# Amazon changes: indies have disappeared from Top 100 Amazon BS list. Kindle only



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Of course when I finally make it to the Top 100 list, Amazon breaks and everything disappears. 

This morning Shine Not Burn was #64 Top 100 (all books - Amazon bookstore), and #60 Top 100 ebooks (Kindle Store). Now just the ebook shows on the Top 100 Kindle Store page, but has disappeared from the Top 100 book store list. Not just my book, but all the books on the list that I looked at that were indie titles. Rankings were completely gone for a little while, but now they're back.

WTF Amazon? Come on, man!

EDITED TO ADD: Seems like Amazon is possibly, maybe splitting out paperback Top 100 from ebook Top 100 and not mixing them anymore.

WTH. WTH. WTH.

Here's a blog post I did on the subject:
http://ellecasey.com/is-this-a-glitch-amazon-or-a-permanent-change/


----------



## 41352 (Apr 4, 2011)

deleted


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Okay, wait ... this is weird...

It used to have me ranked with a link to the Top 100 list, all books.
Now if you go to my product page and see the ranking it's for Top 100 Kindle Store.

And my book is not on the Top 100 store at all, but IS on the Top 100 Kindle Store.

My question:  Did they just separate all books from ebooks and make two separate lists that don't mingle?  Because that would suck eggs.  I have both a paperback and ebook, but I'm dog meat in paperback sales.  That will effectively remove all indie books from the Top 100 Store.  

F-me.  I hope this is just a glitch.


----------



## Richard Tongue (Jul 19, 2012)

Just happened to me as well; back now, though, that was a slight heart-stopper...


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Let's hope that it's a glitch rather than an experiment or a permanent change.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

I don't want to be Chicken Little running around about the sky falling and stuff, but if this is a permanent change at Amazon, I think it's going to stink for indies.  People don't always go to the Kindle store to find their books or search the top 100.  They go directly to the top 100 list that could now be devoid of ebooks that don't also have top selling paperbacks.  Goodbye non-hybrid indies from that list!!

That being said, I guess it makes sense that only paperbacks are on one list and only ebooks are on another, if you're the person who only wants to search one format of book.  But from my view, I don't see how the old way was hurting anyone or making it hard to find popular books.  Unless I'm missing something (and I just might be!) this change will only benefit trad-pubbed authors who have strong paperback distribution.

All of this is just conjecture at this point, but I'll be bumming if it's really going on and that it's happening when I finally have rankings that *could* bring attention to my book.


----------



## Shane Murray (Aug 1, 2012)

ellecasey said:


> I don't want to be Chicken Little running around about the sky falling and stuff, but if this is a permanent change at Amazon, I think it's going to stink for indies. People don't always go to the Kindle store to find their books or search the top 100. They go directly to the top 100 list that could now be devoid of ebooks that don't also have top selling paperbacks. Goodbye non-hybrid indies from that list!!


Hopefully they don't do that. Have to wait and see I suppose. 

The ebook trend will continue though, so even if they do perform changes seperating ebooks and paperbacks it should provide only short term pain for indies. Short term pain can still mean a lot of money though!


----------



## CLStone (Apr 4, 2013)

I see it on my book.

I'm thinking it's a new change. Like how they previously separated out all erotica books from this, they've moved on to separate ebooks.

They must think this is a better way to sell books in general. 

Next time you send a newsletter to your readers, it'll be good to remind them of this change and how to find more books like your own.  And if your readers were mostly Kindle readers anyway, this is probably a good thing.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Looks like they're back, at least I'm seeing them on mine again.  I see the rank on your too, Elle. (#62...woo!)


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Looks like they're back, at least I'm seeing them on mine again. I see the rank on your too, Elle. (#62...woo!)


yes, but that's for the Kindle store only. It used to show the ranking in the overall store and the book was there on that list. Now it's completely removed from that list!


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

ellecasey said:


> yes, but that's for the Kindle store only. It used to show the ranking in the overall store and the book was there on that list. Now it's completely removed from that list!


God, that really sucks. I'd be pretty annoyed if I were in your position. I hope it's not a permanent change, but if it is I guess we have to accept it.


----------



## jvin248 (Jan 31, 2012)

.
Look up your author rank in author central. How does that change between all books and kindle?
.
When I look at mine, since I don't have paper (yet) the 'all books' is roughly twice the rank as 'kindle only' and has been that way since the 'all data' option back in October 2012. Of course I'm not on the top 100 paid so that splash is missing from my charts  (did get on the top 75 in Free yesterday). You might see a step-change in your chart when Amazon did their thing.
.
.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> Okay, wait ... this is weird...
> 
> It used to have me ranked with a link to the Top 100 list, all books.
> Now if you go to my product page and see the ranking it's for Top 100 Kindle Store.
> ...


No. It's not a glitch. They're also seperating some categories. I had just requested new categories and was told one I had requested would no longer be available for my Kindle eBook. This was at 7:00am Eastern time that I received this email from Amazon.

I had warned this day was coming. Other changes authors have pointed out to me (I was involved in the Beta so noticed it first along with some others who seem to be in the same group) is they are breaking out free ebook from the also boughts of paid, so they may be breaking out ebooks in general, too. This change isn't permanent yet, as mine are back, but maybe they'll keep series in, I hope.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> I had warned this day was coming. Other changes authors have pointed out to me (I was involved in the Beta so noticed it first along with some others who seem to be in the same group) is they are breaking out free ebook from the also boughts of paid, so they may be breaking out ebooks in general, too.


Any word \ conjecture on what that might do to free lead-ins for a series? The first part of _Beacon_ is free, but the others obviously aren't.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> yes, but that's for the Kindle store only. It used to show the ranking in the overall store and the book was there on that list. Now it's completely removed from that list!


Talk about bad timing. Even so, Amazon evolves. It's kind of a fact of our lives. At the same time, it doesn't take away from your accomplishment. This is your time to celebrate, don't let a functional change ruin it for you.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

My books (available in ebook only at the moment) are still showing up in both Ebook and All Books rankings.  So no, they're not doing anything.  It's probably a glitch.  Everybody take off your "The End is Nigh" sandwich boards and relax.  Amazon gets glitchy from time to time.  It is not doing anything to drive Indies or ebooks away.  Once again, Amazon's dominance of the ebook market has a lot to do with their cooperation with indies and their strong promotion of ebooks.  It would still be counterproductive for them to make ebooks harder for readers to find, and it would still be pointless for them to bury indies in their listings.  Nothing has changed, including the fact that Amazon's rankings and lists often suffer from inexplicable glitches.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Go look at the Amazon Book Store Best Seller List.

No more indie titles are there.  They're also all gone from the Movers and Shakers list.

Holly's books are GONE.  So is my book Shine Not Burn.  So are JS Cooper's Last Boyfriend/Last Husband books.

We're still in the Kindle Store top 100, but that's it.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

I just wrote up a big old blog post on it:

http://ellecasey.com/is-this-a-glitch-amazon-or-a-permanent-change/

I just searched the Amazon best seller list again. Not one indie title on it that I can identify. The good news is, now there's all kind of room on there for cookbooks!


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

Wow.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Elle. Relax. I don't see any reason to implement such a change in the Overall Top 100 but not implement it at the genre-list level. Occam's Razor tells me that if you're seeing something happen on only one list, a glitch is the likeliest cause.

Anyway, _If_ this is a permanent change, what will freaking out do about it?

I still don't think it's permanent, because there is no business reason I can see to make such a change. But if it is,_ just adapt_. Indies have to stay on their toes and constantly readjust their game-plan anyway. Nothing new there. For god's sake, you'll be fine.

Now go write some more. It will take your mind off this. There's no point in freaking out.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Jonathan C. Gillespie said:


> Any word \ conjecture on what that might do to free lead-ins for a series? The first part of _Beacon_ is free, but the others obviously aren't.


If they're breaking out all Kindle books permanently, it won't affect anything except our chances of getting in the top 100 overall. That will be dominated by tread books that have paperback outlets, or by Amazon's line of paperbacks that they promote heavily.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Odd. Must be a glitch. When just looking at all books, not drilling down to a genre, I see a mix of about everything there. Pretty much all listed as paperback and hardcover. 
But when I click on romance, most all I see are indies. Arrangement 8 (Holly) is first. Then the list looks pretty much like the kindle list, since pretty much everything in that genre seems to sell on kindle.  

Obviously a glitch, or it would be the same all through the genres too. No separation at all there.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Atunah said:


> Odd. Must be a glitch. When just looking at all books, not drilling down to a genre, I see a mix of about everything there. Pretty much all listed as paperback and hardcover.
> But when I click on romance, most all I see are indies. Arrangement 8 (Holly) is first. Then the list looks pretty much like the kindle list, since pretty much everything in that genre seems to sell on kindle.


In the sub-genres, yes, it's the same. But in the overall Top 100 Best Sellers, it is not the same. This is the problem.



ElHawk said:


> Elle. Relax. I don't see any reason to implement such a change in the Overall Top 100 but not implement it at the genre-list level. Occam's Razor tells me that if you're seeing something happen on only one list, a glitch is the likeliest cause.
> 
> Anyway, _If_ this is a permanent change, what will freaking out do about it?
> 
> ...


This is easy for you to say, I can see. If I could take your advice and just tra-la-la along with my day, I would. But this could really derail not only my goals - which I was a hair's breadth away from reaching- but the goals of many other indie authors, if it's not a glitch.

Amazon is not immune to input from indies. They do take suggestions and listen on occasion. I don't think ignoring things that could have a huge impact on us as a group is a good policy, so I'm going to continue to probe and discuss until I'm happy or thoroughly sick of the matter (not sure which will win out in the end!)

I do agree that being upset about it doesn't help me. But emotions are like that - they often don't listen to reason.

I'm sure Amazon has what they consider a good reason for doing what they do. But sometimes they make mistakes and sometimes they don't see the effects until they're already causing problems, so I'll be keeping a close eye on it. And while I go to the shoe store right now, I'm going to be hoping it's a glitch that gets fixed while I'm gone.



LisaGraceBooks said:


> If they're breaking out all Kindle books permanently, it won't affect anything except our chances of getting in the top 100 overall. That will be dominated by tread books that have paperback outlets, or by Amazon's line of paperbacks that they promote heavily.


This is not the only effect. This will limit indie authors' ability to get on the NY Times or USA Today list because it will affect their volume. That will affect income, that will affect credibility of indies in general (making it to these lists lends instant cred with readers and publishers), and it will affect trad publishers turning indies who want to turn into hybrids. It has very far-reaching effects if it's permanent.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> In the sub-genres, yes, it's the same. But in the overall Top 100 Best Sellers, it is not the same. This is the problem.
> 
> This is not the only effect. This will limit indie authors' ability to get on the NY Times or USA Today list because it will affect their volume. That will affect income, that will affect credibility of indies in general (making it to these lists lends instant cred with readers and publishers), and it will affect trad publishers turning indies who want to turn into hybrids. It has very far-reaching effects if it's permanent.


Very true. It is a blow to Indies if they keep it this way. I feel I'm affected, because with the backlog of readers wanting Books 4 & 5 in my series, I had a very good chance of coming out of the gate with a shot at the top 100 paid. Last time I made it very close.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Very true. It is a blow to Indies if they keep it this way. I feel I'm affected, because with the backlog of readers wanting Books 4 & 5 in my series, I had a very good chance of coming out of the gate with a shot at the top 100 paid. Last time I made it very close.


You could still get there in the Kindle store, but if this isn't a glitch, you won't make it into the Amazon store without a trad deal and a big push to sell the paperbacks.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

ellecasey said:


> This is easy for you to say, I can see.


Wow, way to be insulting.



> If I could take your advice and just tra-la-la along with my day, I would. But this could really derail not only my goals - which I was a hair's breadth away from reaching- but the goals of many other indie authors, if it's not a glitch.


What are your goals? To make it onto the Top 100 list? You did that.

As for the goals of other indie authors, IF the environment changes, then your goals change. Sorry, but that's reality. There are some things out of your control, and what Amazon decides to do with its lists or algorithms is one of them. The only sensible way to approach goal-setting in an environment subject to that kind of change is to keep your goals flexible and re-adjust them as needed.



> Amazon is not immune to input from indies. They do take suggestions and listen on occasion. I don't think ignoring things that could have a huge impact on us as a group is a good policy, so I'm going to continue to probe and discuss until I'm happy or thoroughly sick of the matter (not sure which will win out in the end!)


If Amazon is not immune to input from indies, then Amazon's relationship with indies matters to Amazon. Why would they do draconian things to indies with no apparent reason for it? Reasoning like this leads one to believe that this is a glitch, and not worth freaking out over.



> This is not the only effect. This will limit indie authors' ability to get on the NY Times or USA Today list because it will affect their volume. That will affect income, that will affect credibility of indies in general (making it to these lists lends instant cred with readers and publishers), and it will affect trad publishers turning indies who want to turn into hybrids. It has very far-reaching effects if it's permanent.


ALL of which are goals which can be met via other, adjusted means, IF this is something other than just a glitch.

But thank you again for the insult; can't tell you how much I appreciate that.


----------



## Error404 (Sep 6, 2012)

ellecasey said:


> In the sub-genres, yes, it's the same. But in the overall Top 100 Best Sellers, it is not the same. This is the problem.
> 
> This is easy for you to say, I can see. If I could take your advice and just tra-la-la along with my day, I would. But this could really derail not only my goals - which I was a hair's breadth away from reaching- but the goals of many other indie authors, if it's not a glitch.


  Not nice.



ellecasey said:


> This is not the only effect. This will limit indie authors' ability to get on the NY Times or USA Today list because it will affect their volume. That will affect income, that will affect credibility of indies in general (making it to these lists lends instant cred with readers and publishers), and it will affect trad publishers turning indies who want to turn into hybrids. It has very far-reaching effects if it's permanent.


I'm fine with the whole no-NY Times or USA today. Never wanted superstardom, just a living (like many others commented on a thread here some months back). A lot of us couldn't handle the stress


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> You could still get there in the Kindle store, but if this isn't a glitch, you won't make it into the Amazon store without a trad deal and a big push to sell the paperbacks.


True. I do have an agency representing me (because of the movie deal) so there is the hope for my series that they will get it in paperback through a trade deal. But this is a blow to indies in general.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

@Elhawk  You came onto a thread that I started to tell me to calm down, when it was clear that I was worried about something important to me.  That's insulting.  My response was that you are reacting the way that makes sense for you, and I'm doing the same.  What may be a big deal to me obviously isn't to you.  You shouldn't trivialize other people's concerns like that.  If you can't empathize, at least don't insult.  I responded in kind, that is all.

My goals go beyond the top 100.  Once a goal is reached, it's time for a new goal.  Maybe you think I've gone as far as I should. I can't imagine why you'd want to limit someone that way, but then again I really don't get the impression you would do that - you're usually quite supportive

What matters TO ME is how my external environment will affect how I do my work.  Writing and selling books is a business for me and how I make my living.  If I'm now blocked from reaching my goals, it's a big deal.  Very big.  Please don't trivialize it.

I realize my goals aren't other people's goals.  That's okay.  If this issue doesn't matter to you, don't comment on it.  Don't read the thread.  But if you have good things to add, other things to consider (other than to tell me to stop worrying about it and just go write another book), then I want to hear what it is.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, 

let's keep it civil.  It's just me here today and a lot going on.  Take pity on your poor moderator.  

I appreciate that this is a hot button issue...but we can still stay civil.  It's the KB way.

Betsy


----------



## Ashy (Jul 2, 2013)

Everybody....

*Betsy ROCKS!*

(Didn't ya know?)


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

I re-read your post, ELhawk and my response, and I think you misunderstood.  When I said "I can see" I was referring to your reaction to the news.  Not anything else.  I honestly have no idea what your writing business is like, what your sales or goals are, or even what vendors you use to sell your books.  So if you took my comment to mean I was referring to any of that other stuff, please erase that from your mind.  I'd never say something like that!


----------



## 41352 (Apr 4, 2011)

deleted


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

I don't see this effecting the USA today list or the NYT list. USA Today includes both print and ebooks. NYT is already set to list the top print books separate from ebooks.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

ellecasey said:


> @Elhawk You came onto a thread that I started to tell me to calm down, when it was clear that I was worried about something important to me. That's insulting. My response was that you are reacting the way that makes sense for you, and I'm doing the same. What may be a big deal to me obviously isn't to you. You shouldn't trivialize other people's concerns like that. If you can't empathize, at least don't insult. I responded in kind, that is all.


"Easy for you to say" is generally considered to be fightin' words, Elle.



> My goals go beyond the top 100. Once a goal is reached, it's time for a new goal. Maybe you think I've gone as far as I should. I can't imagine why you'd want to limit someone that way, but then again I really don't get the impression you would do that - you're usually quite supportive


I would not dream of telling you what your goals should be, and frankly, I have better things to do with my time than think up exactly how far I think other authors ought to go. To be honest, you sound paranoid -- in this thread, and in your comments to me, telling me that I want to limit you in some way.



> What matters TO ME is how my external environment will affect how I do my work. Writing and selling books is a business for me and how I make my living. If I'm now blocked from reaching my goals, it's a big deal. Very big. Please don't trivialize it.


I'm not trivializing anything. I'm being honest with you. External environment is extremely important; I agree with that. Writing and selling books is also a business for me, and it will be how I make my sole living starting in February 2014. I have run successful businesses in the past. I am telling you the truth when I tell you that you can't control so many aspects of your external environment. All you can do is adapt to them and adjust your goals accordingly. That's not trivializing anything. That's being real.



> I realize my goals aren't other people's goals. That's okay. If this issue doesn't matter to you, don't comment on it. Don't read the thread. But if you have good things to add, other things to consider (other than to tell me to stop worrying about it and just go write another book), then I want to hear what it is.


The issue DOES matter to me, because this kind of fearmongering and knee-jerk reactionism isn't good for the community.

Here's my good thing to add: I agree with you that Amazon listens to indies. So wouldn't it make more sense to approach them directly and get some real information from them, rather than hollering about how the sky is falling before you even know whether it is?


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Chrystalla said:


> Uh. I hadn't realized the brief disappearance of the rankings would turn out into something bigger. Sorry to hear about it.


Maybe it's not. Maybe it's just something that's happening with their servers while they do other things. One can only hope.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

ElHawk said:


> "Easy for you to say" is generally considered to be fightin' words, Elle.
> 
> I would not dream of telling you what your goals should be, and frankly, I have better things to do with my time than think up exactly how far I think other authors ought to go. To be honest, you sound paranoid -- in this thread, and in your comments to me, telling me that I want to limit you in some way.
> 
> ...


See? There you go again. We're getting nowhere with this back and forth, so I'm going to drop it.

I've opened up the conversation. I appreciate your input. I'm interested to hear more from other indie authors who this might matter to. Maybe with more discussion we can come up with ideas or things I haven't considered. For example, how this might be good for indie writers in the future, how it might shake out to be a good thing in the end. So far, I'm coming up blank.


----------



## Zoe York (May 12, 2013)

Lots of people browse through the top lists, from the main page. Why would Amazon want to filter out titles that primarily sell in ebook format? That doesn't sound like a move that maximizes profit. Given that Amazon is a business, the argument that will sway them will be a bottom-line one.

 I hope the lists merge again, or get properly labeled and co-listed as "paperback" and "ebook", from the home page.


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

Interesting....

For anyone who just wants to compare and contrast here's the BS list for* Books*:

http://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-books-Amazon/zgbs/books/ref=zg_bs_unv_b_1_25_1#1

Here's the BS list for *Kindle Books*:

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Kindle-Store-eBooks/zgbs/digital-text/154606011/ref=zg_bs_unv_kstore_2_158576011_2

The two distinct lists have always been there. Are we certain this would be a problem for Indies trying to get on NYT, USAT, etc? It's about overall numbers sold, not just print editions sold.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

zoeyork said:


> Lots of people browse through the top lists, from the main page. Why would Amazon want to filter out titles that primarily sell in ebook format? That doesn't sound like a move that maximizes profit. Given that Amazon is a business, the argument that will sway them will be a bottom-line one.
> 
> I hope the lists merge again, or get properly labeled and co-listed as "paperback" and "ebook", from the home page.


That would be perfect. Really, the only problem with this is that readers would click the first link for "books" and not bother with scrolling down to "kindle books". If it said "paperback" and "ebook" that would end the problem. BAM. Easy fix.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Wansit said:


> Interesting....
> 
> For anyone who just wants to compare and contrast here's the BS list for* Books*:
> 
> ...


In my blog post I detail why it will be a problem, but here's the nutshell:

Readers often just click "Book" when searching for a book, not "Kindle book". If they do that, without realizing it's paperbacks only on the list, they won't see all the indie titles they're missing. See what I mean?


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

When I go to the amazon.com page I only see the top 100 kindle list. Not the top 100 book list.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Wansit said:


> Interesting....
> 
> For anyone who just wants to compare and contrast here's the BS list for* Books*:
> 
> ...


Also, forgot to mention this, before this change, those two lists were very very similar. The indie titles were just a couple notches away on the Main List than they were on the Kindle list. Now they're not there AT ALL.


----------



## Maya Cross (May 28, 2012)

Assuming it's not just a glitch, the question we should ask isn't 'what is the upside for indies?', it's 'how can we show amazon the downside for them?'. If it is a conscious decision, it's not going to be a rash one. They will have thought it out, and as with any big business, the logic behind it will be that they think there is more benefit in it for them to keep it this way. The only way we're going to convince them otherwise is if we can show them otherwise. We need more than just 'this sucks for us'. Maybe it does make more sense for them, I don't know. I'm sure they'd rather give maximum exposure to expensive paperbacks than $0.99 indie titles on sale.

It's certainly awful timing as you're making your run up the top 100 though Elle. #62 is crazy!


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

It might be showing us something different if we're based in Europe (as I think Elle is too) - because, as far as I can see from the UK, the top 100 under 'books' on Amazon.com are all trad pub.

However, if this _is_ a deliberate change - I predict that it won't last. There are too many top 100 books that have sold for years and will continue to sell. That's not enough turnover & fresh titles to put in front of customers as far as Amazon is concerned. After the umpteenth time of seeing The Very Hungry Caterpillar, To Kill a Mockingbird, Catcher in the Rye, etc. on there - customers are going to stop bothering with the list because it's too repetitive.

Hope this doesn't hit sales too much for Elle, Holly & the others.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Maya Cross said:


> Assuming it's not just a glitch, the question we should ask isn't 'what is the upside for indies?', it's 'how can we show amazon the downside for them?'. If it is a conscious decision, it's not going to be a rash one. They will have thought it out, and as with any big business, the logic behind it will be that they think there is more benefit in it for them to keep it this way. The only way we're going to convince them otherwise is if we can show them otherwise. We need more than just 'this sucks for us'. Maybe it does make more sense for them, I don't know. I'm sure they'd rather give maximum exposure to expensive paperbacks than $0.99 indie titles on sale.
> 
> It's certainly awful timing as you're making your run up the top 100 though Elle. #62 is crazy!


Exactly. What is the upside? I'm having trouble seeing that, so I'd love input from everyone. Maybe this change is only part of a big overall change that will make it much better for us. I don't know. I've put in an email to my contact at KDP and if she doesn't email me back soon, I'll call her. Maybe then I'll have *some* answers.

Amazon is a business, and they're not biased against or for anyone. They want to make money. I just see this as a losing proposition for Amazon, which is why it upsets me that it also is a losing one for indies.

And yeah, #62?? Crazy stuff.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> In my blog post I detail why it will be a problem, but here's the nutshell:
> 
> Readers often just click "Book" when searching for a book, not "Kindle book". If they do that, without realizing it's paperbacks only on the list, they won't see all the indie titles they're missing. See what I mean?


This. An example of this already happening is when they had the free bestseller list across from the paid, I would get thousands of downloads a month, and my paid books were well in the mid hundreds. Great paychecks for me. 
When they made it so all links (even the links in free) take you to the paid, and now you have to click on the free button at the top of the list (two extra clicks) I am now lucky if I can break 2k a month in free downloads and low hundreds in paid.

Visiblity fell off a cliff for me andmy books. It hurts mid listers like me to the tune of thousands of dollars a month.


----------



## Isabelking (Jan 16, 2012)

Arrgggh.  I just looked and yep, not a SINGLE indie title in the top 100. And sadly, it does make sense that they can make more profit off a $10.00 book than a 99 cent book.  

Part of me is utterly freaking out about this - I mean, this is 90 percent of my income. I barely make any money from my day job. If I had to live off my day job earnings, my children and I would literally be on food stamps.  And this is happening just as I'm reaching some success and building up my new pen name.

The other part is saying - there is literally nothing I can do about this except to keep writing, try to get more books out more quickly, and continue on with my original goals - build up a decent sized audience and hope for a breakout hit and a publishing contract. 

Zeleh does have a good point about the same books being on the top 100. I believe that's one of the reasons Amazon originally changed the algorythms and made it near-impossible for most books to sell well after they've been on the lists for a while - because customers get sick of seeing the same books in the top 100 all the time.  

Does this affect writers who AREN'T in the top 100 bestseller list?


----------



## KellyHarper (Jul 29, 2012)

From an organizational standpoint, it would seem they'd want:

Top 100 Overall
Top 100 Paperback
Top 100 eBooks

From a marketing standpoint, it would seem they'd want to start promoting paperbacks as we push toward the holiday season, with an immediate shift to pushing ebooks in mid-December in preparation for the post-holiday "i'm going to spend my amazon gift cards to load up my new kindle" craze. The summer/fall "lull" seems like a good time to begin preparing for that push.

Not that I have any idea what Amazon is doing... that's all pure speculation on my part.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

I don't have much to add, but did want to send you a cyber hug, Elle, and tell you I can sympathize. Getting into the Top 100 is hard stuff for some of us and when you get there, many times reaching it sends your book into a whole new status/cycle of self-propelling toward even better ranks. The visibility of the Top 100 is priceless and you don't want to lose the ground you've made so far. I get it. I know how inconvenient the timing is if this is only a glitch, or how it sucks royally if it is something more. 

I can't see 'why' Amazon would do this purposely considering how many top selling indies we have now. 

/fingers crossed for a temporary glitch


----------



## KellyHarper (Jul 29, 2012)

Isabelking said:


> And sadly, it does make sense that they can make more profit off a $10.00 book than a 99 cent book.


On a per-book basis, this is true, but you'd need to factor overall volume into the equation before making a sweeping change.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

My little conspiracy theory has always been that ever since Amazon came out on top on that DOJ price fixing lawsuit that they've been positioning their site to favor higher margin books, which are primarily traditionally published. They're in it to make money and consumers are not savvy enough about how online retail works to understand the manipulation and opt out. They buy what's in front of them without analyzing the motives behind it.

The key going forward is to build your own marketing platforms and create direct links to readers whenever possible. Mailing lists are major, but I think we're also going to see other options like FB pages come to the fore. Maybe someday even Twitter will help sell books.

M


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

KellyHarper said:


> On a per-book basis, this is true, but you'd need to factor overall volume into the equation before making a sweeping change.


I disagree because you have to sell so many more 99 centers to equal one $10. This is the same math indies did when migrating from 99 cents to 2.99 and Amazon is doing it too. Very few 99 cent books can outpace the profit margins of a $10 price point.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Maybe they're splitting it out so they can put more marketing power behind the "kindle only" list, and not get bogged down with the physical books that they're trying to get away from. Amazon wants the world to be ebook only. Why would they promote physical books?


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Maybe Amazon will offer paperback deals to high-selling eBookers. This could be part of their strategy to getting them to sign on.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

I hope this is a positive thing in the long run or a glitch however, I can't help but ask, since when have any of Amazon's changes really ever helped an indie?

It seems like all they do is take sales away.

M


----------



## KellyHarper (Jul 29, 2012)

mrv01d said:


> I disagree because you have to sell so many more 99 centers to equal one $10. This is the same math indies did when migrating from 99 cents to 2.99 and Amazon is doing it too. Very few 99 cent books can outpace the profit margins of a $10 price point.


You're not disagreeing, you're rephrasing exactly what I said. I said consideration would need to be given -- which is exactly what you've provided an example of.

We have no visibility on the sales figures of Amazon's paperback book sales compared to their ebook sales. Nor do we have access to their forecasting spreadsheets that they would use to set their sales projections. They'll be able to use overall Kindle sales, along with historic conversion rates, to better anticipate movements in the market from a higher point of view.

I'm not saying this is what they're doing -- I'm just saying we can't draw any conclusions about whether or not they'll be making more or less money by this move.

Edit:

Also... bear in mind that Amazon makes $0.65 on a $0.99 sale, and $0.95 on a 2.99 book sale. I don't know what their cut is on a $10 trad book, but wanted to point out that they don't have nearly the same hurdle to clear that the author does (on cheaply priced books).


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

Friendly reminder, folks: Diversify. If you're in Select, it's past time to dump it and move into other vendors. Being only Amazon exposes you to a lot more damage whenever a change comes for the worse, whether they intended it to harm, or were simply ambivalent about it.

Amazon is a business. They aren't out to make people happy; they're out to make money. If they see that tinkering with their storefront will drive profit, they'll do it. Everything else is unicorn farts and drunken leprechaun kisses.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

Jonathan C. Gillespie said:


> Friendly reminder, folks: Diversify. If you're in Select, it's past time to dump it and move into other vendors. Being only Amazon exposes you to a lot more damage whenever a change comes for the worse, whether they intended it to harm, or were simply ambivalent about it.
> 
> Amazon is a business. They aren't out to make people happy; they're out to make money. If they see that tinkering with their storefront will drive profit, they'll do it. Everything else is roses.


\

The only problem? Forbes labelled BN as a brand that will go out of business this year. Google Play has a bad interface and wantonly discounts, hurting sales on other platforms. Kobo's search engine doesn't work. Smashwords has not realized its potential.

It's pretty much Apple and Amazon now.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

mrv01d said:


> It's pretty much Apple and Amazon now.


Until it isn't, my friend.


----------



## Jason Eric Pryor (Jan 30, 2013)

I don't know if it's a glitch or a permanent thing. But, let's not forget who makes, markets, and sells the Kindle tablet. Amazon.

They have already stated, several times, that they don't make any money on Kindle tablet sales. They rely on people buying content for their Kindle's to make any profit. Why would they sell Kindles, at a loss, and then do something to limit the way consumers can purchase content for their Kindles?

I don't know what Amazon's reasons are, but I can guarantee that they aren't trying to lose money. Instead of looking at it as if Amazon is trying to hurt indies, maybe we can look at it as Amazon trying to focus attention on ebooks without the distraction of paperbacks. If that's the case, indies have the advantage. It's been proven over and over again that the big publishers can't compete with indies when it comes to price and the ability to adapt.

Everyone take a deep breath and understand that Amazon is not against us. That's what I'm gonna do.


----------



## KellyHarper (Jul 29, 2012)

After playing around with the list, I'm of the mind that a) it's a glitch, or b) there are more changes in the pipeline.

As a purchaser, if I navigate around the book lists, the books I'm seeing are very disjointed and jarring. It's not a helpful interface at all, from a purchaser standpoint, because if I want to see more books like what Stephen King is selling, I get taken to a completely different list that doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

mrv01d said:


> \
> 
> The only problem? Forbes labelled BN as a brand that will go out of business this year. Google Play has a bad interface and wantonly discounts, hurting sales on other platforms. Kobo's search engine doesn't work. Smashwords has not realized its potential.
> 
> It's pretty much Apple and Amazon now.


BN might go away but nook will still be around. Just like Borders went away but Kobo is still around.


----------



## JenniferHarlow (Jun 8, 2013)

Let's assume it isn't a glitch, I can definitely see how it's harmful to Indies. So what do we do? The only way I can see us swaying them is for some of the biggies like Hugh Howey/H.M. Ward/Konrath to be our representatives in getting it changed back. It'll mean more coming from them. And/Or someone with lots of connections starting a petition and having as many indies sign it, which would hopefully also garner some press attention, which would add more pressure. Beyond that, what can we do except wait for the dust to settle and figure out how better to adapt?


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

This really only seems to affect the self-fulfilling impact of the top 100 list. So if you have (had) the ability to get on the list then it's (potentially) harder for you to get on the "overall" list. Once you get on the overall list then there's more visibility and you win the lottery. 

So basically, this impacts maybe 20 indie writer/publishers (and primarily only writers of NA)? It sucks that it happened to you Elle at this time that you got into the top 100 but your process and your strategy has seemed to do well for you the past few years. Being in the top 100 would make it better, but don't lose sight of what got you there. Those strategies still work.


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2013)

Amazon only cares about indies insofar as we provide cheap content to them to sell. Amazon is a business. They don't make moves to deliberately hurt anyone. They make moves to make a profit. When those goals align with indies, everything is happy. When they don't, you have to learn to deal with it.

Assuming that it is not a glitch, I can think of plenty of reasons why Amazon as a business would want to break out ebooks from print on their lists. It is too easy to overwhelm the lists with low-cost products. From a purely business standpoint, all sales are not created equal. A 99 cent sale is not the same as a $11.99 sale. When you run a retail outlet on slim margins, you cannot sustain profitability on micro carts. You need to increase the size of the cart. 

One way you do that is to make sure people can find what they want. Look at the bestseller list (print) compared to the bestseller list (Kindle). It SHOULD be eye opening. If ever there was evidence that the audiences for print versus ebook were still completely different demographics, this is it. This is a grade A example of the difference between which genres are ebook-friendly and which are still print-focused. Methinks the issue is LESS about weeding indies from the list than it is to make sure that both lists accurately reflect the realities of their respective markets.

I just took a quick look, but as an FYI it appears Amazon also breaks out its music between physical products and their MP3 sales. The top Music and top MP3 lists are very different. 

From a CONSUMER standpoint, this makes sense. If I'm looking for a book and want print, I'd hate to have to troll through dozens of selections that are only available in ebook format. Just like if I'm looking to by a CD, I don't want to have to scroll through two pages of digital-only selections first. Particularly when the print market is a different demographic and buying different types of books from the ebook market.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Amazon only cares about indies insofar as we provide cheap content to them to sell. Amazon is a business. They don't make moves to deliberately hurt anyone. They make moves to make a profit. When those goals align with indies, everything is happy. When they don't, you have to learn to deal with it.
> 
> Assuming that it is not a glitch, I can think of plenty of reasons why Amazon as a business would want to break out ebooks from print on their lists. It is too easy to overwhelm the lists with low-cost products. From a purely business standpoint, all sales are not created equal. A 99 cent sale is not the same as a $11.99 sale. When you run a retail outlet on slim margins, you cannot sustain profitability on micro carts. You need to increase the size of the cart.
> 
> ...


This is why. It makes sense.


----------



## Jason Eric Pryor (Jan 30, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Amazon only cares about indies insofar as we provide cheap content to them to sell. Amazon is a business. They don't make moves to deliberately hurt anyone. They make moves to make a profit. When those goals align with indies, everything is happy. When they don't, you have to learn to deal with it.
> 
> Assuming that it is not a glitch, I can think of plenty of reasons why Amazon as a business would want to break out ebooks from print on their lists. It is too easy to overwhelm the lists with low-cost products. From a purely business standpoint, all sales are not created equal. A 99 cent sale is not the same as a $11.99 sale. When you run a retail outlet on slim margins, you cannot sustain profitability on micro carts. You need to increase the size of the cart.
> 
> ...


Couldn't have said it better myself. This is why I choose to see it as a positive thing. It will make it easier for readers that are looking for what you provide to find it. We shouldn't be focusing on being found by EVERYONE. We should be focusing on being found by those that are looking for us. That's what this will do.


----------



## sarracannon (Apr 19, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> From a CONSUMER standpoint, this makes sense. If I'm looking for a book and want print, I'd hate to have to troll through dozens of selections that are only available in ebook format. Just like if I'm looking to by a CD, I don't want to have to scroll through two pages of digital-only selections first. Particularly when the print market is a different demographic and buying different types of books from the ebook market.


I think this is a good point here. We can cry and say that Amazon doesn't care about Indies, but I don't think that's it at all. I think it's more that Amazon's primary goal has been and probably always will be to make their store the best it can be in terms of customer experience. They want it to be easy for their customers to find the products they most want to buy, which then equals more money for Amazon. How can we blame a business for having their own best interests in mind?

I don't know any kind of statistics on how many readers click 'books' vs. 'kindle ebooks', but when I search for books, I always go to the Kindle best seller list, because I'm looking for ebooks. Readers aren't stupid. If they are used to browsing the 'books' list and picking out ebooks they want to read, and then suddenly ALL the books on that list are paperbacks, they are going to go looking for the ebook list to find what they want. I don't think readers will suddenly said "Wait! I'd really like to buy paperbacks instead now that Amazon has separated these lists". They also won't suddenly say "Hmmm, I think I'll start paying $10+ for all my ebooks since those are the only books on this list I use to browse". No, they'll go looking for the Kindle lists, find them, and use those now instead.

The more readers who learn this new list separation (if it's going to be permanent), the better, in my opinion. There will probably be even MORE Indies on the Kindle list than there ever were on the overall Books list, so more eyes to the right list, more targeted customers.

Or is my logic flawed here? It wouldn't be the first time! I completely sympathize with what you are saying, Elle. I've never had a top 100 book, but if I finally hit and then everything changed, I would be FREAKING OUT. I am just trying to provide an alternative to the freak out and try to see this as a positive.


----------



## TexasGirl (Dec 21, 2011)

On a corollary side note, I randomly noticed that three times in the last week, Amaon asked me if I wanted to set my default preferences to Kindle books or Print Books. I've been sort of stubborn and have refused to say.

15 years with Amazon and they'd never asked me before. I think they are moving to split so that our experience in purchasing will match our buying patterns -- also boughts will be for bestsellers in the format we prefer.

I think the top 100 overall is a pretty small method of discovery for most of us since it is limited to books that are in it (and why it makes sense for Elle to be very worried but midlisters like me, not as much).

Also boughts are way more powerful and this change is quite possibly a good thing for those.

Be nimble.


----------



## Zoe York (May 12, 2013)

Are there any too 100 ebooks that don't have a print edition? (And if so, why)


----------



## sarracannon (Apr 19, 2011)

It's not about whether they have a print edition. It's about whether that print edition is selling. Most Indie print books don't sell anywhere near the numbers of their ebooks. And yes, there are probably several ebooks in the Top 100 that don't have a matching print. The why would be because they barely sell, lol.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

I've never been one to get on the "Amazon hates us indies" train. I basically agree with what Julie said. Amazon is a business and they're going to side with whatever makes them the most money.  That being said, I don't see Amazon doing anything to kill the golden goose, no matter how small the eggs may be for I also think their Indie power gives them leverage in their dealings with the big guys.  They've already proven they can pretty much make a bestseller out of whoever they choose. When one has leverage, one doesn't willingly give it up (unless the terms are ridiculously good for doing so).


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2013)

zoeyork said:


> Are there any too 100 ebooks that don't have a print edition? (And if so, why)


I did a quick look and found a few that were ebook-only.

But as Sarra said, it's not about the existence of a print version. It's about the sales of print versus the sales of ebooks. Again, I think the current split shines a bright light on the hugely different customer bases between print and ebook markets. It makes sense for them to be split apart because they do in fact serve two completely different customer bases.


----------



## Maya Cross (May 28, 2012)

zoeyork said:


> Are there any too 100 ebooks that don't have a print edition? (And if so, why)


My titles have dipped into the 100 for a few days with no print version. The reason is, they're novella length, and I felt like it may not be worth it to format and release individual paperbacks when they're so short and I'd have to set rather large prices relative to the length to make it profitable. I've been waiting until all three are out, then I'm going to do a bundle paperback.

But yeah, I imagine I'm not alone in this. There would be some titles in there at any given moment that have no print versions. If a book happened to take off fast enough, there's some chance the writer has simply not finished formatting/proofing a paperback.


----------



## IreneP (Jun 19, 2012)

ellecasey said:


> In my blog post I detail why it will be a problem, but here's the nutshell:
> 
> Readers often just click "Book" when searching for a book, not "Kindle book". If they do that, without realizing it's paperbacks only on the list, they won't see all the indie titles they're missing. See what I mean?


I agree - as a reader, I only recently noticed that there are two separate 'romance' main pages on Amazon - one for 'books' and one for 'ebooks.' I actually would NEVER have noticed this if I hadn't been looking for a specific promotion from my publisher that was supposed to display on the 'romance' page. (Except now I know on the 'e-book romance' page.

I'm assuming that maybe people browsing through their kindles would be directed to e-books by default? (Haven't tested). But yes, to the reader it is confusing, and since BOOKS are higher on the category hierarchy I would suspect that is where most people start. Even though I'm with a publisher, I am digital-first with only a POD print edition. So no way am I getting any traction in 'books'.

Interesting conversation!


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

Am I stupid or something? I don't see any difference. I see indie's in the top 100 of the Kindle store. And it's always been called the Kindle Store. (I checked my screen shots from months ago.)


----------



## 31842 (Jan 11, 2011)

Deanna Chase said:


> When I go to the amazon.com page I only see the top 100 kindle list. Not the top 100 book list.


Sooo... Just wanted to say I have the exact same on my Amazon front page: Top 100 Kindle. This seems to me, and I might be talking crazy, that as long as it is the Top 100 Kindle list on the front page, not the Top 100 Physical Books, this is good. They've buried the "Top 100 Physical Books" list. I can't even find it. And as an author, it means that to get to the Top 100, it isn't my paperbacks + ebook sales competing with the Big Six paperback + ebook sales. My paperback sales stink. But my ebooks vs. their ebooks. Ooo! Godzilla vs. King Kong! I like front page placement for Kindle books! It's getting our books right in front of readers who specifically want our format. They aren't hiding them. They separated things out in order to feature them. I think this could be good. YMMV


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2013)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> That being said, I don't see Amazon doing anything to kill the golden goose, no matter how small the eggs may be for I also think their Indie power gives them leverage in their dealings with the big guys.


Splitting ebooks off from print wouldn't change that, because indies have next to zero influence on the print market. And despite statements to the contrary, the print marketplace is still huge and profitable. In genre categories, ebooks have been cannibalizing print sales. But in the "big ticket" mainstream and literary fictions (where all of those high priced hardcovers find their way onto library shelves for huge profits) print is still king.

Stats



> Although e-book sales almost doubled,* print sales still made slight gains.* Hardcover sales were up 1.3% from the year before, to $5.06 billion, and paperback sales rose 0.4%, to $4.96 billion. Bringing in $3.04 billion, e-books still ranked third in total revenue. Figures were not available yet for mass-market paperbacks, but those were expected to decline.


Ebooks eat the mass market paperback market, where they compete on price considerations, but have little cannibalization impact on hardcover or even trade paperback sales.


----------



## Sarah Woodbury (Jan 30, 2011)

What's interesting is that once you drill down, even one level to 'romance' it's all Kindle books on the "book" list. I would hope that if a reader wanted Kindle books and saw the prices on the top 100 and that they were all hardcover, she'd hightail it over to the Kindle list  But maybe that's wishful thinking.


----------



## KellyHarper (Jul 29, 2012)

Sarah Woodbury said:


> What's interesting is that once you drill down, even one level to 'romance' it's all Kindle books on the "book" list. I would hope that if a reader wanted Kindle books and saw the prices on the top 100 and that they were all hardcover, she'd hightail it over to the Kindle list  But maybe that's wishful thinking.


This is exactly what made me think that there are more changes to be made. Right now, it's jarring. You drill down AT ALL and you land on nothing but ebooks.

That's ideal for most of us, but if the reason for the change is for Amazon's overall customer base -- expect more to come.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I mean how many readers don't look for genres. If you see that first list and its a mixture of Dan Brown, cookbooks and memoirs, wouldn't most readers look for the genres they like? And in the genres the listings are still as they were, everything mixed. Since more ebooks are selling in some genres, the top if full of indies. 
Really, everywhere I look there are indies. You have to work really hard not to see them. So to say amazon is trying to "hide" indies is just really not true. I'd have to dig deep in some genres to find non indies. 

I just don't think readers would go, oh, all I see is Dan Brown and SAT guide books. So let me pick one of those. 
I just don't think the majority of readers work like that. They want to read what they want to read. 

We aren't stupid. We know how to click on a side bar.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Rykymus said:


> Am I stupid or something? I don't see any difference. I see indie's in the top 100 of the Kindle store. And it's always been called the Kindle Store. (I checked my screen shots from months ago.)


If you read my blog post, linked in the OP, you'll see how a reader gets there from the home page. It's a very organic, natural search.

Books > Books > Best Sellers. That's it.

Now to find indie titles (since they've all been removed from ^ that list), you have to do this:

Books > Kindle Books > Best Sellers.

And my points were, as stated by a reader here in this thread, that people naturally choose the simplest, first choice. Books > Books>Best Sellers. I am a Kindle owner and that's what I've always done. If that's what someone does now, there will be NO indie books there on the list. None. Zero. Yesterday, that list was about 50% indie or more. And not undeserving indies ... indies who've made a boatload of money for Amazon. Indies who have a lot of happy readers.

I really haven't seen anyone on this thread saying that "Amazon is out to get indies." But somehow, that's what everyone always assumes is being said in threads like this. I want to be clear by repeating what I've already said: I don't believe Amazon is not out to get indies. Amazon is out to make money, period. They don't care about anything except what will make them money. Indies make them money. So do trad-pubbed paperbacks. So whatever they're doing, I assume it's good for Amazon. Does that mean it's also good for all indies? No. I've already explained how and why that is.

Hopefully soon we'll have more answers from Amazon which will make it possible for me to adjust my plans and goals accordingly. That's pretty much all I'm looking for. I don't really believe that signing a petition and talking to people at Amazon will change what they do, but I'm not opposed to expressing my opinion on the matter, which I will absolutely do once I know the whole story and have feedback from my friends on KB and elsewhere.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

I have no desire to compete for position on a list against traditionally published print books. The trads have way more ability to compete than I do. (By production cost per unit alone.) To be honest, I think anyone who is seriously trying to be on the top 100 print list as an indie is pretty much tilting at windmills. As a business, tilting at windmills is not profitable and is a waste of time and resources.

Amazon exists to make money. Period. It's not about the customer experience. They try to provide a good customer experience BECAUSE they know it leads to more transactions and more revenue. They provide the KDP platform BECAUSE it gives them more content than their competition which leads to MORE transactions and more revenue. If Amazon makes a change, it is, in the end, for the sole purpose of making more money. As a content provider/seller for Amazon, I applaud any move they make that increases their bottom line, because in one way or another, it helps my business as well.

When I open my browser to Amazon, they automatically point me to kindle books because they know that's what I'm usually buying from them.

Worrying about position on a list of all books, print and digital, is pointless unless you are willing to spend the same amount of money to produce and market your print books as the trads. I understand that everyone's business model is different, but the reality is the same nonetheless. You can't compete against someone bigger, stronger, and better armed.


----------



## 31842 (Jan 11, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> Books > Books > Best Sellers.


What I'm seeing is:

Front Page > Kindle 100 Bestseller List

It is a direct link with covers in the right hand toolbar. And then from there, it goes straight into Kindle eBook world.

In order to get to what you're seeing, I have to do Front Page > Find the drop down menu for Books > pick Books from a list of Books, Ebooks, Audio, Children's Books, Textbooks, and Magazines > Bestsellers

Is your front page different and listing the Top 100 Book Bestseller list? Or do you have to go through all of the navigation to get there? I ask not to be difficult but just to figure out what the different storefront experiences are for different people.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I am pretty sure every one has a different look to their front amazon page, based on what you browse for and buy. 

Although why I currently have the best selling lists of running shoes on my right bar, I'll never know. I never searched for them, nor do I run.  . 
And as many kindle books I buy, I don't even have a side bar of the kindle best seller list. Just some "More items to consider" and "related to items you viewed" ebooks towards the bottom of the page.


----------



## B. Ashcroft (Jul 3, 2013)

Just wanted to sympathize, Elle. Regardless of what happens this is the worst possible time for something like this and I can totally see where you are coming from. Really rough just when Shine is climbing the top 100. Here's to hoping readers get the kindle store, or that this all is a glitch, but still I hope that Shine and your career continue to rise and thrive because you deserve it.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

I can't even find the progression of links that you describe, Elle.  I'm so confused at this point, I don't even care. It's all starting to sound like Chicken Little now.

Until someone sees a obvious dip in SALES (not ranking on whatever list they prefer to look at) there's nothing to freak out about.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> If you read my blog post, linked in the OP, you'll see how a reader gets there from the home page. It's a very organic, natural search.
> 
> Books > Books > Best Sellers. That's it.
> 
> ...


But again, that only helps authors/publishers who are in the top 100. Which for self-pub at this time is almost exclusively limited to authors that write New Adult or contemporary romance. So, it's not really a huge impact on Indie Publishing in general. But it does suck that you got the rug pulled out from under you at this time.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Rykymus said:


> Am I stupid or something? I don't see any difference. I see indie's in the top 100 of the Kindle store. And it's always been called the Kindle Store. (I checked my screen shots from months ago.)


Exactly on both counts.

ETA: Ah, so they haven't removed indies. They have separated the two best seller lists and to be on the print best seller list, you have to be selling that many print. That makes sense to me. And I have _never_ looked on the print list for books for my Kindle. Since I want books for my Kindle, when I am looking for books I look on the Kindle list. Personally, I consider that the simplest choice.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Rykymus said:


> I can't even find the progression of links that you describe, Elle. I'm so confused at this point, I don't even care. It's all starting to sound like Chicken Little now.
> 
> Until someone sees a obvious dip in SALES (not ranking on whatever list they prefer to look at) there's nothing to freak out about.


It is chicken little for most people. I understand that. It isn't for me, though. Not at this point in my sales and career. I'm looking for answers and ideas, that's all. I'm not trying to start a fight, a war against Amazon, or put together a pitchfork mob. I love Amazon! I adore Amazon! And I'm not kidding about that. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on and get some ideas and viewpoints and so on so when I talk to someone at Amazon I can have a nice, well-rounded conversation that has more than my ideas floating around in it.

I think it's true that a lot of readers find books by searching sidebar genres. They also find books by keyword searches. They also find books by clicking "Best Seller" links. Before when they clicked that link, they found my book on page 4. Now when they click it, they won't. I "believe" that will cause me a loss in sales. Common sense says it will. But I will probably never know, because these past few days are the only days I've ever been this high in the charts and I have nothing to compare it to.

But if YOU were in my position, wouldn't you want to know? If you had a goal of being noticed, increasing your sales, and possibly hitting a different best seller list - which means you have purchase volume ... wouldn't you be curious and possibly concerned when suddenly your book (and your peers' books) disappeared from one of the most visible lists on Amazon? Maybe not. You guys are probably way cooler than I am about stuff like that. I'm bummin', though. I see something slipping away that was/is very important to me, and that is downright demoralizing. But I'm sure I'll bounce back just fine. I always do. I'll just have to deal with the mopes for a while.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> But again, that only helps authors/publishers who are in the top 100. Which for self-pub at this time is almost exclusively limited to authors that write New Adult or contemporary romance. So, it's not really a huge impact on Indie Publishing in general. But it does suck that you got the rug pulled out from under you at this time.


So the fact that it only currently affects 20 of your peers makes it not important? I don't believe you really feel this way, Nathan. You're way more supportive of indies than that.

I think you're missing the big picture, if indeed there is a big picture - I think there is. It's this: if indies aren't discoverable (i.e., aren't given the "credit" they're due as best sellers by volume , i.e, given their spot on the BS list), then they will lose sales. They lose sales, they lose more position in the rankings. They lose position, they lose visibility. They lose more position. They lose more sales. Snowball effect from hell. (ha ha, is that possible?) Then they don't hit the best seller lists like USAT and NYT because they lack that volume. Then they don't get the credibility they're due for writing good stories, just because they're missing the paperback distribution piece of the puzzle. Then trad pubs stop paying attention to indies again, and the whole trad publishers as gatekeepers and agents as gatekeepers is revitalized.

Yes, it's worst case scenario stuff, but it's not improbable. Someday, you will probably be in that place, readers willing, where position on the BS list is important or even critical for your career goals. You'll want your fair shake where sales volume = position. You'll want that visibility. It might not concern you now, but it very well could in the future. So maybe it's worth caring about now. Or not.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Elle, I really suspect you are wrong about how people look for Kindle books. Most Kindle owners know that to find books for their Kindle they go to the Kindle store. It's not like very many who buy our books are people who have never bought a Kindle book before. Sure, being on every list possible is a bit more visibility, but that list is primarily for people who are looking for print. Those people still are out there. 

ETA: Amazon wants people to find what they're looking for. If the list isn't working like that, I can see why Amazon would change it.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Rykymus said:


> I can't even find the progression of links that you describe, Elle. I'm so confused at this point, I don't even care. It's all starting to sound like Chicken Little now.
> 
> Until someone sees a obvious dip in SALES (not ranking on whatever list they prefer to look at) there's nothing to freak out about.


Here you go. If you search from the Amazon home page, BOOKS, then BOOKS, then BEST SELLERS, this is the list you get. And no, #5 is not an indie. It's the author who write Kite Runner.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/ref=sv_b_2


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Elle, I really suspect you are wrong about how people look for Kindle books. Most Kindle owners know that to find books for their Kindle they go to the Kindle store. It's not like very many are people who have never bought a Kindle book before. Sure, being on every list possible is a bit more visibility, but that list is primarily for people who are looking for print. Those people still are out there.


If that was the case, then why were all those indies on there when it was ONLY volume that got authors there? Obviously, people are not searching to buy paperbacks like that or there wouldn't be a spot for indies. And they aren't buying them in volume, or there would be more of them there. Look at all those cookbooks on there now!! The SAT books! lol They weren't there before.

I was thinking about this as I was driving around. I think some of the earlier commenters have it right. I think Amazon is pushing higher margin items, knowing Kindle owners will search until they are away from paperbacks, if they aren't interested in paperbacks.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

FWIW, I never knew about this combined all-books bestseller list. I've only ever really looked at the Kindle Top 100. Honestly, I had no idea that (now apparently defunct list) ever existed. 

Anyway, if I were you, if it seems like your rank is slipping, I'd jack up the price to try to make some money on the way down.

Hope everything's going okay. You can't control this, so try to focus on the absolutely amazing fact that you are a Top 100 Amazon Bestseller!! You rock, lady.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

valeriec80 said:


> FWIW, I never knew about this combined all-books bestseller list. I've only ever really looked at the Kindle Top 100. Honestly, I had no idea that (now apparently defunct list) ever existed.
> 
> Anyway, if I were you, if it seems like your rank is slipping, I'd jack up the price to try to make some money on the way down.
> 
> Hope everything's going okay. You can't control this, so try to focus on the absolutely amazing fact that you are a Top 100 Amazon Bestseller!! You rock, lady.


Thank you! Good advice. Luckily I just jumped up two more spots to #58, so it's still okay. I'm curious to know if Amazon has any other big changes in store and what they might be, but know I'm probably better off just writing a book than trying to figure that out. lol


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> If that was the case, then why were all those indies on there when it was ONLY volume that got authors there? Obviously, people are not searching to buy paperbacks like that or there wouldn't be a spot for indies. And they aren't buying them in volume, or there would be more of them there. Look at all those cookbooks on there now!! The SAT books! lol They weren't there before.
> 
> I was thinking about this as I was driving around. I think some of the earlier commenters have it right. I think Amazon is pushing higher margin items, knowing Kindle owners will search until they are away from paperbacks, if they aren't interested in paperbacks.


Because they were selling volume of KINDLE books. It looks as though Amazon has decided that volume of print books gets you on that list and volume of Kindle books gets you on the Kindle list. I know this has upset you and that it is regrettable to lose any tiny bit of visibility, but that makes sense to me. And No, I don't think that you can say that people who were on that list were because that was where their volume was coming from.

I have looked at the Top 100 list occasionally, but ALWAYS the Kindle Top 100 and subcategory lists. Why would I look at the book list for a book for my Kindle. There is a Kindle store with a rather prominent link at the top of the Amazon page. 

You should be happy at being in the Kindle Top 100 instead of being upset, really.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> From a CONSUMER standpoint, this makes sense. If I'm looking for a book and want print, I'd hate to have to troll through dozens of selections that are only available in ebook format. Just like if I'm looking to by a CD, I don't want to have to scroll through two pages of digital-only selections first. Particularly when the print market is a different demographic and buying different types of books from the ebook market.


THIS. I just wish they did it back when I bought primarily print books from Amazon, because I can't begin to tell you how annoying it was to scroll through page after page of bestsellers only available for Kindle when I didn't own a Kindle and had no desire to use the Kindle for PC app.

To be honest, I think they're going to rename it Top 100 Kindle and Top 100 Print. But I can state with certainty that at the lower levels, at the subgenre level, the print and Kindle are still combined for the "Books" list. There's the Kindle subgenre bestseller lists, and the Books subgenre bestseller lists.

A list for print, a list for Kindle,a nd then a combined list would be great.

Keep in mind that the NY Times has an ebook list, a paperback list, a hardcvover list, and a combined list.


----------



## Rachel Schurig (Apr 9, 2011)

Atunah said:


> I am pretty sure every one has a different look to their front amazon page, based on what you browse for and buy.
> 
> *Although why I currently have the best selling lists of running shoes on my right bar, I'll never know. I never searched for them, nor do I run. *.
> And as many kindle books I buy, I don't even have a side bar of the kindle best seller list. Just some "More items to consider" and "related to items you viewed" ebooks towards the bottom of the page.


Me, too, Atunah! Where the heck did that come from? A runner I am not 



valeriec80 said:


> FWIW, I never knew about this combined all-books bestseller list. I've only ever really looked at the Kindle Top 100. Honestly, I had no idea that (now apparently defunct list) ever existed.


I'm with Valerie, and I'm something of a list stalker. I had to root around a bit to figure out what you guys were talking about. I don't think I've ever looked at the Books list. I simply have always clicked on my right sidebar where there's a box featuring the Kindle bestsellers. That probably shows up for me there because Amazon knows I shop for kindle books. But I would think a lot of kindle readers see the same thing.

I'll be interested to hear what your contact has to say, Elle. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> BN might go away but nook will still be around. Just like Borders went away but Kobo is still around.


 Kobo wasn't developed nor managed by Borders. Borders only held a minority stake on Kobo. The relationship was basically the same as Kobo would have with Target or WalMart. Nook was developed, manufactured, and sold by B&N. It will probably be spun off and it might survive if B&N goes under, but the Nook/B&N tie is way different than what was the Kobo/Borders.

But yea, Twinkies are coming back, so a product can survive their companies demise.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

As a reader, I never pay attention to the bestseller lists or book rankings. I search by genre and sub-genre, look at the cover/blurb and sample. If that initial book doesn't grab me, I drop my attention to the also-boughts. I just read a book last week that I found that way. I loved it and thought it was some obscure book, but after reading it, looked at the ranking and it was in the 1ks. Not exactly obscure.   When I was a kid, I searched the library by section. I kind of knew where books I liked would be, although I had no concept of genres. Horse books were lumped together and dog books were also in the same section. As a teen/adult, I made a beeline from the front of the bookstore to the section I wanted to search. I only looked at the bestsellers in passing to see if any covers caught my eye. 

Am I the only one who shops this way?


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

I hope Amazon is going to just change the search link name.  That would make it so clear and help readers find what they're looking for:

BOOK> Paperbacks
BOOK> ebooks


Right now it's:

BOOK> Book
BOOK> Kindle Store

Not clear enough for me!  Sometimes when I see "Kindle Store" I'm thinking it's the place where you go to buy a KINDLE not an ebook.


----------



## Jason Eric Pryor (Jan 30, 2013)

Alan Petersen said:


> Kobo wasn't developed nor managed by Borders. Borders only held a minority stake on Kobo. The relationship was basically the same as Kobo would have with Target or WalMart. B&N was developed, manufactured, and sold by B&N. It will probably be spun off and it might survive if B&N goes under, but the Nook/B&N tie is way different than what was the Kobo/Borders.
> 
> But yea, Twinkies are coming back, so a product can survive their companies demise.


People. I think we all need to focus on the more important things. The man said that Twinkies are coming back. How bad are things now?


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> If you read my blog post, linked in the OP, you'll see how a reader gets there from the home page. It's a very organic, natural search.
> 
> Books > Books > Best Sellers. That's it.
> 
> ...


Actually, on my Amazon.com, the Kindle store is more prominently displayed than "Books." "Books" appears much firther down the hierarchy ladder than "Kindle."

So I think what TexasGiirl speculated is true...if you're logged in, then they display things to you based on your browsing and buying habits. Since I tend to buy many more Kindle books than print books these days (this is a big change in this last year), they put Kindle books in the foreground for me. I have to really dig to find the print lists. It's all Kindle for me.


----------



## Weirdling (Jun 25, 2011)

I haven't read all of posts yet, but I do have a question.  Do most of you feel that your Kindle sales come from the device (or app) or from going on Amazon's store?  I mostly buy Kindlebooks from the Kindle itself, which is obviously still linked up to the ebook best sellers.

Jodi


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Jason Eric Pryor said:


> People. I think we all need to focus on the more important things. The man said that Twinkies are coming back. How bad are things now?


The real problem is that I can't get those Lik-em-aid candy stick anywhere. Why can't I just buy them separately without the colored sugar part?



Amanda Brice said:


> Actually, on my Amazon.com, the Kindle store is more prominently displayed than "Books." "Books" appears much firther down the hierarchy ladder than "Kindle."
> 
> So I think what TexasGiirl speculated is true...if you're logged in, then they display things to you based on your browsing and buying habits. Since I tend to buy many more Kindle books than print books these days (this is a big change in this last year), they put Kindle books in the foreground for me. I have to really dig to find the print lists. It's all Kindle for me.


Doesn't it ever make you mad that Amazon and Google are always pointing you to where they *think* you want to go, making you miss half the things you actually might want to see? I hate being pigeon-holed like that. But I guess that's another conversation. 

I shop mostly for ebooks but also some paperbacks and various other things. I see Books>Books on there on my home page.


----------



## Ashy (Jul 2, 2013)

Jason Eric Pryor said:


> People. I think we all need to focus on the more important things. The man said that Twinkies are coming back. How bad are things now?


Dude! Where you been? Twinkies are back next week!

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/news/companies/twinkies-return/index.html

WOO HOO!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

A man's got to know his limits, and I just found mine. I read a lot of this thread, but have no idea what you folks are talking about. I think I'll invoke benign neglect and wait a few days to see how it all turns out.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> I shop mostly for ebooks but also some paperbacks and various other things. I see Books>Books on there on my home page.


It's funny, because I used to only rarely buy books at all from Amazon, because I wanted to support bookstores. "Browsing" on Amazon is nothing like the experience of standing in a bookstore and browsing the stacks. I could do that for hours. Literally. I'd only buy books from Amazon if it was something so obscure that I couldn't find it in a store, and even then I might prefer to order it through the store.

That's not to say I didn't buy things from Amazon, because I actually buy a ton of stuff from Amazon. And now that I have Prime, I buy even more. Things that I otherwise would just jump in the car and drive to Target, now I'll order online if I don't need it right then.

Now that I have my Kindle Fire, I mostly do streaming video and a ton of ebooks. I still occasionally will buy a paperback if it's something that doesn't have a Kindle edition or the Kindle edition would be rather useless (I still prefer paper for reference books), but I'd say it's about 95% Kindle books these days.

(Which is interesting, since I still sell almost as many paperbacks as ebooks.)


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

Screw the Twinkies. I'm jonesing for Ho Ho's!


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

The truth is, we are at the market's mercy. We are at Amazon's mercy. We are but prawns. But that is life. Security is simply an illusion, stability a very silly human concept. Strategize daily.

Prawns be nimble, prawns be quick!


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

Mimi said:


> The truth is, we are at the market's mercy. We are at Amazon's mercy. We are but prawns. But that is life. Security is simply an illusion, stability a very silly human concept. Strategize daily.
> 
> Prawns be nimble, prawns be quick!


Just don't jump over the candlestick.

That sh*t burns, yo.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> A man's got to know his limits, and I just found mine. I read a lot of this thread, but have no idea what you folks are talking about. I think I'll invoke benign neglect and wait a few days to see how it all turns out.


Ditto.



Mimi said:


> The truth is, we are at the market's mercy. We are at Amazon's mercy. We are but prawns. But that is life. Security is simply an illusion, stability a very silly human concept. Strategize daily.
> 
> Prawns be nimble, prawns be quick!


Indeed. Prawns on a spinning bullet rock with irregularly oscillating ionic shielding should remain humble.






B.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

I just had another look at the Top 100 list.

People are going to see the Very Hungry Caterpillar, and they are going to figure out how to get to the *good* list. Amazon will lose .01% of sales and poop their pants to make it easier for people to do so. Sell an item that need not be warehoused or shipped, which has a high profit margin? I think they'll get right on that.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

DDark said:


> So grab your ankles, folks, and BEND! lol


*giggles* Sounds like something .... uh nevermind.


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Amazon only cares about indies insofar as we provide cheap content to them to sell. Amazon is a business. They don't make moves to deliberately hurt anyone. They make moves to make a profit. When those goals align with indies, everything is happy. When they don't, you have to learn to deal with it.
> 
> Assuming that it is not a glitch, I can think of plenty of reasons why Amazon as a business would want to break out ebooks from print on their lists. It is too easy to overwhelm the lists with low-cost products. From a purely business standpoint, all sales are not created equal. A 99 cent sale is not the same as a $11.99 sale. When you run a retail outlet on slim margins, you cannot sustain profitability on micro carts. You need to increase the size of the cart.
> 
> ...


All of this. As a consumer, if I decide to buy a paperback I'm buying it for a reason, and thus don't want to weed through a bunch of ebooks. And vice versa. The people browsing on their Kindles, their i-devices, their smartphones won't ever be looking for paperback books, so they'll find the books they need in the kindle store. I honestly don't see this as a huge problem, but perhaps I'm being short-sighted.

At any rate, this is precisely why it's never a good idea to keep all your eggs in one basket.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Lady Vine said:


> All of this. As a consumer, if I decide to buy a paperback I'm buying it for a reason, and thus don't want to weed through a bunch of ebooks. And vice versa. The people browsing on their Kindles, their i-devices, their smartphones won't ever be looking for paperback books, so they'll find the books they need in the kindle store. I honestly don't see this as a huge problem, but perhaps I'm being short-sighted.
> 
> At any rate, this is precisely why it's never a good idea to keep all your eggs in one basket.


Well, it's not true that if you are searching on a i-device you would never be searching for a print book. A lot of non-fiction is available only in print and I do search for those on an i-device, but I suspect those are exceptions and not typical. Anyway, like you, I have hard time seeing it as a big problem.

I just checked and the subcategories, at least the ones I checked, are still combined. Not sure if that means that Amazon hasn't just gotten around to them or not.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Whatever they did, it's working. My Permafree (Dark Matter Heart) has been downloaded over 200 times today and I've got no idea why, so it must be these changes.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Rykymus said:


> Screw the Twinkies. I'm jonesing for Ho Ho's!


I'm with you on this one.


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

NathanWrann said:


> Whatever they did, it's working. My Permafree (Dark Matter Heart) has been downloaded over 200 times today and I've got no idea why, so it must be these changes.


Haha, and I sold 3 paperbacks today!


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

Paperbacks for the win! My paperback sales have tripled today. Weird!


----------



## Avis Black (Jun 12, 2012)

As a reader, I've never paid any attention to the bestseller lists because the vast majority of authors I've enjoyed never sold any better than mid-list, and often worse than that.  Not only were they not on the top 100, they were often out of print entirely, and I had to prowl used bookstores to find their work.


----------



## BelindaPepper (May 19, 2013)

Anything that makes it easier for the consumer to get exactly what they want will benefit everyone. It's not a matter of Amazon pushing one format over another- it's about giving the consumer what they want. And that benefits indies too.

If I'm searching for a new novel to read, I look for ebooks. I can't tell you how frustrated I get to see a book that looks awesome, only to find it's only available in paperback. Sorry, if I can't read a sample first and then get it delivered for free (I'm in Australia; the shipping stinks), I'm not interested. The only time I will consider print books is for comics and reference non-fiction- two areas where ereaders aren't as good as print.

Those amalgamated lists may pick up some stray purchasers, but they're not your key market. The ultimate goal for Amazon is to have users logged in whenever they browse Amazon, then to make their marketing efforts as customised and TARGETED as possible. What does this mean for authors? The people who are shown your book are precisely the same people who would BUY your book. No more shooting in the dark, hoping to hit a target. This is good for authors.

And however folk might feel about big companies trying to pinpoint our buying preferences, the fact is it's effective. They just need to keep improving their methods (ie no more running shoe suggestions!). They end result is that it's easier for the consumer to find exactly what they're looking for, and that makes for a more pleasant user experience.

My 2 cents, anyhow.  please excuse any typos, I'm writing from my phone


----------



## Zoe Cannon (Sep 2, 2012)

MaryMcDonald said:


> As a reader, I never pay attention to the bestseller lists or book rankings. I search by genre and sub-genre, look at the cover/blurb and sample. If that initial book doesn't grab me, I drop my attention to the also-boughts. I just read a book last week that I found that way. I loved it and thought it was some obscure book, but after reading it, looked at the ranking and it was in the 1ks. Not exactly obscure.  When I was a kid, I searched the library by section. I kind of knew where books I liked would be, although I had no concept of genres. Horse books were lumped together and dog books were also in the same section. As a teen/adult, I made a beeline from the front of the bookstore to the section I wanted to search. I only looked at the bestsellers in passing to see if any covers caught my eye.
> 
> Am I the only one who shops this way?


Nope, you're not the only one. The only time I ever look at the bestseller lists on Amazon is to see what fonts people are using on their covers.


----------



## Daizie (Mar 27, 2013)

MaryMcDonald said:


> As a reader, I never pay attention to the bestseller lists or book rankings. I search by genre and sub-genre, look at the cover/blurb and sample. If that initial book doesn't grab me, I drop my attention to the also-boughts. I just read a book last week that I found that way. I loved it and thought it was some obscure book, but after reading it, looked at the ranking and it was in the 1ks. Not exactly obscure.  When I was a kid, I searched the library by section. I kind of knew where books I liked would be, although I had no concept of genres. Horse books were lumped together and dog books were also in the same section. As a teen/adult, I made a beeline from the front of the bookstore to the section I wanted to search. I only looked at the bestsellers in passing to see if any covers caught my eye.
> 
> Am I the only one who shops this way?


No, I always shop by genre. I hardly ever look at the best seller list. Occasionally I will look at the Top 100 Free or keep tabs on the climb of a friend, but as a buyer, I have no clue what's a Best Seller or not, nor do I care.


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

Daizie said:


> No, I always shop by genre. I hardly ever look at the best seller list. Occasionally I will look at the Top 100 Free or keep tabs on the climb of a friend, but as a buyer, I have no clue what's a Best Seller or not, nor do I care.


+1. I don't care what people are reading. I search by genre, or go there knowing what title I'm looking for. Now, back in the day, when I used to shop in bricks and mortar stores, the charts did catch my eye. So too did the table displays, and window posters. But that type of advertising has never influenced my buying decisions online.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

I hope this doesn't affect sales or chances of reaching the NYT list etc or whatever other goals indies may have.
If I ever get the chance to write the NA that I plotted at the start of this year, I'd like to have as many opportunities as possible. What I manage to achieve is beside the point. I want to at least think that the same opportunities are on offer.


----------



## heavycat (Feb 14, 2011)

Doesn't this change (if permanent) mean that Kindle books no longer have to compete with paperbacks/print?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

The only time I have ever browsed the top 100 was when I was looking for a free book to pick up, and wanted to see what was available.  Most of the rest of the time, I find out about a book I'm interested in here, and go right to the book.  I don't even browse the genres, as I'm pretty eclectic in my reading.

Betsy


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

That's what I was thinking, HeavyCat.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Most of the rest of the time, I find out about a book I'm interested in here, and go right to the book.
> 
> Betsy


And this, I suspect, is true for a big chunk of book discovery.


----------



## Shane Murray (Aug 1, 2012)

Rykymus said:


> That's what I was thinking, HeavyCat.


Yeah me too. This might actually benefit indies, since they have low weight in paperbacks anyway.


----------



## jvin248 (Jan 31, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> The only time I have ever browsed the top 100 was when I was looking for a free book to pick up, and wanted to see what was available. ...


.
This is the key risk. Many readers start with this particular list if they have owned a kindle long enough or have friends that told them about the free offerings. They taste the freebies and then dip into that author's other books if they like it. Obscuring the path of discovery damages the opportunities for authors as well as the diversity of products for readers to choose from.
.
Are we headed back to the days of paying for table/window displays to push books at the front of the big book store? 
.
.


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

BelindaPepper said:


> Anything that makes it easier for the consumer to get exactly what they want will benefit everyone. It's not a matter of Amazon pushing one format over another- it's about giving the consumer what they want. And that benefits indies too.


THIS.


----------



## BellaRoccaforte (May 26, 2013)

This pushes me right out if you have to have print books. I wasn't going to go down the createspace route!


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2013)

BellaRoccaforte said:


> This pushes me right out if you have to have print books. I wasn't going to go down the createspace route!


You are misunderstanding the conversation. You don't HAVE to have anything. Amazon simply appears to have split out the print bestsellers from the Kindle bestsellers. Having a print book won't impact anything (unless that print book itself is a bestseller).


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

jvin248 said:


> .
> This is the key risk. Many readers start with this particular list if they have owned a kindle long enough or have friends that told them about the free offerings.


Don't misunderstand me. When I talk about going to the free listing, I'm talking about once every couple of months, if that, and not necessarily looking for indies. I actually can't remember the last time I looked at them. I don't stalk the free lists. I stalk the authors here. And if I find an author interesting here, I'll try out one of their books, be it free, $0.99, Prime Lending or regular price. And then decide whether to get more. But the bestselling book lists really mean nothing to me.

I do look at the bestselling app lists for the Fire pretty often because I have to find recommendations for the members here.

Betsy


----------



## BellaRoccaforte (May 26, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You are misunderstanding the conversation. You don't HAVE to have anything. Amazon simply appears to have split out the print bestsellers from the Kindle bestsellers. Having a print book won't impact anything (unless that print book itself is a bestseller).


thanks for the clarification!


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

I can never find the best seller's lists anyway.


----------



## Hopeful Writer (Jul 24, 2012)

I was initially quite worried about this. I've since calmed down a bit, and now I feel better.

Knowing that Amazon makes money off ebook sales rather than kindle sales makes me think that they'll do what's in their power to promote more ebook sales. As of now, it's easy for me to get to the kindle bestseller lists from the front page - they're on a right sidebar with a mini-bestseller list widget thing. I know this is customized to my browsing experience since they know I've bought ebooks before and they're trying to encourage me to do more. Yes, the bestseller list is books (no ebooks) but I hope this doesn't have too much impact.

People want either ebooks or print, I believe. I'm hoping that Amazon figures it out and manages to increase sales of both. Fingers crossed that this is what happens. 

I think it's a blow to indies to not have their books show up in the top 100. But this is a marathon, not a sprint. 

Elle, congrats on being #58. I know this blow comes at a terrible time for you, but fingers crossed it'll work out in the end, and work out to be even better than before


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Jason Eric Pryor said:


> People. I think we all need to focus on the more important things. The man said that Twinkies are coming back. How bad are things now?


I keep hearing about the Twinkies. I hate Twinkies. I want to know if the Ho-hos are coming back too? Or if not that, their cousin, the Ding-Dong?  And now I just giggled at seeing Ho-hos and Ding-Dongs in the same sentence. Was Hostess trying to be naughty when they named them?


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

MaryMcDonald said:


> I keep hearing about the Twinkies. I hate Twinkies. I want to know if the Ho-hos are coming back too? Or if not that, their cousin, the Ding-Dong?  And now I just giggled at seeing Ho-hos and Ding-Dongs in the same sentence. Was Hostess trying to be naughty when they named them?


Hostess used to have two of my favorite billboards in San Francisco:

One had two loaves of Hostess white bread looking at one another (kind of winking, to be honest) with the legend: SAN FRANCISCO - HOME OF FRESH GUYS.

The other said: SAN FRANCISCO: HOME OF TWINKIES.

I swear I am not making these up.

Sadly, they have been taken down.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

But what about Chocodiles?!


----------



## Daizie (Mar 27, 2013)

...or the Funny Bones, the chocolate peanut butter ones.


----------

