.

Each quarter, or at least once a year, I'm going to review the performance of each vendor I do business with.

Let's imagine some numbers generally reflective (but not from my copy of TaxACT) of my recent experiences with each:

Amazon: Gee, I helped you sell (fictional numbers) $1,000 this past year.

Kobo: Gee, I helped you sell $47 over the past two years, but I don't want to pay you till it's $100, so... I'll pay you nothing. Again.

Google: Gee, I helped you sell $200 in produce over the past year.

Smashwords: Gee, I helped you sell about $60 over the past year across a dozen platforms, most of which have netted you nothing.

So, let's imagine, with such numbers in mind, that Amazon approaches me and says, "We can boost you to $1,500 if you opt-in to an exclusivity deal."

An extra $500 to bypass $307 elsewhere... though it's more like $260 elsewhere since it could be 2017 before I see $100 at Kobo and actually get paid.

Hmm...

Yeah... as a writer who's in business to make money and pay bills with said money? Yeah... I'd be tempted.

#($( markets that are making me chickenfeed. Right now, Google's the only one coming close to even showing potential.

That's not to say I'd go all-in with all my titles, one way or the other.

But will I experiment with some new titles?

You bet I will.


----------



## Evan J (Feb 3, 2014)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Don't you think most of us will try to _use_ KU to gain some greater visibility with a few "selected" titles, and keep their main catalog all over the place?


Maybe. But if Amazon places greater weight on KU borrows when determining author and title rank, those who employ an aggressive "all in" approach could leapfrog those folks who are more cautious.


----------



## Evan J (Feb 3, 2014)

CraigInOregon said:


> Tell me this, Quiss:
> 
> When did it become Amazon's job to ensure there's more vendors and competition out there?
> 
> ...


I think she was speaking as a consumer and an author, speaking to other consumers and authors (not to CEOs and board of directors.)


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Evan J said:


> I think she was speaking as a consumer and an author, speaking to other consumers and authors (not to CEOs and board of directors.)


Yes. Of course Amazon is trying to beat the competition. Much like the Big 5 used to be a whole lot of smaller companies that ended up eating each other. Fewer slush piles to deal with for the author, I guess.

Without _significant _vendor competition, we're in for a rude awakening come pay day. 
There is no competition if readers and authors focus entirely on Amazon.

I know you don't like the word "bullying" in this context, Craig, but if KU takes off the way some folks hope, other authors will have no choice but to toe the line or miss out on that audience. Amazon knows it, Amazon hopes for it. Bullying by any other name.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Evan J said:


> Maybe. But if Amazon places greater weight on KU borrows when determining author and title rank, those who employ an aggressive "all in" approach could leapfrog those folks who are more cautious.


We'll see _*if*_ that ever happens.

For the moment KU is only available in the US. My sales through Amazon dot com (a lot of countries buy at Amazon dot com) are at 60%. That is down from 78% last year.

I've been diversifying, and Amazon will have to come up with a far more alluring proposal to make me go exclusive with them.

What you're suggesting is that Amazon would game their own system. If you think that, what makes you think they're not already gaming their own system?


----------



## trublue (Jul 7, 2012)

emilycantore said:


> Any article with a question in the title - the answer is almost always: NO!
> 
> Will Amazon Destroy Publishing?
> Will This New Subscription Model Make us Slaves and Start Eating One Another?
> ...


+1


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Quiss said:


> Without _significant_ vendor competition, we're in for a rude awakening come pay day.
> There is no competition if readers and authors focus entirely on Amazon.
> 
> I know you don't like the word "bullying" in this context, Craig, but if KU takes off the way some folks hope, other authors will have no choice but to toe the line or miss out on that audience. Amazon knows it, Amazon hopes for it. Bullying by any other name.


I acknowledge your points, Quiss.

My issue in response is, one can't force competition to thrive out of thin air.

For example, tons of folks invested recently in Ouya, an Android-based alternative to Sony PS4, MS Xbox One, and (charitably), Nintendo WiiU.

Much of the same "support competition, support Ouya" mantras were used. A Kickstarter was tossed out there, wildly successful. Bold predictions about "disruptive" tech.

About a year later, the Ouya is essentially dead. Business model, which relied a lot on free playable demos that almost never translated into full-game sales, was a complete fail. And an expensive fail, at that.

Because ultimately, the market is dominated and divided between PS4 and XboxOne loyalists, and Nintendo's off doing its own thing that's parent-focused as a "child's" gaming system. (Yes, there are exceptions, but that's the core of their business.)

The other dynamic it reminds me of is Betamax loyalists, who still insist to this day that their format was better than VHS and SHOULD have won. Except they didn't. You can't FORCE success. You can't create a thriving competition out of thin air. Core appeal has to be present.

Can a viable Amazon alternative make a go of it? I think Nook came the closest before the brick-n-mortar people blew it up and Nook is now a ghost of its former self.

(And I won't even go into my impressions of how they replaced PubIt! with the awful Nook Press, which tried to make uploading books into a social media platform, or something... I now distribute to Nook through Smashwords just to avoid the whole idiotic mess.)

To be competitive, an Amazon competitor will find success not by conspiring with the Big 5 as Apple attempted to keep eBook prices artificially high so that the Big 5 can do business the way they always have, but by doing what Amazon's doing in a better and value-added way, that generates broad appeal among both consumers and content-creators.

Even with the right product and business plan in place, Amazon wouldn't just roll over and die...

And I'm all for viable competition...

...But that doesn't mean that I should support, say, Diesel or Page Foundry or OverDrive or Baker & Taylor Axis 360 when I've had my books with them (via Smashwords) for a LONG time and I've received not even one sale through them.

If a vendor isn't doing anything to help me succeed, what's the point of supporting them?

P.S. I suspect Google Play Books is going to develop into a significant challenger to Amazon in the eBook arena, but let's see, how many people on here pulled most of their titles out because of how it affected their Amazon income again? I seem to recall a LOT of griping about "discounting without notice or MY approval..." So it stretches credibility when people simultaneously cry out for competition, but then flee to the mountains the moment a competitor acts like... a real competitor to Amazon.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Quiss said:


> Yes. Of course Amazon is trying to beat the competition. Much like the Big 5 used to be a whole lot of smaller companies that ended up eating each other. Fewer slush piles to deal with for the author, I guess.
> 
> Without _significant _vendor competition, we're in for a rude awakening come pay day.
> There is no competition if readers and authors focus entirely on Amazon.
> ...


Quiss,
According to a recent survey taken like yesterday among a few readers, less than 50% of readers will be going for KU. At $120 a year, it is just not a good deal. This was a group of voracious readers.

Now also you keep saying vendors, do you mean more places to sell your books? 
That would be retailers. 
At the moment there are at least 500,000 vendors on Amazon alone.
So I do not think that that KU will be the end of selling books.
Now please note that everyone trying KU right now is on a free trial.
Can we wait 30 days before seeing how many readers actually take advantage?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

WRITER
We need a competitor to keep Amazon honest! I'm afraid of evilness that hasn't happened yet!

GOOGLE
Sure! Upload your books to us. We'll even work hard to make your books sell, just like Amazon does.

WRITER
At last! Thank you Google!

(Time passes.)

WRITER
My books are up and selling! Bless you, Google! Finally, a serious competitor to Amazon!

GOOGLE
Oh, just wait. We're only getting started!

(Time passes.)

WRITER
Hold on a second! I'm selling good on Google, but they just discounted my book below it's Amazon price! Amazon price-matched and I'm losing crud-loads of money from my Amazon sales! OMG!

GOOGLE
Umm... yeah. We're getting your book moving, though.

WRITER
How dare you discount my books without telling me! Jerks! You need MY approval to discount MY books!

GOOGLE
Umm, technically, we don't. You did read our TOS, right? The one you signed? It's the same as Amazon's, basically. And Nook's. And Apple's.

WRITER
Yeah, but NO ONE ELSE EVER ACTUALLY DOES THAT.

GOOGLE
Except Amazon.

WRITER
Yeah. Except them. Exactly! I get eighty percent of my income from them!

GOOGLE
That's our point. No one else does what Amazon does, and only Amazon creates sales for you. We're going further than them, because if WE discount your books, we still pay you the non-discounted royalty. Now, our plans are to help you really build some momentum, and--

WRITER
I'm taking ALL my books down. How dare you screw me over! This is affecting my most-holy Amazon income! Jerks.

GOOGLE
Umm... okay. I guess. Have a nice day.

(Time passes.)

WRITER
Oh, when will someone create an actual competitor to Amazon? Someone who can keep Amazon honest?

GOOGLE
No. We're not falling for that again.

NOOK
Umm... hey there, writer, you sexy thing. We'd be happy to have your content.

WRITER
You're... not going to ACTUALLY discount my books without my permission, are you? I'm feeling a little betrayed.

NOOK
Oh, don't worry about that. We only care about print. As a matter of fact, we pretty much hate eBooks, and will say so publicly, even as we're trying to sell our eBook business to someone else. Because bad-mouthing a business you don't want to be in yourself creates SO many motivated buyers willing to overpay for that business and get in a bidding war to acquire it. Plus, for no extra charge, we'll ignore helping you succeed till the cows come home, just as we've always done.

WRITER
Finally!

-30-​


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

CraigInOregon said:


> WRITER
> We need a competitor to keep Amazon honest! I'm afraid of evilness that hasn't happened yet!
> 
> GOOGLE
> ...


LOVE THIS....


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> But who is going to do that?
> 
> Don't you think most of us will try to _use_ KU to gain some greater visibility with a few "selected" titles, and keep their main catalog all over the place?


My entire catalogue is in Select. I am doing better that way. It's entirely a business decision. I am not responsible for the survival of other businesses, just my own.

I must admit I am taken aback at the general hysteria although much the same happened when Select was introduced.


----------



## Evan J (Feb 3, 2014)

Andrew Ashling said:


> What you're suggesting is that Amazon would game their own system. If you think that, what makes you think they're not already gaming their own system?


But wherever did I say "they're not already gaming their own system"? I think Amazon will do what it takes to advance their preferred business model.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

CraigInOregon said:


> WRITER
> We need a competitor to keep Amazon honest! I'm afraid of evilness that hasn't happened yet!
> 
> GOOGLE
> ...


So very true. LOL.


----------



## soesposito (Jun 12, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> Hi everyone,
> So you are telling me that Life of Pi, Water for Elephants, Diary of a wimpy kid, Steven Covey, George Orwell, George Takei, Gary Chapman, Anthony Bourdain are all indies. Oh and Pearl S. Buck. Not to mention the Hunger Games, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter.


I read on another thread that these publishers were given a "deal" to put their writers' books in KU. My guess would be their normal royalty rate. What would they have to loose? The big names are just there to attract readers. Last I heard over 500,000 of the 600,000 books were indie.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Quiss said:


> I think one of the reasons that things are slower at Kobo, B&N, iTunes and Google Play is that there is no efficient way to advertise specifically to those readers. (although BookBub does have a decent reach there) A decent affiliate program, for one, would go far to remedy that.
> For our own sake and bottom line, we need those vendors to survive.


Unlike at the beginning of the self-publishing boom, B&N no longer supports--in any respect--self-published books or their authors. Kobo does try, Mark in particular, however they are still heavily focused on traditionally published books.

Apple is one place I see much more support for self-published books. I love them for that--among other reasons.

Google Plus + Amazon can be a discounting nightmare. After my run around with them, I have my books up with them but I keep a very very close eye on price daily. My Google Plus earnings are greater than that of Kobo's and it's growing at a greater rate than any of the other retailers.

I'm super grateful, especially now, that Amazon constitutes approx 50-65% of my earnings. I have no desire to be wholly dependent upon them.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

soesposito said:


> I read on another thread that these publishers were given a "deal" to put their writers' books in KU. My guess would be their normal royalty rate. What would they have to loose? The big names are just there to attract readers. Last I heard over 500,000 of the 600,000 books were indie.


I heard it through the raisin vine, that Hugh Howey and some other indies got sweet deals too.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

There are two indisputable facts that Hugh Howey's Author Earnings research has shown the publishing industry. First, readers don't really know or care who publishes a book. Second, readers are willing to take a chance on unknown authors if they produce a quality product that's well packaged and presented. 

These two facts indicate that KU will be a success among readers. Whether Amazon can make a profit from KU is questionable and open for debate.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

First of all, Andrew, I love the quote beneath your avatar. I often feel that way during discussions here.  

Secondly, I just got a nice little surprise from Draft2Digital, namely the Scribd sales report for June. Now I didn't expect to make anything at Scribd, yet I did and nearly as much as on Amazon.com for the same month at that. And Scribd does not require me to yank my books from other stores where they're selling.

And Craig, I think you're being unfair towards the other vendors and those who sell there. Your books may not do well on other platforms, but that's not true for everybody. My books have never been in Select and I've been running a maximum diversification strategy from the start. At last checking (earlier this month for my indie publishing anniversary), Amazon.com made up 47.8% of my total sales, down from 55% in 2013 and 62.5% in 2012 at overall growing sales, so diversification is working for me. And for the record, I'm not on Google Play because of the discounting/price matching issue.

Doesn't mean that diversification will work that way for everybody. Some people (e.g. JR Tomlin) simply don't do very well outside Amazon. Others sell better elsewhere. It also varies from book to book. I have books which sell mainly at Amazon, books which sell mainly at Kobo, books which sell mainly at B&N, etc... Last month, a book that barely sells at all at Amazon did gangbusters at Weltbild, a store you've probably never heard of.

We all have to forge our own path. For some that means joining Select and KU, for others it means going wide. 

And for the record, I don't think Amazon has jumped the shark. Though anti-Amazon sentiment has grown and I've had to defend my decision to shop at Amazon several times in recent weeks.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Amazon accounts for roughly 60% of my sales, maybe less these days. I started in Select back in the day, but there's no turning back for me now.


----------



## Tasha Black (May 28, 2014)

It will be interesting to see what everyone has to say about this a year from now.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

CoraBuhlert said:


> And Craig, I think you're being unfair towards the other vendors and those who sell there. Your books may not do well on other platforms, but that's not true for everybody. My books have never been in Select and I've been running a maximum diversification strategy from the start. At last checking (earlier this month for my indie publishing anniversary), Amazon.com made up 47.8% of my total sales, down from 55% in 2013 and 62.5% in 2012 at overall growing sales, so diversification is working for me. And for the record, I'm not on Google Play because of the discounting/price matching issue.


Hmm, I don't recall expressing any opinion that was "true for everyone." So calling me unfair because I said something that's "not true for everyone" seems... a little unfair, don't you think? And certainly... not true for everyone. 

You and I agree that there are many paths to success and that what works for one will not work for another. Rest assured of that.


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

CraigInOregon said:


> False parallel.
> 
> 1. Amazon does not take away your rights for the rest of your life plus 70 years. Try getting away with that with a Big 5 publisher.
> 
> ...


How about the big-selling indie authors in KU that don't seem to have to follow the same exclusivity rules? The treatment is unfair, and it is clear that this is the case. Amazon is using its leverage as the big name to force the little guys into different deals than the bigger guys. I don't understand why that is not clear.

Maybe Chuck Wendig says it better:
http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2014/07/21/kindle-unlimited-author-publisher-as-second-class-citizen/

I know that no one is forcing anyone to do anything, but I still have a "do what you're told, or you can't play with the cool kids" vibe from the whole thing.

Also, I LOVE how there are people here that feel I am not entitled to that opinion, and feel the need to be insulting in saying so. I haven't really encountered that here before. 
Funny that the people who are rude and dismissive of other peoples' opinions are the ones who have a hard time recognizing bullying. That is probably a total coincidence.

Oh well. I've wasted too much time on here already. Have fun, and remember, we are all on the same side here!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Voelker58 said:


> How about the big-selling indie authors in KU that don't seem to have to follow the same exclusivity rules? The treatment is unfair, and it is clear that this is the case. Amazon is using its leverage as the big name to force the little guys into different deals than the bigger guys. I don't understand why that is not clear.
> 
> Maybe Chuck Wendig says it better:
> http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2014/07/21/kindle-unlimited-author-publisher-as-second-class-citizen/
> ...


Voelker58,

Personally, I think you're looking at it in mirror-image.

Amazon wants all vendors (indies, small-press, Big 5) to be on the same terms. It is the Big 5, essentially, who are using THEIR leverage to create an unlevel playing field.

Publishers like Hachette want higher royalties than we get AND no incentive toward lower book prices as we get.

Publishers like Hachette want algorithm advantages on Also-Boughts so that if you're on 33 AD by David McAfee, you see "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" before you even see 61 AD by David McAfee. It's called "buying up virtual floor space."

Publishers like Hacehtte demand pre-order buttons (another thing we don't get) and then whine when they get those PRE-order buttons taken away because they're not willing to sit down like adults and discuss reasonable terms on a new contract, and have other advantages taken from them we don't get as well ... then somehow hornswoggle indies into believing that it's in OUR best interest to protect THEIR special advantages against "evil Amazon!"

Publishers like Hachette win some of these advantages and not others... and you're blaming Amazon for creating the unlevel playing field?

Seems a bit unreasonable.

As for the Chuck Wendig link... I prefer Joe Konrath's fisking of him, thanks. (Source: http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/07/fisking-chuck-wendig.html)


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

"I know you don't like the word "bullying" in this context, Craig, but if KU takes off the way some folks hope, other authors will have no choice but to toe the line or miss out on that audience. Amazon knows it, Amazon hopes for it. Bullying by any other name."

If Amazon creates an incredibly successful sales/readership building opportunity for authors, like they did in the heydays of Select/Free/BookBub, then it is somehow bullying because Amazon asks for something in return to enjoy the influx of sales and readership? Why wasn't it bullying when Select rained money and readers down on Indies? I certainly didn't feel bullied when my readership and sales rose to a consistent level where I could quit my day job. I felt...liberated.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Steven Konkoly said:


> If Amazon creates an incredibly successful sales/readership building opportunity for authors, like they did in the heydays of Select/Free/BookBub, then it is somehow bullying because Amazon asks for something in return to enjoy the influx of sales and readership? Why wasn't it bullying when Select rained money and readers down on Indies? I certainly didn't feel bullied when my readership and sales rose to a consistent level where I could quit my day job. I felt...liberated.


Steve,

I know you're replying to Quiss, there, but please know this: there are many who made these same bullying, Amazon-is-bad-or-might-one-day-turn-bad arguments, even back then.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

P.S. to Voelker58

No one (least of all me) suggested you don't have a right to your opinion. You do. As do I. As does anyone.

That doesn't mean your opinion, or mine, or anyone else's, is immune to being challenged.

And for the record, the worst thing I said directed toward you in any way at all was that your proposition that blaming Amazon for an unlevel playing field created by Big 5 publishers using their leverage "seems a bit unreasonable."

Hardly a death-blow. Just an opinion. Which I doubt I shifted anyone else's.

But it's the ideas, not the person, that are being challenged. Nothing personal. I trust it's likewise for you.


----------



## Stephen T. Harper (Dec 20, 2010)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> We have seen two entire industries changed by this model - three if you count massively Multiplayer Online Games such as World of Warcraft that charges a monthly subscription for access - and you think it's no big deal?
> 
> Block Buster thought it wasn't a big deal when Netflix launched. Spotify completely reshaped music retail. How could you think it's no big deal?
> 
> The question is, why _wouldn't_ it work? We have two very successful real-world models to indicate people like consuming culture this way. If you don't think these models apply to written literature, and that readers won't consume books this way, then tell us why.


I'm not going to say that it won't work, but as for 'why wouldn't it?" It's not exactly the same as Netflix and Spotify because books take far longer to consume each one than a movie or a song. My wife reads a more than I do, and she told me she wouldn't be able to read enough books to make the 10 bucks a month (every month, mind you) worth it. Especially when you can get so many good books between 0 and 5 bucks (some of which are Dickens novels which can take a long time to read at a chapter per night before falling to sleep).

I wonder if Amazon's efforts to lower the cost of books in general makes this venture less tenable than it might have been a few years ago. We'll see, but as a reader&#8230; I'm not really that interested.

I'm not sure I get $9 a month worth out of Netflix either, and I could watch several programs a night, if i wanted to. The operable phrase being "If I wanted to."


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

Craig,
Likewise, of course!
Something about the internet just angries up the blood!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Voelker58 said:


> Craig,
> Likewise, of course!
> Something about the internet just angries up the blood!


Coolio. 

...and... Coolio!


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Stephen T. Harper said:


> I'm not going to say that it won't work, but as for 'why wouldn't it?" It's not exactly the same as Netflix and Spotify because books take far longer to consume each one than a movie or a song. My wife reads a more than I do, and she told me she wouldn't be able to read enough books to make the 10 bucks a month (every month, mind you) worth it. Especially when you can get so many good books between 0 and 5 bucks (some of which are Dickens novels which can take a long time to read at a chapter per night before falling to sleep).
> 
> I wonder if Amazon's efforts to lower the cost of books in general makes this venture less tenable than it might have been a few years ago. We'll see, but as a reader... I'm not really that interested.
> 
> I'm not sure I get $9 a month worth out of Netflix either, and I could watch several programs a night, if i wanted to. The operable phrase being "If I wanted to."


Personally, I don't think any of the models will work effectively because they won't make enough money from subs to cover the extremely generous author payments they are making.

The best one in terms of sustainability is Scribd. No erotica at all, nothing under 5000w unless it's free, anything between 5000w and 15,000w must be $0.99, and a tiered payment system that only pays full royalties if 30%+ of a book is read. But even Scribd is unsustainable because they pay 60% to the author and 10% to the distributor (Smash/D2D - can't publish direct to subscription shop).

I have a feeling that the generous royalties are to get content with which to hook readers, and when they have a big enough pie, they'll start reducing author payments. Yes it's cynical, but you can depend on avarice nine times out of ten.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> But even Scribd is unsustainable because they pay 60% to the author and 10% to the distributor (Smash/D2D - can't publish direct to subscription shop).


Unsustainable? What do you mean, and what are you basing that on?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> I have a feeling that the generous royalties are to get content with which to hook readers, and when they have a big enough pie, they'll start reducing author payments. Yes it's cynical, but you can depend on avarice nine times out of ten.


Another example of fearing evil that hasn't happened yet.

Always wise, I guess, to fear a bear attack while a lion is gnawing your legs off, as Joe Konrath would say...


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

I question the sustainability of Scribd's model, also, but I don't have any hard figures to work from.

What I like about Scribd is that they set some standards that make basic sense, whether a person agrees with them 100% or not. I like that about Bookbub, too. It's a strategy that seems to pay off.

We have to face the fact that there are far more books than anybody needs. The value can't be that high as commodities (in which they are all basically the same product, like coffee beans), so to make any money, the commodity has to be sold as something special, like shade-grown, fair trade, pure Arabica coffee beans pooped out by Asian Palm Civets. (I could not make that up.)

KU is a problem to me because, under KU, written works are totally commoditized. Not only is one work equal to every other work, but even quantity makes no difference: One coffee bean is paid out the same as a 100-lb. bag of coffee beans.

I just don't get how this model can work to the advantage of anyone but Amazon, who pockets the $10/month subscriber fee. Even for them, they're going to have to pay out a good amount for premium content if they're going to attract subscribers, which means the common schlubs are going to have to settle for peanuts.

From the authors' point of view, it's a haves vs. have-nots economy, and that kind of economy isn't sustainable.

Amazon says that we (indies) should publish on KU for the exposure, but what exposure is there to being in a vast field of second-tier material--the introductory prequels, the works-in-progress, the novels that don't sell, the come-ons and the not-ready-for-prime-time players? Look at it from the reader's perspective: Is that worth $10 a month? It seems to me that being in KU could become as much of a stigma as a boon.

But I don't know. It's early, as others have said. We'll have to see how it plays out.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

When did Amazon make any official statement that we should stay in Select for 'exposure'? As far as I can tell this was nothing official from Amazon. It was a basically unauthorized comment from a customer rep, nothing more.

If we stay in Select, it will be because it optimizes our profits and I have no doubt whatsoever that Amazon is aware of it. And let us be clear that what we are talking about is being in Select. If you are in Select then you are in KU, otherwise not. By the way, there is nothing you said about KU, Mr. Strnad, that isn't exactly what the nay-sayers haven't said or don't say about self-publishing in general--that is all just crap that will kill literature and the publishing business.


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

Tasha Black said:


> It will be interesting to see what everyone has to say about this a year from now.


Agreed! I'll be bookmarking this thread just so I can go back and read the comments, for that very reason. =P


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

LisaGloria said:


> Unsustainable? What do you mean, and what are you basing that on?


It's just my opinion, based on nothing but thinking through the numbers.

Don't get me wrong, I want these models to work but reckon 60% is going to prove too high. I'm expecting them to drop and wouldn't be at all surprised if they ended up at about half what they are now, 30% or so, which I still reckon is a good deal for writers.


----------



## FMH (May 18, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> Haha! This. I just read a blog that said exclusivity is the death of a writing career, especially those starting out. But most of the people I know writing for a living these days started on KDP Select, and we started by GIVING BOOKS AWAY FOR FREE. And complaining that we could only do it 5 times in 90 days. We wanted to give MORE books away for free!
> 
> Now Amazon is paying for what feels like a free read to the customer, and the sky is falling. Now exclusivity is death to writers. So strange.


Agreed with Hugh.

And if anyone jumped the shark, it was us giving away multi-volume novels box sets for .99 and getting readers to think that 3.99 was too much to pay for a book.

With KDP Select, when I've got a book for .99 borrowed for free, I get over 2.00 for it, thanks to the fund. I'm expecting to get paid with this new subscription deal, especially as people sign up and increase that fund. And don't judge me off my two titles, I've got a pen name with eleven of them that have been paying the bills, and now are being downloaded via KU in increasing numbers every day.

We have to embrace change and accept it so we can action it and take it for what it can be worth to our business.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

I think I'm going to bow out of this entire shouting match until September payday, which is also when my last Select title is due for renewal.
Until then, like many said, we really don't know.

At this moment the ONE title I still have in select is also showing the lowest sales over these past three days and only two borrows. So color me skeptical.
However, I shall be patient. 

Too many previously good forum relationships are falling apart because we keep running around in circles trying to convince each other. Perhaps, like religion and politics, it's best not talked about because right now we can only go on faith and hyperbole.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Prime Membership isn't paying for itself, specifically because of shipping costs. That is why Amazon said they had to raise the price of it. With that being the case, the Lending Library certainly must be losing Amazon money. Prime members do not get the membership to borrow 1 book a month and if they are pouring a million plus into the library fund, they can't be seeing any return on that. 

Certainly the first month of KU will cost them a bucket more money with no money coming in and lots of money going to JK Rowling and the likes. Whether Amazon can get enough readers to stay on after the free 30 days to justify the payout to the publishers who are getting paid their regular cut is yet to be seen.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I've noticed no raised voices in here.

But if one party is making an argument based on fear and what might happen, while the argument from the other side is based on facts and what has happened so far, I can understand the strategy of accusing others of shouting you down. But that is a strategy, not a fact.

Both sides have made some very valid fact-based arguments, such as people who have observed hard data indicating a rank-drop since KU was introduced on the one hand, or arguments based on relative sales numbers and borrow numbers on the other side.

The rest is just speculation based on the extent to which one trusts, or does not trust, retailers like Amazon, or other retailers... or the Big 5, for that matter.

But raised voices and shouting? I haven't noticed that on either side, frankly.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

CraigInOregon said:


> +1
> 
> And when JRT and I start agreeing on stuff... watch out!


OMG! I didn't see that. Now I am scared. The sky probably is falling.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I can say this. In the few days since KU was established my 'borrows' have either tripled or quadrupled from the average for earlier in the month. This is a much larger increase than I first thought. 

For what it's worth.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Cryptic Fawn said:


> Agreed! I'll be bookmarking this thread just so I can go back and read the comments, for that very reason. =P


I do this every now and then. I just paste the link to the thread in my Google calendar a few months or a year into the future. Like a time capsule.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> I have a feeling that the generous royalties are to get content with which to hook readers, and when they have a big enough pie, they'll start reducing author payments. Yes it's cynical, but you can depend on avarice nine times out of ten.


No its because of the Smashwords / D2D model that they only distribute to retailers that will give their authors/publishers the terms that they offer across the board of 60%. If Scribd try to negotiate lower rates Smashwords and D2D would pull the pug.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Mercia McMahon said:


> No its because of the Smashwords / D2D model that they only distribute to retailers that will give their authors/publishers the terms that they offer across the board of 60%. If Scribd try to negotiate lower rates Smashwords and D2D would pull the pug.


Scribd and D2D are businesses and they will do what's best for their bottom line.

If, in the future, subscription models are the go and make up a fair percentage of Smash/D2D revenue, do you really think they'll pull the plug rather than accept 50% for their authors? Or 40%? What if Scribd tells Smash/D2D that they plan on taking people on directly and bypassing the distributors? Do you think they'd negotiate then?

Amazon burnt Smash early in their relationship. Then they did the same to D2D. What makes you think other businesses won't?

Interesting times, these . Anything could happen


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

I've been feeling pretty shite about the whole KU thing - and not because 'I don't like change' (honestly, that's such an idiotic statement and I've seen it bandied about quite a bit).
If someone can't quickly adapt to change, then being an indie author is not the career for them.

I don't see Amazon having jumped the shark (thanks for the explanation - never understood that term!  ) as I see them as responding to consumers and focused on growth.

In personal terms, I have lots of questions I'm asking myself about which way to head. No one can say they have the answers either. 'Wait and see' is not an answer nor is it a strategy.
If anyone can afford to wait and see and you're feeling casual about it, that's great. I have a mortgage and kids and writing is my income - so I take any move very, very seriously.

Questions I'm asking myself and random thoughts:

- I'm not a top-selling author (whether trad or indie) who can get a special deal with Amazon where I get paid my normal royalty for a KU read. So if I do KU, I have to plan for any amount of royalties under $2, as there is no guarantee.
- If we use the strategy where we put the first book in a series in KU, but not the rest, wouldn't that anger customers who expect to read all books in a series in the way in which they started (KU)? Cue bad reviews.
- If 50% or more of Amazon customers sign up for KU, wouldn't that greatly affect indie authors not in KU? And could Amazon sustain the KU payout to authors when there are that many KU customers? Who knows, maybe only 20% will sign up, but again, no one can predict how many will sign up.
- I had to take almost all my books down in May (after selling the first book in my series to a publisher, in order to re-edit them to reflect the changes). I was doing well. Now, all of these books have to go back into a changed environment (where they've totally lost rank and also-boughts) and where the first book of the series (now owned by a publisher) will not be going into KU.
- I've been writing a serial for the past couple of months - now I'm not sure how to release it. KU hasn't been out long enough to make any judgment on it. I was going to release it at all vendors and hope and pray for Amazon to set the first in the serial free. But I have no idea how many of my readers are going to sign up for KU and if no one's going to be interested in a 0.99c release when they have so much to choose from in KU. Around 20% of my income was previously coming from other vendors. 
- Could setting a book permafree at Amazon potentially become more difficult/take longer than before?

Again, all just questions I'm asking myself.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I do this every now and then. I just paste the link to the thread in my Google calendar a few months or a year into the future. Like a time capsule.


I've done a screen-grab of Bookbub's current pricing page to see if after KU their subscriber numbers (and prices) go down.

It could be another interesting time capsule.


----------



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

A.A said:


> I've been feeling pretty [crap]e about the whole KU thing - and not because 'I don't like change' (honestly, that's such an idiotic statement and I've seen it bandied about quite a bit).
> If someone can't quickly adapt to change, then being an indie author is not the career for them.
> 
> I don't see Amazon having jumped the shark (thanks for the explanation - never understood that term!  ) as I see them as responding to consumers and focused on growth.
> ...


The easiest answer in uncertain times is to keep your options open. I take that to mean in my case: Use KU in a limited fashion as a test and possibly a visibility booster, use permafree in a limited fashion (all book 1s free), reduce reliance on any one entity (go wide distribution in other words) as much as possible, increase readership (sell paper, sell ebooks in ALL formats, offer subscription reading, offer audio) and use marketing when sales dip (like now)


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

One should also keep in mind this truism:

July and August are, historically, rather dead months for eBook sales.

Things pick up again in September and stay pretty strong through February-March.

April-June is a cool down period, reach the lulls of July and August.

The exception, for the most part, is new releases.


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

I don't usually get any sales unless I'm doing an ad, and then I get a few days of sales after a peak of free downloads. I had a sale on Dragons and Dreams on July 12, and have continuously gotten sales and borrows since then. Small amounts, but I usually only sell in small amounts anyway, when I sell at all.

I'm making an experiment and put Fairies and Fireflies back into Select and am doing a free promo on July 24. If the pattern reflects the same as for D&D, then KU works for me, and I'll keep playing with it. I don't tend to get *any* action from other sites - I haven't tried Google Play yet, but probably should once D&D gets off Select at the end of August, just to compare.

Since I don't require sales in order to make a living (although I *do* like it when I get sales!) I'm in the perfect position to experiment without feeling like my livelihood is threatened.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

> By the way, there is nothing you said about KU, Mr. Strnad, that isn't exactly what the nay-sayers haven't said or don't say about self-publishing in general--that is all just crap that will kill literature and the publishing business.


I don't remember saying this, but if I did, I misspoke. That isn't my sentiment.

The eternal problem with self-publishing has been that, despite the good work, there's a lot of not-so-good work to sift through. That's just a fact. It doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of good work there. (And you couldn't kill the publishing industry with a poison stick... if the traditional publishers haven't managed to kill it by now, it's invulnerable.) I try to do my bit for self-publishers by highlighting on my blog the self published work I've personally enjoyed reading.

Amazon does a good job IMO of helping readers do the necessary sifting with reader reviews, Look Inside and extended samples that are available for free download. They can't do anything about the time it takes to go through these steps. A reader has to be pretty darned interested in a book before investing time in sampling it.

I understand people using KU as a promotional tool. In my experience, the promotional sites that work best are those that are the most selective (and which I sometimes can't get in). Look at Bookbub (highly selective and highly effective) vs. BookGorilla (nowhere nearly as selective or effective).

I'm just trying to figure out the "exposure" angle with KU. How is it exposure to be lumped anonymously in with 600,000 other works with no selectivity? How is it going to help to have your book(s) in a program that's sold on the basis of the big names in it, where your work has the status of sludge that readers have to muck through to reach the A-list fruit on the trees?

Still, it might help. For the sake of the indies in the KU program, I hope it does!

It just kind of sticks in my craw that I'd be expected to pull my book from all other outlets in order to give Amazon bargain-basement content that's used to shore up the shortfall from offering sweetheart deals to authors who are already better off than I am.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Anyone subscribed to Publisher's Marketplace? They posted this earlier:

http://lunch.publishersmarketplace.com/2014/07/daily-update-influence-kindle-unlimited-amazon-bestsellers-grows/



> Since no one else is reporting on this at all, we'll continue our tracking. Amazon's hourly list of the top 100 "paid" Kindle bestsellers appears to be under the steadily growing influence of Kindle Unlimited "checkouts," which are counted as part of paid sales. In this morning's check, 45 of the top 100 titles are also available through Kindle Unlimited -- and 24 of the top 50 titles. Amazon Publishing's own titles still appear to be benefitting the most, and self-published authors who are not exclusive to Amazon (and therefore not part of KU) seem to have lost the most bestseller slots. (We still have no idea whether this is affecting actual paid sales, or just bestseller list slots.)
> 
> Here is the quick overview:
> 
> ...


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

I'm not exclusive with Amazon for the most part, because I sell well on other platforms.  But my rankings on my non-exclusive stuff have tanked severely, especially between last night and today.  Sales still seem fine, which is good.  But I'm concerned for sure, because getting on lists will now apparently become more difficult.

I've put a few old books in KU and they haven't moved squat so far…which doesn't exactly make me want to move any more stuff in for now.

Obviously some people are having great success with KU.  It's going to change from day to day and month to month, I'm sure.

But this is certainly a big time shakeup, and anyone proclaiming that they're confident of results one way or the other is being a little premature, imo.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Jim Johnson said:


> Anyone subscribed to Publisher's Marketplace? They posted this earlier:
> 
> http://lunch.publishersmarketplace.com/2014/07/daily-update-influence-kindle-unlimited-amazon-bestsellers-grows/


We are going to look at this at AE.com www.authorearnings.com with 120,000 or so titles. The effects of KU on the rankings has been enormous.

_Edited to correct link. Thanks for understanding. --Betsy_


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> We are going to look at this at AE.com with 120,000 or so titles. The effects of KU on the rankings has been enormous.


Looking forward to your report, Hugh.

(Also, your link goes to American Eagle Outfitters, heh.)

_I think Hugh was using shorthand for authorearnings.com  Fixed it in his post. --Betsy_


----------



## J.L. Dickinson (Jul 12, 2014)

Jim Johnson said:


> Looking forward to your report, Hugh.
> 
> (Also, your link goes to American Eagle Outfitters, heh.)


Lol, maybe Hugh's got an endorsement deal going on with them.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Jim Johnson said:


> Anyone subscribed to Publisher's Marketplace? They posted this earlier:
> 
> http://lunch.publishersmarketplace.com/2014/07/daily-update-influence-kindle-unlimited-amazon-bestsellers-grows/


Jim,
Run those math figures. None of them add up to 100. How are the other books not listed published? 
Top 100 books I expect the figures to add up to 100.
More skewed data.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> Jim,
> Run those math figures. None of them add up to 100. How are the other books not listed published?
> Top 100 books I expect the figures to add up to 100.
> More skewed data.


I believe the remainder of the slots would be trad pubbed titles that are not now part of KU, Cin.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Jim,
> Run those math figures. None of them add up to 100. How are the other books not listed published?
> Top 100 books I expect the figures to add up to 100.
> More skewed data.


Oh, I know their math doesn't add up. I'm not sure why PM didn't bother listing the other categories to bring the totals up to 100.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Thanks you two.  I just get a bit persnickity when it comes to Math.
Yes I used to be a math tutor.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Thanks you two. I just get a bit persnickity when it comes to Math.
> Yes I used to be a math tutor.


1+

= 1


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Jan Strnad said:


> I don't remember saying this, but if I did, I misspoke. That isn't my sentiment.
> 
> The eternal problem with self-publishing has been that, despite the good work, there's a lot of not-so-good work to sift through. That's just a fact. It doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of good work there. (And you couldn't kill the publishing industry with a poison stick... if the traditional publishers haven't managed to kill it by now, it's invulnerable.) I try to do my bit for self-publishers by highlighting on my blog the self published work I've personally enjoyed reading.
> 
> ...


Sorry if I misinterpreted your comments. That seemed to me to be what you were saying. I will repeat this: Kindle Unlimited is not a promotional tool. Amazon is not pushing it as a promotional tool. It doesn't even have any resemblance to a promotional tool and you are taking as gospel an unattributed quote from an anonymous customer service rep that has not been repeated anywhere by any Amazon representative.

Also KU is not a separate 'program'. In effect for us authors, it is nothing but an addition to Select.

If you don't want to be in or use Select, then it largely has no affect on you. If you are in or are considering being in Select, then it does. My novels are in Select and I am watching very closely how it affects my sales and borrows.

ETA: KU may well have some affect on discoverability AFTER you are already doing well. My novels are higher in sales ranks because of being in KU, but if they weren't already selling it wouldn't matter and I seriously doubt that it will push them high enough for that to make a difference. This is going to be true for 95% of us at least.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> We are going to look at this at AE.com with 120,000 or so titles. The effects of KU on the rankings has been enormous.


I just ran a BB promotion which gave a HUGE (never seen one so big before) boost to my HF sales across the board. It was very badly timed in a way because now d*mn if I can untangle the effect of this from the effect of the jump in KU. I can tell you that my novels were not doing well and were in the midst of the usual horrible summer slump, and now that has changed. Sales are up. 'Borrows' have quadrupled. I have no clue what to make of it OR how it will affect my bottom line.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Ayyy!! 

Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

kward said:


> I think the most pertinent question is...would Fonzie approve of KU?


And perhaps the next most pertinent questions might be.....will KU mean Happy Days for indie authors?

Or will they be jumped by the shark?


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

LisaGloria said:


> Unsustainable? What do you mean, and what are you basing that on?


Scribd & Oyster are paying 60%+ to publishers/distributors (not sure of the exact number but Smashwords gives us 60% and keeps a cut for themselves). Readers pay $9.99 a month for unlimited borrows. If a given reader borrows two trad-pubbed books with a $14.99 retail price, Scribd/Oyster have already lost big on that reader for the month - even if they don't borrow anything else.

Obviously, both companies are willing to eat losses at the start to expand the market - but at some point they will either have to raise prices (tricky with the competition at $9.99 too), or cut payment rates to publishers/distributors. Hence, unsustainable.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

I have Netflix and I pay $7.99/month for it. I mostly have it for my son. He can watch his kiddie shows on demand. I sometimes watch some of my old favourites shows (Columbo, Everybody Loves Raymond) and British mini-series. I'll be the first to admit I don't do a whole lot of discovering with it.

I'm very different when it comes to my book selection. I have no problem spending money on books. I read a lot and I'm a keeper (I love to own my books). I've had Prime for over a year and I've used the Lending Library exactly 2 times. It was for an author I discovered before she went exclusive with Amazon. I didn't finish either book.

KU is having a huge impact (on rankings at least) because it's free. Free is a no-brainer even if it's only 1 book or 1 series you're kind of curious about reading. But when you ask readers to pay for a program that in essence will be a discovery tool for them, you're asking a lot.

How many readers will stay on and pay for this service is the big question. I read an article that quoted 25%. IMO that is way too _too_ optimistic to the point of being unrealistic. Even a very casual reader who only wants to read the Harry Potter books will take a free stab at KU. Will said very casual reader stay on and pay for the service? No, because very casual reader doesn't read enough to warrant even thinking about paying for a service like this. I'm sure there are a LOT of very casual readers trying the service out right now.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

romanceauthor said:


> How many readers will stay on and pay for this service is the big question. I read an article that quoted 25%. IMO that is way too _too_ optimistic to the point of being unrealistic. Even a very casual reader who only wants to read the Harry Potter books will take a free stab at KU. Will said very casual reader stay on and pay for the service? No, because very casual reader doesn't read enough to warrant even thinking about paying for a service like this. I'm sure there are a LOT of very casual readers trying the service out right now.


Was that the Motley Fool article? They were basing that on the idea that Prime members, 20 million of them, have already demonstrated extremely pro-Zon behavior so far. A 25% upsell rate is not that weird among your super-fans. (It seems like a lot to me too, but the numbers scale pretty well even at 5%.)


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> I just ran a BB promotion which gave a HUGE (never seen one so big before) boost to my HF sales across the board. It was very badly timed in a way because now d*mn if I can untangle the effect of this from the effect of the jump in KU. I can tell you that my novels were not doing well and were in the midst of the usual horrible summer slump, and now that has changed. Sales are up. 'Borrows' have quadrupled. I have no clue what to make of it OR how it will affect my bottom line.


I have the same problem to a lesser extent. My sale ran in mid-June and I was tracking the tail. Then came a temporarily free KU and now it's hard to know what to think.

Was your promo for a free book or a discounted book? If it was $0.99 and your borrows quadrupled, it was a win-win for you and your readers: they got a free book and you earned a royalty that will hopefully be more than $0.35. If it was free, I don't know why anyone would borrow it through KU rather than own (okay, "license") it outright, but if they did, the readers broke even (free is free) and you'll get paid a royalty on the giveaway.

Which brings up an interesting tactic: Using Bookbub to promote a book enrolled in KU. Lots of "free" downloads for readers, lots of little pieces of that KU/KOLL royalty pie for the author. Pretty tempting.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Colin said:


> And perhaps the next most pertinent questions might be.....will KU mean Happy Days for indie authors?
> 
> Or will they be jumped by the shark?


I thought the Fonz was cool for jumping that shark. It's actually one of my favorite episodes. I don't know how it became so synonymous with epic fail.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

katrina46 said:


> I thought the Fonz was cool for jumping that shark. It's actually one of my favorite episodes. I don't know how it became so synonymous with epic fail.


The OP (Jan) gives his reasons for the 'shark jumping' analogy at the start of the thread.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> I must admit I am taken aback at the general hysteria although much the same happened when Select was introduced.


I know... I feel like I need popcorn.

And I remember the mistake I made back then, being on the "exclusivity is evil" bandwagon and I waited three months and didn't make NEARLY as much money as I could have even though my first free run in 2012 was very successful, getting to #12 overall in free fiction with like 8,000 downloads. One year later, it took 55,000 downloads to make it to #2 in the overall free store.

It's 2014. Now they want to do a subscription based model, the thing ALL OF US wanted back in 2011 with unlimited borrows (because we all said 1 borrow a month isn't worth it). I'm in. So in.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Colin said:


> The OP (Jan) gives his reasons for the 'shark jumping' analogy at the start of the thread.


I know. I'm saying I never thought the episodes were bad after that. I liked that show and watched it to the end.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

katrina46 said:


> I know. I'm saying I never thought the episodes were bad after that. I liked that show and watched it to the end.


Happy Days!


----------



## Twizzlers (Feb 6, 2014)

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> I know... I feel like I need popcorn.
> 
> And I remember the mistake I made back then, being on the "exclusivity is evil" bandwagon and I waited three months and didn't make NEARLY as much money as I could have even though my first free run in 2012 was very successful, getting to #12 overall in free fiction with like 8,000 downloads. One year later, it took 55,000 downloads to make it to #2 in the overall free store.
> 
> It's 2014. Now they want to do a subscription based model, the thing ALL OF US wanted back in 2011 with unlimited borrows (because we all said 1 borrow a month isn't worth it). I'm in. So in.


I don't think exclusivity is evil, but it doesn't work for my business model and would harm my sales overall.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

P.J. Post said:


> Forgive me if this has already been mentioned:
> 
> Amazon built a d*mn fine book store, but they are about far more than books, not the least of which is their massively profitable web service division.
> 
> ...


Holy moly!    

I wonder if Amazon is 'too big to fail' yet?


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

katrina46 said:


> I know. I'm saying I never thought the episodes were bad after that. I liked that show and watched it to the end.


Just remember that it's not my saying.

My saying is: "There's a big difference between pieces of cod and codpieces." That one has yet to catch on.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

TO: Jan Strnad and assorted KB-WC members
FROM: Shark Anti-Defamation League
RE: Our recent defamation at your hands

This is a legal notice to inform you that you are in violation of Great White Statute 30204.12 with your recent thread on KindleBoards.com. This refers specifically to the regulation of the term "jump the shark," which is highly inter-specist. I refer you to the 2002 Supreme Court decision SADL v. TV Guide, wherein said publication lost their case. In said case, frequent and premature overuse of the term "jump the shark" as legally proven to be a hate crime that increased fear of the shark community over 47 percent since the use came into the common nomenclature via "Happy Days."

Since that legal victory, we, the undersigned, have been charged by the high court to vigorously defend our hard-won legal rights to disabuse the popular use of the term in question, and it is our goal to make its utterance as socially unacceptable as what you humans would carefully term, "the n-word."

Therefore, please consider this legal notice that the SADL and its supporters would kindly request you amend all affected posts utilizing this specist, hateful term from your thread, issue an apology via social media, and donate no less than ten percent of all future proceeds of your novels to fund SADL activities and pro-shark organizations. Also, we demand that you watch Shark Week on Animal Planet every year for the next five years minimum, as a form of increased sensitivity training.

Failure to comply with these legal requests could result in further legal action. You do not want to swim down that stream, especially now that the current human administration of your species and country has appointed many shark-friendly judges to the bench.

ADDENDUM: Also, please refrain from any response that incorporates any possible permutation of the dialogue from said Happy Days episode, in which Richie Cunningham utters the invective, "Yeah? Well, if you get your legs bit off by a shark, Fonzie, don't come running to me." First of all, it's just incredibly tacky dialogue. Second of all, our members would never do such a thing... unprovoked.

See you at the beach!

Signed,

The Shark Anti-Defamation League (fighting humanist hate-speech since 1975)
Zach Braff
Steven Spielberg
Peter Benchley
The Memorial Trust of Ansel Adams
Amy Adams
Amy Pond
Doctors 1 through 3, and 5 through 11, but not Tom Baker or Peter Capaldi
Metamucil
Dawn Wells
George A. Romero
Ray Romano
Prego Pasta Sauce Inc.
Crystal Pepsi fans of Sheboygan Wisconsin
Brad Pitt
Angelina Jolie
Carl Weathers
The cast of THE BIG BANG THEORY
Charlie Sheen
President Barack H. Obama
The Southern Poverty Law Center
and Jerry Mathers, as the Beaver


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

CraigInOregon wrote:


> ...shark-friendly judges...


Political appointments, no doubt.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Colin said:


> CraigInOregon wrote:
> Political appointments, no doubt.


Careful. You're swimming in SADL-infested waters with that comment!


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

CraigInOregon said:



> Careful. You're swimming in SADL-infested waters with that comment!


Duly noted, Craig....I'm now swimming at full speed to acronymfinder.com, and depending on the tides, will be back with an instant witty retort in an hour or so....


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

CraigInOregon wrote:



> ...shark-friendly judges...


I would mention that they were ex-lawyers, so maybe that would get by due to professional courtesy...or perhaps not.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

So quarterly reports came out today.

In answer to the thread title, investors say 'yes' to the tune of more than twice the amount the initial KU announcement bumped them.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Okay, Craig, I'll never go into those waters again.

Can I still watch _Sharktopus Vs. Pteracuda_?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

CraigInOregon said:


> TO: Jan Strnad and assorted KB-WC members
> FROM: Shark Anti-Defamation League
> RE: Our recent defamation at your hands
> 
> This is a legal notice to inform you that you are in violation of Great White Statute 30204.12 with your recent thread on KindleBoards.com. This refers specifically to the regulation of the term "jump the shark," which is highly inter-specist. I refer you to the 2002 Supreme Court decision SADL v. TV Guide, wherein said publication lost their case. In said case, frequent and premature overuse of the term "jump the shark" as legally proven to be a hate crime that increased fear of the shark community over 47 percent since the use came into the common nomenclature via "Happy Days."


Psssst....Craig....

Speaking of "jumping the shark," KBoards hasn't been Kindleboards.com since March 7, 2013. Just sayin'. 

Betsy


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Psssst....Craig....
> 
> Speaking of "jumping the shark," KBoards hasn't been Kindleboards.com since March 7, 2013. Just sayin'.
> 
> Betsy


Touché.

Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Jan Strnad said:


> Okay, Craig, I'll never go into those waters again.
> 
> Can I still watch _Sharktopus Vs. Pteracuda_?


I'd be disappointed if you didn't.

But then, I got a sick thrill from Sharknado, so you can't judge the SADL by me... 

Sent from my LG G2 Android Phone.


----------

