# Yesterday's KU Reporting Was Low



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Really low.

As usual, the chicken littles got up before the roosters. Blogging about this now, but thought I'd share my 7am graph.










People should wait a month to freak out. Or at least a week. Anyone pulling their works based on 12 hours or 24 hours of a new system reporting are making a knee-jerk reaction.

Keep in mind that Amazon's reporting is often based on PST. So in 4 hours, I have over 60% of yesterday's 24 hour haul. Without a new release.


----------



## L.B (Apr 15, 2015)

Interesting, thanks for posting Hugh.

My book goes into select on the 18th of August, so all this will be the norm for me!


----------



## David Penny (Jun 8, 2014)

Interestingly, I had a strong peak in Sales yesterday - almost as if people were confused about the new changes as readers. Can't see how that can be, but it was my best Sales day in around 3 months!

But I agree - even if someone downloads a title on July 1 we'll only get paid when they actually read the pages.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

I get much the same result - is there a pattern here?


----------



## doolittle03 (Feb 13, 2015)

Thanks for posting this. Not freaking out (I drink instead) but definitely felt defeated today. On June 1 I decided to go all in with Select.


----------



## Lady TL Jennings (Dec 8, 2011)

Same pattern here! Anyone else? 
Thanks for posting.


----------



## rachelmedhurst (Jun 25, 2014)

I agree. I got one sale and no page reads/borrows for yesterday. Not been that low this year so far. It's best to wait until everything has settled to see how it's really going to work.


----------



## R. M. Webb (Jul 24, 2014)

I had an insane number of pages read for someone who just has two novellas in KU. It's got to be a glitch. And honestly, glitches are to be expected this early in a change like this. I fully support not making any broad sweeping assumptions based on data that is only a day or two old. Wait until the wrinkles are ironed out.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

I'm not in Select, but sales were fine yesterday and they're really low so far today. From that I deduce absolutely nothing.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Hugh Howey said:


> As usual, the chicken littles got up before the roosters. Blogging about this now, but thought I'd share my 7am graph.


Do you read what you write? There was a problem yesterday! Some are honest about it, some try to hide it with talk about a better tomorrow.


----------



## NoahPorter (Sep 15, 2013)

It's not the slow reporting that's a problem, it's the $0.0057 per page of earnings.


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

Maybe I'm different from other readers, but I download a book when I find one I want to read. Then it just sits on my Kindle until I finish reading something else I've already started. If many are like me, books downloaded yesterday won't show any pages read for days ahead.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

NoahPorter said:


> It's not the slow reporting that's a problem, it's the $0.0057 per page of earnings.


FUD.

The pot is being split according to time spent writing and time spent reading. All the money is still going to authors. Your share is just based on something more fair than how you chunk up your novel or series.

The rest of my thoughts on the mass hysteria: http://wp.me/p6nPrM-8Wh


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

I saw the same graph. Nearly the same number of pages read today as yesterday...at 5AM.


----------



## Shiriluna Nott (Aug 26, 2014)

My graph at 8 am. Interesting.


----------



## NoahPorter (Sep 15, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> Your share is just based on something more fair than how you chunk up your novel or series.


Agree to disagree.


----------



## Lisa Blackwood (Feb 1, 2015)

I was planning on leaving Select until I heard about the changes. Now, I'll just wait and see.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I was getting borrows, usually about 5 a day on average. I have a graph showing zero pages read. I hope that is a glitch, sigh.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

NoahPorter said:


> Agree to disagree.


Nah ... when people are objectively wrong, I don't agree to disagree.

KU 1.0 was broken.

KU 2.0 is an improvement.

And I love that Amazon is willing to iterate, listen to customer and distributor feedback, and make changes.

There should've been 50 threads on what Scribd did this week. And 2 about KU 2.0.

But ... marketshare. Rather than principle. And I get that, but all the arm-flapping is pure hysteria, based on nonsense. The only people getting hurt with 2.0 are those who were unfairly rewarded with 1.0.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

R. M. Webb said:


> I had an insane number of pages read for someone who just has two novellas in KU. It's got to be a glitch. And honestly, glitches are to be expected this early in a change like this. I fully support not making any broad sweeping assumptions based on data that is only a day or two old. Wait until the wrinkles are ironed out.


I hope it is a glitch because for the first time in forever there have been no sales for two days. I am very depressed.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

*'based on time spent writing'*

Tell us more about your feelings on the short form and the work people put into producing quality works in it.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

What you're labeling as 'flipping out', I see as people making rational business decisions. I don't see that many people on here complaining about KU2.  I see them coming to the realization it doesn't work for them.

Yes, KU1 was unfair. And many people took advantage of that unfairness. But they weren't the ones who put the rules in place. They just responded to them.

And now the rules have changed, and they're responding again. KU2 works for you. That's great. Congratulations. But I have to make decisions on what works for me. 

You made a comment yesterday that you weren't out to 'maximize your earnings'.  I give you credit for that. You've worked hard and become successful, and because of that you can sit back and let the chips fall where they may. But most of us here aren't in that situation. We're either trying to support our families with the money we're making writing, or we're trying to get out of other jobs so that we can support our families writing.  We don't have the luxury of standing still. If Amazon isn't going to make it worthwhile to give them exclusivity, we can't afford to give it to them.


----------



## A. N. Other Author (Oct 11, 2014)

I'm not sure how being in the UK affects this, but here's mine:



It's 1:20PM here.


----------



## Christine_C (Jun 29, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> FUD.
> 
> The pot is being split according to time spent writing and time spent reading. All the money is still going to authors. Your share is just based on something more fair than how you chunk up your novel or series.
> 
> The rest of my thoughts on the mass hysteria: http://wp.me/p6nPrM-8Wh


It isn't right now, given the word count/page count discrepancies, but I'm hoping that is a bug that they will work out.


----------



## P.T. Phronk (Jun 6, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> The pot is being split according to time spent writing and time spent reading. All the money is still going to authors. Your share is just based on something more fair than how you chunk up your novel or series.


This is what most of these discussions miss. People see the half a cent figure and make conclusions likes "no authors are going to make anything!" or "the average author will make way less than before!" Which, given how it works, is impossible or unlikely.

A somewhat valid point is that the pool could be divided more ways, because now the pre-10% reading is included in the split. But this relies on the, um, "confident" belief that we Kboarders are somehow immune to having readers quit our books before reaching 10%. It's more likely that we're _all_ getting credited for that pre-10% portion now, so it makes no difference overall.

As a short story writer, I'll likely make much less than before. If I let my brain process that (instead of my whiny, emotional wallet), it's just a correction for me making too much in KU 1.0. It's like I got the "bank error in your favour" card in Monopoly. I'm happy I got it, but I never expected to keep picking it up. If the next few months indeed result in slow progress before passing "go," I can always try a new strategy. Luckily this game has no end.

For the record, I got lower than expected page reads yesterday, and zero this morning. With my degree in statistics, this allows me to deduce the following fascinating conclusions: * ABSOLUTELY * NOTHING *


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Hugh Howey said:


> Nah ... when people are objectively wrong, I don't agree to disagree.
> 
> KU 1.0 was broken.
> 
> ...


I have not participated in the KU hysteria, and generally, I agree with you. However, you didn't address children's book authors in your blog post.

My children are adults now, but when they were little, children's books were an important part of their lives.

I respect authors of children's books, and I feel sorry for children's book authors who participated in KU. I believe these authors ARE getting screwed.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> Nah ... when people are objectively wrong, I don't agree to disagree.
> 
> KU 1.0 was broken.
> 
> ...


A massive round of applause from me for this.

KU 1.0 was always going to be torn up at some point. We were assuming a scenario where payouts would dwindle to $1 per borrow and below, as Amazon essentially indulged in boiling frogs by edging the borrow rate down every couple of months.

Amazon's move in rewarding the number of pages actually read is a very sensible compromise (though I bet we'll see the page rate nudge down as well over the coming months). I've got both novel-length books and short stories in KU, so I feel I can be objective here. No one likes their toy being taken away, but there's no doubt this is a much fairer system of payment. And I say that as someone who isn't going to do particularly well out of it.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Sapphire said:


> Maybe I'm different from other readers, but I download a book when I find one I want to read. Then it just sits on my Kindle until I finish reading something else I've already started. If many are like me, books downloaded yesterday won't show any pages read for days ahead.


This morning I got 101 pages read on a book I haven't had a borrow on for weeks. So by that I deduce, you are not alone. But does this mean we won't get paid in the old way for June borrows? I mean, Amazon aren't going to pay twice if someone read 10% two months ago, then come back and read the rest are they? Very confusing and nobody knows how much the remuneration is going to be.


----------



## NoahPorter (Sep 15, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> The only people getting hurt with 2.0 are those who were unfairly rewarded with 1.0.


That was good for a laugh, thanks.


----------



## Chinese Writer (Mar 25, 2014)

I have the same graph as Hugh, except mine have a lot less zeros for my page count. Interestingly yesterday was the first day I saw a reader "read" through my series. The reader took a break for several hours then came back and finished the second novel after lunch. I'm sure it happened before, but seeing the page count was the first time this clicked into place for me. It was an ego boost. Before I have no idea if readers abandoned my books after the 10%. So this was a nice little discovery even though the sales and overall borrows seem less than normal.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

Jolie du Pre said:


> I have not participated in the KU hysteria, and generally, I agree with you. However, you didn't address children's book authors in your blog post.
> 
> My children are adults now, but when they were little, children's books were an important part of their lives.
> 
> I respect authors of children's books, and I feel sorry for children's book authors who participated in KU. I believe these authors ARE getting screwed.


Probably if I was a children's book author then I'd be looking to pull my books from KU. I guess you're talking about the authors of illustrated children's books here...


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Just read Hugh's blog post: Will now comment on it:

Quote: "The change to KU 2.0 has me revisiting whether or not to move my novels back into KDP Select."
Say what!!! You're not in KU, but you are telling others KU is wonderful? If a stock broker told me to invest in stock XXX and I asked him how much have you invested and he told me, Nothing, I would not listen to his advice.

Quote: "But you know what?"
What?

Quote: "I might take an entire day to make that decision."
My dear fellow, that is because you're not in KU! You are not being cooked in the pot right now. People in KU are deciding whether to LEAVE the cooking pot. You are deciding whether to HOP INTO the cooking pot. Apples and oranges.

Quote: "Hell, I might take a week."
You, sir, because you are NOT in KU, have time to think. Others have bills to pay at the end of this month.

Quote: "Or even a month!"
Now you're bragging! You're like the guy in the speedo on top of the diving board, waiting, waiting, until people start looking at him before he jumps into the water.

Quote: "or pine for a program that can be gamed and provides a worse experience for readers."
What about this: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,217467.0.html
Scammers are still here under KU version 2!

Quote: "I like to sleep in and have my breakfast before I do my clucking."
You're not in KU, so your earnings aren't getting decimated like erotica writers, like kids' books writers, like honest short story writers.

While you count sheep, short story writers count tears!

http://www.hughhowey.com/great-ku-flip-2015/


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

I'm seeing the same upswing today as posted in Howie's graph



Hugh Howey said:


> Nah ... when people are objectively wrong, I don't agree to disagree.
> 
> KU 1.0 was broken.
> 
> ...


Unfairly rewarded.... Wow.

In the KU1 system it made LOGICAL SENSE to produce short works and put them in KU. It was a good strategy and it gave many struggling authors a chance to make a living for themselves. For some this might have been the happiest time of their lives.

Just because you're not freaking out their money is now going in your pocket, you shouldn't be so surprised they're freaking out.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

alawston said:


> Probably if I was a children's book author then I'd be looking to pull my books from KU. I guess you're talking about the authors of illustrated children's books here...


Yes. I should have clarified. Thanks.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> *'based on time spent writing'*
> 
> Tell us more about your feelings on the short form and the work people put into producing quality works in it.


That was my previous blog post: http://www.hughhowey.com/why-ku-short-fiction-still-makes-sense/

All I've released over the last six months are short works. And short works are how I quit my day job and made a living as a writer. I'm spending all day today working on my short works.

Tell us more about your feelings on authors who confront hysteria with reason.


----------



## Matthew Stott (Oct 22, 2014)

Yeesh. What's with all the hostility? Can we not just discuss thoughts and facts?


----------



## NoahPorter (Sep 15, 2013)

drno said:


> Just read Hugh's blog post: Will now comment on it:
> 
> Quote: "The change to KU 2.0 has me revisiting whether or not to move my novels back into KDP Select."
> Say what!!! You're not in KU, but you are telling others KU is wonderful? If a stock broker told me to invest in stock XXX and I asked him how much have you invested and he told me, Nothing, I would not listen to his advice.
> ...


+100


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Hugh I get that you love Amazon, but you are bringing in the wrong side of the Scribd story and coming across as a fanboy. Smashwords first got wind of this sudden change a week before it happened, in other words right in that gap between Amazon's announcement of a sudden change and the actual change. Scribd's actions could therefore be seen as a validation for the new version of Kindle Unlimited in that they worry that this will pull away a lot of their customers. So rather than huffing and puffing while Scribd's house falls down maybe you should be concentrating on helping that chicken cross the road.

I pulled a short out of KU, but that is because a full read of the 7 pages would earn about a nickel and I'd rather have the freedom to give it away for free all month long. The 6 page short was already due to leave yesterday, but for the forseeable future my new non-shorts will go in KU. But that was the plan before Amazon's sudden announcement, which was made just after my two full-length works left KU because a marketing plan involves using Scribd free trials.

BTW for something to be objectively wrong it requires rock-solid factual evidence, not your opinion about one model being better than another. Even though I think KU 1.0 was an ill-thought-out scammers' paradise that does not make those who think otherwise objectively wrong.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Just because you're not freaking out their money is now going in your pocket, you shouldn't be so surprised they're freaking out.


I'm not surprised. I'm not shocked at all. I just think their outrage has no ethical foundation. As you eloquently put, their outrage is based on greed. I'm highlighting that.

Everyone acts like this isn't a zero-sum game, but it is. The pot is finite. So these poor souls you're concentrating on were taking money from novel-length writers, who were also trying to earn money for their families, and investing more time and effort to do so.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

drno said:


> Just read Hugh's blog post: Will now comment on it:
> 
> Quote: "The change to KU 2.0 has me revisiting whether or not to move my novels back into KDP Select."
> Say what!!! You're not in KU, but you are telling others KU is wonderful? If a stock broker told me to invest in stock XXX and I asked him how much have you invested and he told me, Nothing, I would not listen to his advice.
> ...


I'm in KU. So none of this makes sense.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

I've been out of my writer skin for long enough that I don't even understand the basics of the KU controversy.  This thread has helped a lot.  Thanks all, for the education.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Matthew Stott said:


> Yeesh. What's with all the hostility? Can we not just discuss thoughts and facts?


I know, right? You post a positive observation, and everyone goes nuts.

The way my KBoards participation has gone lately, this thread will be locked and fall into oblivion, rather than people being reprimanded as they should be for attacking a fellow member.


----------



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

KU doesn't interest me as an author, but as a reader it does. I expect yesterday's borrows to take days to fill in your graphs. I mean, not all of us download a book and read it that minute (for hours) until The End. If I read 10% of a book, I will most likely read it all but over a few days. If I can't read at least 10% in one sitting and enjoy myself, I'll more than likely delete it unread.

I don't see panic here on kboards, just lively speculation, but Hugh is right. You need to compare this *month's* revenue with *last* month's revenue before making a decision. A day or two of data, even a week or two, isn't enough IMO.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Well, KU is a zero sum game in some ways.

Fortunately, KU is optional. 

After talking to my rep this week, I was tentatively ready to put more work into KU and see how it did. But now I'm going to wait a little while for sure, since my blue line is flat and my sales the last two days crazy anemic. I hope it's a glitch, but... I don't know. It could be that KU is not the program for me. I've gotten my non-Amazon earnings up to 20-30% of Amazon, so perhaps staying wide is smarter. If I don't get any pages read on the work I already have in, I'll lose about 200-300 a month from losing those "borrows", money I could probably make up elsewhere. So... we'll see. I hope that blue line goes up for me, but I'm definitely in wait and watch mode...


----------



## Christine_C (Jun 29, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> Everyone acts like this isn't a zero-sum game, but it is. The pot is finite. So these poor souls you're concentrating on were taking money from novel-length writers, who were also trying to earn money for their families, and investing more time and effort to do so.


I think the concept is fine in theory, but right now there are problems with its implementation. There should be a stronger relationship between word count and page count,* and authors of books for young children need a different system all together.

*(If anyone has noticed that I'm obsessed with the issue, I can only blame the fact that I give IQ tests for a living and therefore am unduly preoccupied with standardization)


----------



## Kwalker (Aug 23, 2012)

Hugh,

My graph looks just like yours.
I do fully believe yesterday had low reporting, because I like to believe a lot of people are like me and read when they go to bed.
Plus it was the first day, and some pages read were probably counted and paid under the previous month's borrow system.

I haven't made up my mind on the new system vs. the old system yet, because it's just too early to really know anything. I know I didn't like the old, and I know that by running prospective numbers, I stand in a position to make an increase in revenue in all but 2 of my titles on the new.

I feel a lot of trepidation about the changes, but I'm not a person who likes change.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

drno said:


> While you count sheep, short story writers count tears!


Oh, for goodness sake.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

CN_Crawford said:


> I think the concept is fine in theory, but right now there are problems with its implementation. There should be a stronger relationship between word count and page count,* and authors of books for young children need a different system all together.
> 
> *(If anyone has noticed that I'm obsessed with the issue, I can only blame the fact that I give IQ tests for a living and therefore am unduly preoccupied with standardization)


Agreed. The KENPC metric needs to be more transparent. And surely they'll tweak it over time.

But remember that they have tons of data and machine learning at their disposal. So they can normalize time spent reading over millions of iterations across hundreds of thousands of ebooks, and use that to come up with what they feel is a standard that works. Showing us how they did that would be awesome.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> Everyone acts like this isn't a zero-sum game, but it is. The pot is finite. So these poor souls you're concentrating on were taking money from novel-length writers, who were also trying to earn money for their families, and investing more time and effort to do so.


And you place none of the blame at the feet of Amazon, who put the rules in place that encouraged authors to write shorter?


----------



## Marie Long (Jan 11, 2014)

I do have a question about something you said on your blog, Hugh:


> The change to KU 2.0 has me revisiting whether or not to move my novels back into KDP Select


Is KDP Select not the same as KU? Maybe I'm missing something here. I thought all Select books are automatically enrolled in KU?
If they're not the same, then can you elaborate on the pros and cons of using Select vs. KU?


----------



## ufwriter (Jan 12, 2015)

My graph looks very similar.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Hugh Howey said:


> I know, right? You post a positive observation, and everyone goes nuts.
> 
> The way my KBoards participation has gone lately, this thread will be locked and fall into oblivion, rather than people being reprimanded as they should be for attacking a fellow member.


But to be honest, some of your later responses have been just as reactionary. I'm surprised by that, because you're usually fairly level headed.

Post your opinion and just let it be. Some people won't agree with you, and some of those responses will be attacks. The MODS will have to deal with those.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

swolf said:


> And you place none of the blame at the feet of Amazon, who put the rules in place that encouraged authors to write shorter?


I think Amazon has been shown to be naive when it comes to assuming indie authors will put the customer experience ahead of profit-taking. That must be because of Amazon's own corporate biases, which are well-known and well-lamented by Wall Street and well-applauded by customers.

It took them a few months to see the results of their first system and how authors would game that system. They started working on a plan to correct that. It took them less time than it takes a publisher to release a hardback. For which part of this am I supposed to succumb to ADS?


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Sapphire said:


> Maybe I'm different from other readers, but I download a book when I find one I want to read. Then it just sits on my Kindle until I finish reading something else I've already started. If many are like me, books downloaded yesterday won't show any pages read for days ahead


I tend to be the same. When I want something new, I go looking, download 3 or 4, then work through them.

I'm in the one sale and zip reads boat for yesterday. My sales are all over the place normally, so its nothing unexpected.



Marie Long said:


> I do have a question about something you said on your blog, Hugh:
> Is KDP Select not the same as KU? Maybe I'm missing something here. I thought all Select books are automatically enrolled in KU?
> If they're not the same, then can you elaborate on the pros and cons of using Select vs. KU?


err, yes, I'd like that cleared up as well.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Jolie du Pre said:


> But to be honest, some of your later responses have been just as reactionary. I'm surprised by that, because you're usually fairly level headed.
> 
> Post your opinion and just let it be. Some people won't agree with you, and some of those responses will be attacks. The MODS will have to deal with those.


So I have been equally defensive in being attacked as people were offensive toward me for posting my thoughts on KU?

I see.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Marie Long said:


> I do have a question about something you said on your blog, Hugh:
> Is KDP Select not the same as KU? Maybe I'm missing something here. I thought all Select books are automatically enrolled in KU?
> If they're not the same, then can you elaborate on the pros and cons of using Select vs. KU?


Yes, they are the same. If you are in KDP Select, your works are in KU. I'm considering putting all my works into KDP Select, which is another way of saying I'm going to put them in KU.

Right now, about half my works are in KDP Select / KU. The other half are at other distributors and not in KDP Select / KU. And yeah, it's confusing, especially when I conflate terms or take mental shortcuts.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Hugh Howey said:


> So I have been equally defensive in being attacked as people were offensive toward me for posting my thoughts on KU?
> 
> I see.


Okay, Hugh. Nevermind.


----------



## Marie Long (Jan 11, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> Yes, they are the same. If you are in KDP Select, your works are in KU. I'm considering putting all my works into KDP Select, which is another way of saying I'm going to put them in KU.
> 
> Right now, about half my works are in KDP Select / KU. The other half are at other distributors and not in KDP Select / KU. And yeah, it's confusing, especially when I conflate terms or take mental shortcuts.


Ok thanks for clarifying


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

I'm not sure I can figure it all out. I've decided for now, for me, the only way to know what's best is give this new KU a try for about three months. It'll have worked out the kinks by then and we'll see if it works for individuals or not, I think.

I am concerned by the weirdness of the new page count; I wish they'd be a little more clear on that. I don't know if everybody can wait that long, but I think I need to. I can't really figure it all out before that.

To be honest, I didn't expect great things from the first version of KU, but it worked *for me*. I will have to wait and see what this one does before making further decisions. I was wide previously, and just didn't get a lot of traction. Amazon seems to be where most of my readers are, and many of them seem to like KU. So, I'll wait and see.


----------



## pwtucker (Feb 12, 2011)

Thanks for the perspective and post, Hugh. It's been an interesting past few days to say the least, and while I'm in favor of the changes Amazon is making, I wish they had been more transparent not only with how they generate their KENPC count but with the process as a whole.

Reading the various KU related threads this past month has been akin to attending a gathering of oracles who are trying to divine the future based on sheep entrails. We've been given so little concrete information about how this was all going to pan out that I think it's natural for people whose lives depend on this income to feel wary if not outright frustrated with Amazon's opaqueness. A lot of the bitterness and bewilderment we're seeing (and feeling) today could have been avoided with a better communication from Amazon, who could have attempted to assuage fears and concerns with a more detailed and thoughtful series of emails to all the KU authors.

Regardless. I'm going to be watching developments like a hawk, and come August 15 I will finally have some real data to work with.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Boyd said:


> I still don't have enough data to get worried or excited.
> 
> .......goes back to hiding.


I'm just happy to still get some sales and borrows on works I published almost a year ago. Yesterday, I got what looked like good movement on my KENP graph yesterday. We'll see how it all pans out.


----------



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

The new KU may be okay for fiction, but I'm going to pull my non-fiction. My Habermas book, that I have at $2.99, is marked down as 49 pages, which means that I'll probably get between $0.25-0.50 per read if people get all the way through it. Habermas, while a brilliant sociologist and philosopher, was probably the most boring writer of the modern era. His words can turn a normal human brain to cream-cheese and 50 cents just doesn't cut it as compensation for my suffering  .


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> I think Amazon has been shown to be naive when it comes to assuming indie authors will put the customer experience ahead of profit-taking. That must be because of Amazon's own corporate biases, which are well-known and well-lamented by Wall Street and well-applauded by customers.
> 
> It took them a few months to see the results of their first system and how authors would game that system. They started working on a plan to correct that. It took them less time than it takes a publisher to release a hardback. For which part of this am I supposed to succumb to ADS?


I don't have ADS. I love Amazon. They've provided the venue that allows me to support myself writing.

But I'm not going to put blinders on and not recognize that their rules are responsible for what happened. They would have to be incredibly naïve to not think that people would act in their own self-interest. As capitalists themselves, they would understand that self-interest is the driving force behind capitalism.

They made the rules, and people followed them. The authors who switched to writing shorter works did nothing wrong, and don't deserve to be accused of taking profits from other writers.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

swolf said:


> I don't have ADS. I love Amazon. They've provided the venue that allows me to support myself writing.
> 
> But I'm not going to put blinders on and not recognize that their rules are responsible for what happened. They would have to be incredibly naïve to not think that people would act in their own self-interest. As capitalists themselves, they would understand that self-interest is the driving force behind capitalism.
> 
> They made the rules, and people followed them. The authors who switched to writing shorter works did nothing wrong, and don't deserve to be accused of taking profits from other writers.


And some of us didn't "switch" to writing shorter works. Some of us write short works and have never written full-length novels. I've got one novel coming out, and that's it for me. I have no interest in publishing more of them.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Hugh Howey said:


> I'm in KU. So none of this makes sense.


In your blog post you say you are NOT in Select. You have to be in Select to be in KU.
UNLESS you have a SWEETHEART DEAL with amazon. Where you do not have to be *exclusive* and still get to be in KU. 
How is it that you are being unfairly rewarded and you point fingers at us? Why are you saying short story writers were unfairly rewarded in KU version 1 while you yourself have a SWEETHEAR DEAL with amazon?


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Hugh Howey said:


> I'm not surprised. I'm not shocked at all. I just think their outrage has no ethical foundation. As you eloquently put, their outrage is based on greed. I'm highlighting that.
> 
> Everyone acts like this isn't a zero-sum game, but it is. The pot is finite. So these poor souls you're concentrating on were taking money from novel-length writers, who were also trying to earn money for their families, and investing more time and effort to do so.


Greed doesn't equal trying to make a living. Greed implies exploitation. Maybe this is where we have issue.

In the old system you earn the SAME for a borrow of a short story, as a novel.

Logic = Write short stories. Make a living.

I'm going to say novel writers were investing the same time and effort as short fiction writers, but because they wouldn't adapt to the old KU system they were getting paid less. Obviously now, the system's changed.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

pwtucker said:


> Reading the various KU related threads this past month has been akin to attending a gathering of oracles who are trying to divine the future based on sheep entrails.


I think the sheep entrails would have been more interesting, and probably more accurate.

I just checked all my books. About a third of them are still in Select, and I was getting very few reads. One of them is my first novel, and it has been selling much better than it reads. I decided the ones I am not concerned with sales about, can remain with Select, and those not in it now, I've put back in. The other few, including my second novel, wont be in select at all. I figure if people like reading my first novel, they can buy the rest of the series. I'm not missing much as far as reading is concerned, as far as I can tell.

Like someone said, the non-fiction doesn't seem to be a reader in KU. So leaving them in there wont matter. And you never know.

As people are saying, lets see how things pan out.


----------



## David Penny (Jun 8, 2014)

While reading through this, and Hugh's post, something occurred to me.

What if Amazon started putting little tags against each book in KU showing percentage read? Wow - that could be a game changer. Instead of basing your choice on reviews or best-seller rank, you could pick books that most people read to completion.

This is surely only a small step from where they are at the moment. And what if they also started rewarding authors (Like the Kindle All Stars) whose books get more pages read than others.


----------



## J.A. Sutherland (Apr 1, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> Agreed. The KENPC metric needs to be more transparent. And surely they'll tweak it over time.


The payout needs to be transparent as well. At least they've moved a bit past the "$3-million plus whatever we decide" by clearly stating the July pot. What I'd like to see is a clear statement on how the pot's created -- such as "here's the KU subscription numbers and Amazon keeps 30% with the rest being the pot" or something like that.

My suspicion, though, is that they can't do that just yet because the pot's more than the revenue -- I have a feeling that they're taking a loss on KU to grow market share in it.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

Mr. Howey, you've conveniently avoided talking about children's books in relation to the new payout structure even though you've published one yourself.

My fellow children's book authors are hurting. I feel for them. They didn't game the system but are suffering because of it.

Congratulations on your success.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

J.A. Sutherland said:


> The payout needs to be transparent as well. At least they've moved a bit past the "$3-million plus whatever we decide" by clearly stating the July pot. What I'd like to see is a clear statement on how the pot's created -- such as "here's the KU subscription numbers and Amazon keeps 30% with the rest being the pot" or something like that.
> 
> My suspicion, though, is that they can't do that just yet because the pot's more than the revenue -- I have a feeling that they're taking a loss on KU to grow market share in it.


Almost certainly. They think they can see a trend towards subscription services, so they're taking a hit now in order to steal a march on the competition.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but children's books never earned much before KU, right?  Them earning less again isn't a huge change.  BUT, Amazon needs to find a way to grow that market.  Getting kids reading (and having good content to keep them reading) literally ensures the future of...readers.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

drno said:


> In your blog post you say you are NOT in Select. You have to be in Select to be in KU.
> UNLESS you have a SWEETHEART DEAL with amazon. Where you do not have to be *exclusive* and still get to be in KU.
> How is it that you are being unfairly rewarded and you point fingers at us? Why are you saying short story writers were unfairly rewarded in KU version 1 while you yourself have a SWEETHEAR DEAL with amazon?


Some of my works are in KDP Select. Some are not. I don't have a sweetheart deal. And you're being rude.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

S.E. Gordon said:


> Mr. Howey, you've conveniently avoided talking about children's books in relation to the new payout structure even though you've published one yourself.
> 
> My fellow children's book authors are hurting. I feel for them. They didn't game the system but are suffering because of it.
> 
> Congratulations on your success.


I'm happy to see that children's book authors have started a thread to discuss what to do next. That's important for solidarity and strength.

My best wishes to you and to all of them.


----------



## RyanAndrewKinder (Dec 14, 2014)

I think the new model is decent for a new set of people, but for books like mine... a nonfiction skill based book that isn't meant to be read in one sitting or even twenty sittings... I feel like the new program is saying "You don't belong." And yet, I feel skill, self help, howto books, etc. are one of the biggest draws for KU because those types of books, if they're good, are well researched and take as much time and effort as a novel to piece together. They are also a big draw for Unlimited. A few friends of mine signed up for KU because it was better than spending 4.99 per cookbook or per writing skill book on things they were looking to learn. So while it seems amazon wants to reward the.longer stuff, I feel they are also not thinking of the people that subscribe to unlimited almost exclusively for the short works.

That said: I will continue to allow my book to be included in KU for the time being. It had 6 page reads yesterday. Today, so far, it is over 200 page reads. So someone must have taken it out and decided to randomly flip through the whole of the book.


----------



## blubarry (Feb 27, 2015)

Hugh Howey said:


> Everyone acts like this isn't a zero-sum game, but it is. The pot is finite. So these poor souls you're concentrating on were taking money from novel-length writers, who were also trying to earn money for their families, and investing more time and effort to do so.


This. Thank you Hugh. Novelists in KU for exposure _were_ getting hurt by KU 1.0. Some wrote shorter lengths because they wanted to take advantage of the system (admittedly, I did this with novellas as well). This has leveled the playing field. Long term, this will be better for everyone.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

RyanAndrewKinder said:


> I think the new model is decent for a new set of people, but for books like mine... a nonfiction skill based book that isn't meant to be read in one sitting or even twenty sittings... I feel like the new program is saying "You don't belong." And yet, I feel skill, self help, howto books, etc. are one of the biggest draws for KU because those types of books, if they're good, are well researched and take as much time and effort as a novel to piece together. They are also a big draw for Unlimited. A few friends of mine signed up for KU because it was better than spending 4.99 per cookbook or per writing skill book on things they were looking to learn. So while it seems amazon wants to reward the.longer stuff, I feel they are also not thinking of the people that subscribe to unlimited almost exclusively for the short works.
> 
> That said: I will continue to allow my book to be included in KU for the time being. It had 6 page reads yesterday. Today, so far, it is over 200 page reads. So someone must have taken it out and decided to randomly flip through the whole of the book.


I think it'll be important for non-fiction authors and children's book authors to voice their complaints if this system is biased toward fiction authors. Amazon has shown that they listen to authors and are willing to tweak their business models accordingly. I'm not sure how they would begin to tackle these issues, but maybe if people had ideas and shared them, we could come up with something.

Perhaps time is a better measurement for children's book authors? Maybe repeat reads should count for children's books but not fiction? And maybe for non-fiction, there's a bonus for how often someone revisits the work over a longer period of time.

My thinking with non-fiction is that it makes less sense in a subscription model, anyway. If you want a reference material, it's best to own a copy. Same for children's books. But that reflects my own buying habits and biases.


----------



## CaraS. (Jul 18, 2014)

I have always had more sales than borrows, and I do write novels. Not of the same length though. At any rate, my borrows stayed in the same number range, and all I've learned thus far is that readers *seem* to be reading my novels through to the end. And that is what I consider "success" as a writer for myself. I know others feel differently, and respect that. I have all my work in KU, and will continue to leave it there, whatever Amazon does.

I also understand that short stories are not easy to write. And I did consider writing shorter works under the old KU system, but instead took a couple of extra-long short stories out of previous collection and ran those as separate reads. Not going to change that either.

All in all, I think it will be several months before we can really know for certain how we like the new KU. For one thing, the payout might be a deciding factor for many and all we have now are guesstimates.


----------



## darkline (Mar 30, 2014)

I'm observing the same thing. It looks like yesterday's KU reporting was indeed low(though I had more sales yesterday than I had in a month).


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> Nah ... when people are objectively wrong, I don't agree to disagree.
> 
> KU 1.0 was broken.
> 
> ...


Hugh, KU2 is broken because it doesn't pay out enough for most authors to demand exclusivity. Instead of using all your time and effort on this crusade against other authors, why not use the time and try to get Amazon to drop the exclusivity?

There were very few post about borrow numbers from yesterday. In fact, I only saw one, and most of us told that person that yesterday was likely to be the lowest day. You've created a complete strawman in order to find further reasons to cheerlead Amazon.


----------



## Marie Long (Jan 11, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> My thinking with non-fiction is that it makes less sense in a subscription model, anyway. If you want a reference material, it's best to own a copy. Same for children's books. But that reflects my own buying habits and biases.


That is my habit as well. I prefer to own reference books outright than obtain them temporarily via a subscription service. And I would imagine most parents buy children's books outright so that they can be read/reread to their kids (or kids can read it themselves). I think more children would prefer \a physical hardback/paperback than an ebook/tablet (since kids tend to play games and do other things on tablets more than read), but that's a debate for another thread.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

David Penny said:


> What if Amazon started putting little tags against each book in KU showing percentage read? Wow - that could be a game changer. Instead of basing your choice on reviews or best-seller rank, you could pick books that most people read to completion.
> 
> This is surely only a small step from where they are at the moment. And what if they also started rewarding authors (Like the Kindle All Stars) whose books get more pages read than others.


I mentioned this right at the beginning. But not sure if it would help as there might be nothing wrong with the book, just not to that reader's taste.


----------



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

Amazon is a canny organization and will always do what is best for their business. Despite many of my books not being favored by this new model, I can see why they did it. I'm also sure that, if Amazon find that they need more non-fic or children's books in KU, they'll find a way to include them.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

I always bought my children's books from bookstores.  But my children were born in the 1990s, before any of this was going on.

The 21st century parents of young children have Kindles and iPads and things that weren't available for my kids.

So I still think this new KU is bad for authors of illustrated children's books.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> People should wait a month to freak out. Or at least a week. Anyone pulling their works based on 12 hours or 24 hours of a new system reporting are making a knee-jerk reaction.


I think what's tipped the scales is the provided information regarding how much the fund will be, together with the total pages-read for last month. Nothing knee-jerk about realizing that $0.005 isn't worth the bother for a lot of people.


----------



## BlueGen (Jun 14, 2014)

RyanAndrewKinder said:


> I think the new model is decent for a new set of people, but for books like mine... a nonfiction skill based book that isn't meant to be read in one sitting or even twenty sittings... I feel like the new program is saying "You don't belong." And yet, I feel skill, self help, howto books, etc. are one of the biggest draws for KU because those types of books, if they're good, are well researched and take as much time and effort as a novel to piece together. They are also a big draw for Unlimited. A few friends of mine signed up for KU because it was better than spending 4.99 per cookbook or per writing skill book on things they were looking to learn. So while it seems amazon wants to reward the.longer stuff, I feel they are also not thinking of the people that subscribe to unlimited almost exclusively for the short works.
> 
> That said: I will continue to allow my book to be included in KU for the time being. It had 6 page reads yesterday. Today, so far, it is over 200 page reads. So someone must have taken it out and decided to randomly flip through the whole of the book.


I'm in a similar boat, writing short how-to/self-help books. To suggest I was unfairly compensated in KU 1 is simply inaccurate. One of these books took me an entire year to complete, such was the research that went into it. My books are dense, poetic and designed to be read slowly and thoughtfully. One of them has twice been awarded an all-star bonus.

If the 0.0057c payout is correct (and I know that's a big IF), I stand to lose around £1000/$1500 per month, not because I was previously a scammer, but because my books just don't have many pages in them.

I'll give it some time but it's looking like 'going wide' is the only option for writers like me.


----------



## Indiecognito (May 19, 2014)

Just throwing in data: 

I woke up yesterday with nearly 40K pages read. 

This morning I awoke to nearly 20K pages read (same time--in fact, I got up later today). 

I seem to be the anomaly, but yesterday didn't look low on my end. If it does turn out that today's an improvement, I'll be delighted as I ended the day with over 80K read. 

But I'm not holding out hope.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Sweet Amber said:


> I think what's tipped the scales is the provided information regarding how much the fund will be, together with the total pages-read for last month. Nothing knee-jerk about realizing that $0.005 isn't worth the bother for a lot of people.


How are people calculating their KU income based on the $0.0057? Do they know how many of their pages were read in previous months? Are they taking total borrows, multiplying by the new KENPC, then multiplying by $0.0057? If that number is 60% lower, as many are saying, then where is all that extra money going? It all comes out of the $11 million fund, so that money is going to other authors, right?

I guess what's happening here is that a lot of authors are realizing they're going to make more money under a fairer system, and they're keeping that information to themselves? That could explain it.


----------



## Michael Murray (Oct 31, 2011)

IMO one thing that has alot of people freaked out and leaving is the principle of the thing: 

1. Your boss says two weeks before payday "hey I've got a new way to pay you your paycheck - now it will be based on pages read and here is an example showing how you'll make .10 per hour next week."

2. Your boss then says "hey when I ran the numbers it turns out that you'll actually make 0.006 hour but you get paid for every hour you work, isn't this great!"

Alot of people would leave just because of that sort of wildly varying communication about a person's pay, which destroys trust, in a regular job.


----------



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

Hugh Howey said:


> Some of my works are in KDP Select. Some are not. I don't have a sweetheart deal. And you're being rude.


There's a reason that particular poster is on my Ignore list.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

SevenDays said:


> There's a reason that particular poster is on my Ignore list.


There's an ignore list? Why doesn't everyone just put me on it and save the mods all this work?!


----------



## RyanAndrewKinder (Dec 14, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> I think it'll be important for non-fiction authors and children's book authors to voice their complaints if this system is biased toward fiction authors. Amazon has shown that they listen to authors and are willing to tweak their business models accordingly. I'm not sure how they would begin to tackle these issues, but maybe if people had ideas and shared them, we could come up with something.
> 
> Perhaps time is a better measurement for children's book authors? Maybe repeat reads should count for children's books but not fiction? And maybe for non-fiction, there's a bonus for how often someone revisits the work over a longer period of time.
> 
> My thinking with non-fiction is that it makes less sense in a subscription model, anyway. If you want a reference material, it's best to own a copy. Same for children's books. But that reflects my own buying habits and biases.


Good thoughts all around. I think the two primary issues here are that 1) Amazon isn't really clear on the system and 2) Books are far too complex to put into a single payout system.

Rereads are a big thing for childrens books. Amount of times referenced is a big thing for skill/reference books. Pages read is the big part of novels. There is no singular system that would please everyone. I guess Amazon will have a lot to consider in the coming days.


----------



## Matthew Stott (Oct 22, 2014)

One thing a change like this highlights, is that the indie world is ever shifting. If one platform changing one thing is liable to bring your ceiling crashing down, then you were on unsafe ground to start with just waiting for the big one.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

> I'm in a similar boat, writing short how-to/self-help books. To suggest I was unfairly compensated in KU 1 is simply inaccurate. One of these books took me an entire year to complete, such was the research that went into it. My books are dense, poetic and designed to be read slowly and thoughtfully. One of them has twice been awarded an all-star bonus.


I would agree with you that going wide might make sense in this new system. I would also wonder if a subscription model makes sense for a work that requires that much effort and time and can be read so quickly. The only way to place a value on that time is in how the author prices it. If they can get $1.38 for a quick read, then it might make sense. Otherwise, it might need to be priced at $5.99 or even higher, and let the value, reviews, and word-of-mouth do the selling.

What's difficult is knowing the value of the work put in and expecting that to be reflected to the reader or retailer without some sort of flag. Another option would be to simply appeal to readers. Include an afterword that tells the story of how much effort and research went into the writing of the piece and a place to donate or tip. Even better, write that afterword in such a compelling and insightful way that it adds to the enjoyment of the original, keeps the readers glued to every word you are saying about what they just read, and enjoy the income commensurate with their customer experience.

The new "Gaming the System" is going to be figuring out how to keep readers engaged with your works. I wish we could compile a list of people freaking out over this change, as it would vastly simplify my book browsing and shopping.


----------



## RyanAndrewKinder (Dec 14, 2014)

BlueGen said:


> I'm in a similar boat, writing short how-to/self-help books. To suggest I was unfairly compensated in KU 1 is simply inaccurate. One of these books took me an entire year to complete, such was the research that went into it. My books are dense, poetic and designed to be read slowly and thoughtfully. One of them has twice been awarded an all-star bonus.
> 
> If the 0.0057c payout is correct (and I know that's a big IF), I stand to lose around £1000/$1500 per month, not because I was previously a scammer, but because my books just don't have many pages in them.
> 
> I'll give it some time but it's looking like 'going wide' is the only option for writers like me.


Your post made me think of something. If a lot of the reasons why this new system was set up was because scammers were being rewarded, why not figure out how to rid scammers from participation instead? If a book had to maintain at least a three star rating, a lot of the scamming spam books would be eliminated entirely and making the playing field more level. It would also enforce a certain level of quality within the KU ecosystem.


----------



## Michael Murray (Oct 31, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> How are people calculating their KU income based on the $0.0057? Do they know how many of their pages were read in previous months? Are they taking total borrows, multiplying by the new KENPC, then multiplying by $0.0057? If that number is 60% lower, as many are saying, then where is all that extra money going? It all comes out of the $11 million fund, so that money is going to other authors, right?


100x1.35 =$135 - assumes 100 borrows for a 100 page book.

100x100*.0057 = $57 - assumes same book, same borrows, all pages read.

Not sure where the extra money is going to go, maybe bonuses to the MBAs who came up with this?


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> The new "Gaming the System" is going to be figuring out how to keep readers engaged with your works. I wish we could compile a list of people freaking out over this change, as it would vastly simplify my book browsing and shopping.


I'm fairly relaxed, for what it's worth. If people go to the trouble of downloading an 18th Century French translation _at all_, they tend to be the types to see it through to the bitter end.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> How are people calculating their KU income based on the $0.0057? Do they know how many of their pages were read in previous months? Are they taking total borrows, multiplying by the new KENPC, then multiplying by $0.0057? If that number is 60% lower, as many are saying, then where is all that extra money going? It all comes out of the $11 million fund, so that money is going to other authors, right?
> 
> I guess what's happening here is that a lot of authors are realizing they're going to make more money under a fairer system, and they're keeping that information to themselves? That could explain it.


My understanding is the estimated pages-read payout is being calculated in the same way the pay-out per borrow was calculated for previous months, now that they let us in on kind of what to expect regarding money and total pages-read.

We don't have any information regarding how many of _our_ borrows were, for example, 100% read-throughs, but some of us have good ways of surmising this information, especially those who publish frequently and write in series or serials.

Although I don't think all novels that are borrowed are read-through 100% of the way, I think there are a wide swath of novels and series of novels which will all make significantly more through KU, significantly more per borrow, and I think that this is great for them - and I think it's great that a much more equitable manner of pay-out is going to be gone by.

I think Amazon has made it really clear exactly what type of service they want Kindle Unlimited to be, and it's natural that this excludes a lot of authors because it doesn't offer them any advantage anymore. For these authors, waiting weeks or a month would send the wrong message to Amazon regarding exactly what their changes mean for everyone else.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

While I'm waiting to see what happens and not yanking my work. I find this whole,"you were gaming the system and don't deserve your income" thing a bit condescending. I'm a single mother and the sole provider of my 4 year old child. I'd like for all the people yelling that authors who adjusted to the old KU system to look me in the face, as a real human being who is taking a massive pay cut, and tell me "it's just the logical facts!" 

If novel writing had made sense for the last  year, I would have done that. I built my income off of what was bringing me the most money (which guess what, is logical). I'm changing my writing strategy as of two weeks ago. But when millionaires tell me that I'm hysterical because I'm shocked and dismayed that I might have to take my daughter out of the preschool she loves or might lose the first car I ever owned, I find it a bit... irritating.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Matthew Stott said:


> One thing a change like this highlights, is that the indie world is ever shifting. If one platform changing one thing is liable to bring your ceiling crashing down, then you were on unsafe ground to start with just waiting for the big one.


Everyone is on unsafe ground because they're on their own. A lot of writers have lost out due to this change, and it's really sad to see other writers turn on them smiling saying 'told you so.'


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Sweet Amber said:


> I think Amazon has made it really clear exactly what type of service they want Kindle Unlimited to be, and it's natural that this excludes a lot of authors because it doesn't offer them any advantage anymore. For these authors, waiting weeks or a month would send the wrong message to Amazon regarding exactly what their changes mean for everyone else.


Well-said. I respect this, and I agree with you. Haven't seen it put so eloquently and calmly.


----------



## Kylo Ren (Mar 29, 2014)

2 cents: Writers who thought earning the same per borrow for short works as for longer works was something that was sustainable indefinitely were being naive. The system has adjusted. It's time to adjust as well. Develop strategies not tactics. Strategies are sustainable. Tactics are not.

Disclaimer: coming from someone who sells bupkis, so whatevs.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Sweet Amber said:


> I think Amazon has made it really clear exactly what type of service they want Kindle Unlimited to be, and it's natural that this excludes a lot of authors because it doesn't offer them any advantage anymore. For these authors, waiting weeks or a month would send the wrong message to Amazon regarding exactly what their changes mean for everyone else.


I think what they envision KU2 being is going to cause them problems. As a reader, I'm not interested in KU2 because now I will just get access to a bunch of low-priced self published novels. It would be cheaper for me to just buy these novels. Now, as a short story reader, KU1 was a good deal because the subscription made financial sense. It would be more expensive to buy those shorts every month than to have the subscription. Apparently KU subscriptions are already very low, so it will be interesting how this shakes out.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Khaleesi said:


> While I'm waiting to see what happens and not yanking my work. I find this whole,"you were gaming the system and don't deserve your income" thing a bit condescending. I'm a single mother and the sole provider of my 4 year old child. I'd like for all the people yelling that authors who adjusted to the old KU system to look me in the face, as a real human being who is taking a massive pay cut, and tell me "it's just the logical facts!"
> 
> If novel writing had made sense for the last year, I would have done that. I built my income off of what was bringing me the most money (which guess what, is logical). I'm changing my writing strategy as of two weeks ago. But when millionaires tell me that I'm hysterical because I'm shocked and dismayed that I might have to take my daughter out of the preschool she loves or might lose the first car I ever owned, I find it a bit... irritating.


1000 percent behind you Khaleesi.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Briteka said:


> Apparently KU subscriptions are already very low, so it will be interesting how this shakes out.


Would love to see some links to back that up.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> Well-said. I respect this, and I agree with you. Haven't seen it put so eloquently and calmly.






Khaleesi said:


> While I'm waiting to see what happens and not yanking my work. I find this whole,"you were gaming the system and don't deserve your income" thing a bit condescending. I'm a single mother and the sole provider of my 4 year old child. I'd like for all the people yelling that authors who adjusted to the old KU system to look me in the face, as a real human being who is taking a massive pay cut, and tell me "it's just the logical facts!"
> 
> If novel writing had made sense for the last year, I would have done that. I built my income off of what was bringing me the most money (which guess what, is logical). I'm changing my writing strategy as of two weeks ago. But when millionaires tell me that I'm hysterical because I'm shocked and dismayed that I might have to take my daughter out of the preschool she loves or might lose the first car I ever owned, I find it a bit... irritating.


Oof , love your avatar/screen name.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Khaleesi said:


> While I'm waiting to see what happens and not yanking my work. I find this whole,"you were gaming the system and don't deserve your income" thing a bit condescending. I'm a single mother and the sole provider of my 4 year old child. I'd like for all the people yelling that authors who adjusted to the old KU system to look me in the face, as a real human being who is taking a massive pay cut, and tell me "it's just the logical facts!"
> 
> If novel writing had made sense for the last year, I would have done that. I built my income off of what was bringing me the most money (which guess what, is logical). I'm changing my writing strategy as of two weeks ago. But when millionaires tell me that I'm hysterical because I'm shocked and dismayed that I might have to take my daughter out of the preschool she loves or might lose the first car I ever owned, I find it a bit... irritating.


My question is this, then: Does it take you the same amount of time to write 10 short pieces as it takes someone to write a novel? It isn't that I begrudge anyone earning money as a writer, I just don't get people thinking that a system that paid according to titles produced rather than hours worked is fair.

Keep writing. You don't even have to write longer or write novels. How the words are chunked no longer matters. I guess someone would have to show me that a 10,000 word story takes the same amount of time to write as a 100,000 word novel for me to understand the complaint. Or I guess we're supposed to feel bad about the person who writes 10,000 word stories today but ignore the effort and children and lack of food on the table of the novelists of last year?

You can't root for one of these parties without it costing the other side money. We all want free money from nowhere to go to the people we sympathize with, without considering the costs this has on others. It's like voters passing a bill to have a new road put in and then finding out the schools are going to suffer. Where's that free money?!

It was coming out of someone else's pocket before. It's not now. Sucks for those who were getting the money last year. Doesn't suck overall today. Keep writing good stuff.


----------



## Daniel Knight (Jul 2, 2013)

Briteka said:


> Hugh, KU2 is broken because it doesn't pay out enough for most authors to demand exclusivity. Instead of using all your time and effort on this crusade against other authors, why not use the time and try to get Amazon to drop the exclusivity?


I think Hugh has said he has often talked to Amazon about dropping exclusivity (but I could be wrong). I definitely understand the desire to drop that requirement, and on one hand I agree with it - but on the other hand it could dramatically affect KU. Right now there is a limited pool of KDP titles enrolled in select and by extension KU. What happens if all KDP titles can be in KU? All those page reads could now potentially be spread out over many more titles, and people could see an even bigger decrease in their KU earnings.


----------



## Matthew Stott (Oct 22, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Everyone is on unsafe ground because they're on their own. A lot of writers have lost out due to this change, and it's really sad to see other writers turn on them smiling saying 'told you so.'


I'm not smiling (face is strictly in neutral). I'm also not saying 'told you so'. It's just a fact with any business, being heavily reliant on one stream puts you in more danger. I'm obviously not happy that anyone is worse off, I'm not evil. (Well, I did kill that one guy, but who among us doesn't have a past?)


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

bb-8 said:


> 2 cents: Writers who thought earning the same per borrow for short works as for longer works was something that was sustainable indefinitely were being naive. The system has adjusted. It's time to adjust as well. Develop strategies not tactics. Strategies are sustainable. Tactics are not.
> 
> Disclaimer: coming from someone who sells bupkis, so whatevs.


1,000X this. From someone who also sells bupkis, which I hope means a lot.


----------



## Indiecognito (May 19, 2014)

When I first started publishing, there was a real trend of writing shorts (mostly erotic) and putting them up for $2.99. If they went into KDP Select, fine. Borrows weren't what they are now, so no one thought too hard about it.

When KU came along, those authors really cashed in. Their books were still up for $2.99, and when sales crashed, borrows rose, so it was okay to take a hit in royalties. 

Before, when they were simply charging $2.99 for a 4500-word short, they were never accused of "gaming the system." It was what the market would bear. People were willing to pay for those shorts. 

KU made others look at authors of shorts as somehow cheating. Although this current system is ultimately more fair (with the exception, as mentioned, of Children's Book authors), it is like throwing an Atlantic Ocean-sized bucket of ice water on a lot of people who had, for years, been making a living in a relatively stable environment. 

I stopped writing shorts eons ago for various reasons, but I understand why this is so painful; it's harder to pull in the buys now because of KU, but if an author stays in, their income tanks. 

I'm a middle-of-the-line writer; I have novels and novellas out, and boxed sets. I will come out all right, no doubt. Not, perhaps, as wealthy as before, but I'll survive. Others won't. And for those people who have always written for their audience but are now losing out, I am sorry. There is something unfair in such a drastic, abrupt shift.


----------



## Kylo Ren (Mar 29, 2014)

Also, I'm pretty sure Amazon doesn't owe any indie writers an income.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I earn six figures on works mostly between 15k and 50k words. Most of those works aren't in Select/KU, but some are. Knowing my sell-through on series books, taking my new page count, and doing the rough math, I'm going to lose money from KU now. The question for me isn't "will I make less?" but "will I still make more than I would by going to other platforms with those particular works?"  And, for me, that is what the jury is still out on. I have six weeks until those titles lapse from KU/Select naturally, which should be enough time to me to look at my numbers and make that decision. 

However, I have the luxury of knowing that even if I have a dip in income, I'll be fine, because of my other books and because of savings for just this kind of situation. (Publishing is a rollercoaster, heh, always good to save save save for the rainy months or years). 

Strategies will have to change for some. Fortunately, we have the power to take our work and put it wide or test out different strats. There's going to be some struggle though for a lot of people, and I don't think gloating about that is very nice. This is a big change and it'll take some time for people to adjust (just as happened with KU 1.0) and some people are going to feel the losses more than others.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Jim Johnson said:


> Would love to see some links to back that up.


We have the pages read number for June at 1.9 billion of this new inflated "page". That's a top end of 10 million subscribers, and that's being generous. Scribd, for example, has somewhere over 80 million subscribers.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Casey Lucas, a literary editor who works with self-publishing authors, says she has lost six clients already. They have decided to stop writing after "estimating a 60-80% reduction in royalties".

"A lot of self-published romance authors are disabled, stay-at-home mums, or even a few returned veterans who work in the field because a regular job just isn't something they can handle," she says. "People are shedding a lot of tears over this."

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/02/amazon-pay-self-published-authors-per-page-read-kindle


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> My question is this, then: Does it take you the same amount of time to write 10 short pieces as it takes someone to write a novel? It isn't that I begrudge anyone earning money as a writer, I just don't get people thinking that a system that paid according to titles produced rather than hours worked is fair.
> 
> Keep writing. You don't even have to write longer or write novels. How the words are chunked no longer matters. I guess someone would have to show me that a 10,000 word story takes the same amount of time to write as a 100,000 word novel for me to understand the complaint. Or I guess we're supposed to feel bad about the person who writes 10,000 word stories today but ignore the effort and children and lack of food on the table of the novelists of last year?
> 
> ...


The thing is, those writers who were not making money over the last year could have adjusted to the old system to make more money. Just as I have to now. And yes, novels definitely have the advantage now. I see my old, low ranking longer work is holding pace with my highly ranked shorts released in the past month. It is funny to see rank completely detached from income. Isn't it? So, yeah. Novels. Anything at 45k words and up. That's the new normal.



Sweet Amber said:


> Oof , love your avatar/screen name.


I am the mother of dragons. I am resurrected from flames and the ashes of KU1. Anyway... Back to work.


----------



## Indiecognito (May 19, 2014)

Annie B said:


> I earn six figures on works mostly between 15k and 50k words. Most of those works aren't in Select/KU, but some are. Knowing my sell-through on series books, taking my new page count, and doing the rough math, I'm going to lose money from KU now. The question for me isn't "will I make less?" but "will I still make more than I would by going to other platforms with those particular works?" And, for me, that is what the jury is still out on. I have six weeks until those titles lapse from KU/Select naturally, which should be enough time to me to look at my numbers and make that decision.


I'm in the same boat. I'll make a living. I won't make the same one, but it'll be enough. My read-through is great, mostly because I write suspenseful romance and people always want to know how it'll end--ironic in romance, given that we always know that. 

My question through the summer will be whether to yank everything, or if there's a way to fit into this system and regain the income that I had. Time and royalty reports will tell.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

bb-8 said:


> Also, I'm pretty sure Amazon doesn't owe any indie writers an income.


No one said they did.

But at this point, Amazon doesn't move enough units to dictate certain terms for us. It's perfectly fine for us to discuss when Amazon has gone too far, and it's perfectly fine for us to pick up and leave whatever bad thing Amazon has implemented.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

> Didn't this just launch??! Seems a bit quick to chuck it all away, they suely haven't even had chance to see how it all shakes out.


I agree. I think I've decided to stay in until the first payout because this $.005 estimate just seems slightly off. Still, even if that is doubled, for many authors, that's still not close enough to being worth staying in because they will make more going wide. For those people, they are just losing money by staying in, and there's really no way that this new system will ever not lose money for them.


----------



## Becca Fanning (May 17, 2014)

Alas, my page numbers are progressing just like they were yesterday, so I'll be pulling my stuff out of KDP Select. You're all welcome to my penny shavings.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Khaleesi said:


> While I'm waiting to see what happens and not yanking my work. I find this whole,"you were gaming the system and don't deserve your income" thing a bit condescending. I'm a single mother and the sole provider of my 4 year old child. I'd like for all the people yelling that authors who adjusted to the old KU system to look me in the face, as a real human being who is taking a massive pay cut, and tell me "it's just the logical facts!"
> 
> If novel writing had made sense for the last year, I would have done that. I built my income off of what was bringing me the most money (which guess what, is logical). I'm changing my writing strategy as of two weeks ago. But when millionaires tell me that I'm hysterical because I'm shocked and dismayed that I might have to take my daughter out of the preschool she loves or might lose the first car I ever owned, I find it a bit... irritating.


Exactly.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Briteka said:


> But at this point, Amazon doesn't move enough units to dictate certain terms for us. It's perfectly fine for us to discuss when Amazon has gone too far, and it's perfectly fine for us to pick up and leave whatever bad thing Amazon has implemented.


Amazon is inviting people into their house and their system to publish. *Of course* they get to dictate terms. They don't owe us anything. Their T&Cs make it perfectly clear that they'll change their program as they desire, without notice if necessary, and everyone who publishes with them has agreed to that (assuming they even bothered to read the T&Cs).

If writers don't like that, they have every right to pack up and get out of the program.


----------



## crow.bar.beer (Oct 20, 2014)

Indiecognito said:


> I stopped writing shorts eons ago for various reasons, but I understand why this is so painful; it's harder to pull in the buys now because of KU, but if an author stays in, their income tanks.


I don't think erotica authors have _too_ much to worry about it being harder to pull in the buys now, since so many are in the process of pulling their catalogs from KU (something in the interest of both the authors and Amazon... just not the readers who are going to go back to paying more anyway since the KU fix won't shoot up quite as nicely as it did before, now that everyone's pulling titles ). I _do_ believe the market will take some time to adjust from being so saturated, since there _was_ an upswell of cash going on for quite a good time and everyone got out their buckets (ahh what a fun past few months it's been ), but 70% at $2.99 is very tasty indeed. And, for those who don't write in more taboo kinks, there's always the classic perma-free strategy. Personally, I think it's a good time to be an erotica shorts author.


----------



## TWLuedke (Nov 8, 2013)

I posted something like this elsewhere, I think on digitalreader.

Hard facts to face:  KU subscriber base is the driving force of 'sales' (borrows mostly) in certain genres, for Indie fiction. 

Let me qualify that statement:  KU is filled with primarily Indie novels, like 99%, with a little sprinkling of small press. Big 5 novels are not in the program. So, who is the readership? It is a readership of Indie fiction, and, its also a bunch of bibliophiles who consume books more rapidly than the Average Joe. Only bibliophiles who enjoy Indie fiction are willing to pay for KU, and keep paying for it, because they get what they want, its a solid value for that sort of reader.

So, if you are an Indie author, in certain genres of fiction, KU is vital to your market because KU has the single largest concentration of readers of your fiction. THIS IS NOT TRUE FOR EVERY GENRE, ONLY CERTAIN ONES.

The KU fan base can be visualized if you spend enough time in the trenches studying bestseller charts and search terms on Amazon. Its not rocket science.

The point? 

Indie authors in these genres need KU. We need it like a junky needs a fix, because its where our readers are sitting, waiting for the next head rush, waiting for the new thing, waiting to download and consume their next fiction emotional high. Whatever terms Amazon imposes for publishing in KU, many Indie authors will simply have to weather the storm and adjust, because KU is where their bread is buttered and where the readers are gobbling up massive quantities of Indie fiction.

For those who have learned how to make KU work, how to present fiction to the KU fan base, this is simply a period of adjustment, a new paradigm. 

It sucks for many, might be better for others, but KU is still the place we need to be (for certain genres).


----------



## CJAnderson (Oct 29, 2014)

Hugh,

Do you support the Amazon 35% vs 70% royalty system?


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Matthew Stott said:


> I'm not smiling (face is strictly in neutral). I'm also not saying 'told you so'. It's just a fact with any business, being heavily reliant on one stream puts you in more danger. I'm obviously not happy that anyone is worse off, I'm not evil. (Well, I did kill that one guy, but who among us doesn't have a past?)


That's okay. I get what you're saying.

The whole thing about KU was that you can't go anywhere else to sell. I suppose you're being anti KU then.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Jim Johnson said:


> Amazon is inviting people into their house and their system to publish. *Of course* they get to dictate terms. They don't owe us anything. Their T&Cs make it perfectly clear that they'll change their program as they desire, without notice if necessary, and everyone who publishes with them has agreed to that (assuming they even bothered to read the T&Cs).
> 
> If writers don't like that, they have every right to pack up and get out of the program.


Did I say anything differently? That doesn't mean we can't discuss Amazon's bad terms.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

CJAnderson said:


> Hugh,
> 
> Do you support the Amazon 35% vs 70% royalty system?


Further, is Amazon now paying him less on his shorts than he would make on a trade published deal? The same deals he lambasted for years because of them being unfair for the author.


----------



## LudwigVonStroodle (Jul 1, 2015)

Hugh Howey said:


> The only people getting hurt with 2.0 are those who were unfairly rewarded with 1.0.


Fair is subjective. Outside KU, shorts easily sell for $2.99 (and sometimes more) which overlaps with low priced novels. It isn't unreasonable to believe that shorts in KU should be compensated similarly to novels if that's how it works on the open market. If you look at it in terms of the borrow being a % of the list price, then I can see how this new system wouldn't seem fair to shorts at all. It might even shortchange them worse than even the most expensive novels in the old system.

The real problem here is that shorts just aren't sustainable in a subscription service at any decent pay rate. At half a cent per page, a subscriber needs to read more than 2,000 pages for Amazon to lose money on them. In the old system, they could have lost money after just a hundred pages of shorts. There isn't a future for shorts in KU beyond being a promotional tool because Amazon can never pay out anywhere near the market price without losing money. Unfortunately, many other books are getting lumped in with the shorts (Children's stories, nonfiction, etc) which probably weren't a threat the way short stories were but Amazon doesn't have a way to deal with those yet.

The change to a pay per page model is completely understandable, but their implementation has been terrible. The complaints about Amazon implementing such a major change with so little warning or information are totally valid. There was a huge number of people making a legitimate living on the old system, who now have absolutely no idea what the next month will earn them or what they should do now. Past rate fluctuations were tolerable because they've always been fairly small, but this one leaves many writers open to losing a large percentage of their income without warning. It was a dick move.


----------



## C. Rysalis (Feb 26, 2015)

Jim Johnson said:


> Amazon is inviting people into their house and their system to publish. *Of course* they get to dictate terms. They don't owe us anything. Their T&Cs make it perfectly clear that they'll change their program as they desire, without notice if necessary, and everyone who publishes with them has agreed to that (assuming they even bothered to read the T&Cs).
> 
> If writers don't like that, they have every right to pack up and get out of the program.


Well said. Sadly, it's how the world works. The big players define the rules of the game, and everyone else either agrees or leaves.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

TWLuedke said:


> Let me qualify that statement: KU is filled with primarily Indie novels, like 99%, with a little sprinkling of small press. Big 5 novels are not in the program.


Minor note: All of Amazon's publishing imprints are in KU, as are a number of presses that aren't Big 5 but have been around a long time. Algonquin for example.

Agree with all your other points.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

bb-8 said:


> Also, I'm pretty sure Amazon doesn't owe any indie writers an income.


Oh fabulous. Believe it or not, yes, they do have to pay us every month.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Indiecognito said:


> When I first started publishing, there was a real trend of writing shorts (mostly erotic) and putting them up for $2.99. If they went into KDP Select, fine. Borrows weren't what they are now, so no one thought too hard about it.
> 
> When KU came along, those authors really cashed in. Their books were still up for $2.99, and when sales crashed, borrows rose, so it was okay to take a hit in royalties.
> 
> ...


Thank you.

This isn't about gaming a system. Short aren't anything new (I write novels, too. By the way.) Writers were making money fine and dandy off of shorts in the open market pre-KU. KU came so they switched tactics which somehow became "cheating." When I thought it was simply adding my library to the program that was starting to cannibalize sales in the open market. Anyways, I'm off to writing...


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

CJAnderson said:


> Hugh,
> 
> Do you support the Amazon 35% vs 70% royalty system?


Nope. I hate it. I've been pressuring them to drop it for 5 years. I argue that box sets should be allowed to earn 70% over $9.99 and short fiction should get 65% under $2.99.

Why is this thread about me instead of about what I posted?


----------



## Matthew Stott (Oct 22, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> That's okay. I get what you're saying.
> 
> The whole thing about KU was that you can't go anywhere else to sell. I suppose you're being anti KU then.


Can't say I'm a huge fan of the idea. Especially as it can lead to situations like this. If you're all in, and they change the game, it can lead to a sudden reduction of earnings, panic, and you might not have any way to swiftly pivot as you're too invested. You don't have enough/anything built elsewhere to keep your head up. I'm all for using KU, i just hate the idea of anyone relying on it, because it might turn round and kick you in the rude parts.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

LudwigVonStroodle said:


> Fair is subjective. Outside KU, shorts easily sell for $2.99 (and sometimes more) which overlaps with low priced novels. It isn't unreasonable to believe that shorts in KU should be compensated similarly to novels if that's how it works on the open market. If you look at it in terms of the borrow being a % of the list price, then I can see how this new system wouldn't seem fair to shorts at all. It might even shortchange them worse than even the most expensive novels in the old system.
> 
> The real problem here is that shorts just aren't sustainable in a subscription service at any decent pay rate. At half a cent per page, a subscriber needs to read more than 2,000 pages for Amazon to lose money on them. In the old system, they could have lost money after just a hundred pages of shorts. There isn't a future for shorts in KU beyond being a promotional tool because Amazon can never pay out anywhere near the market price without losing money. Unfortunately, many other books are getting lumped in with the shorts (Children's stories, nonfiction, etc) which probably weren't a threat the way short stories were but Amazon doesn't have a way to deal with those yet.
> 
> The change to a pay per page model is completely understandable, but their implementation has been terrible. The complaints about Amazon implementing such a major change with so little warning or information are totally valid. There was a huge number of people making a legitimate living on the old system, who now have absolutely no idea what the next month will earn them or what they should do now. Past rate fluctuations were tolerable because they've always been fairly small, but this one leaves many writers open to losing a large percentage of their income without warning. It was a dick move.


This X 1000


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Briteka said:


> Did I say anything differently? That doesn't mean we can't discuss Amazon's bad terms.


Well, yes, you said, "Amazon doesn't move enough units to dictate certain terms for us."

Number of units moved is irrelevant. It's Amazon's system; they can dictate whatever terms they want. Included in their terms are the note that if writers don't like the changes, they can submit a request and have their titles pulled immediately. So if a writer doesn't like the system, they can be proactive and take action: 1) adapt and work with the changes, or 2) pull their titles. As Bezos noted in an interview last year, complaining isn't a strategy.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> How are people calculating their KU income based on the $0.0057? Do they know how many of their pages were read in previous months? Are they taking total borrows, multiplying by the new KENPC, then multiplying by $0.0057? If that number is 60% lower, as many are saying, then where is all that extra money going? It all comes out of the $11 million fund, so that money is going to other authors, right?
> 
> I guess what's happening here is that a lot of authors are realizing they're going to make more money under a fairer system, and they're keeping that information to themselves? That could explain it.


Is the author of Author Earnings Report honestly saying he hasn't figured this out? I find that hard to believe. But just in case, here you go.

One novella in Select (110 KENPC pages):
June 30th 101 borrows x $1.30 (estimated KU payout) = $131.30
July 1st 10,341 page reads x .0058c (new estimated payout) = $59.98

55% drop in income from June 30th to July 1st.

Where is the rest of the money going? Obviously it's going to authors who have longer books and more pages to be read. And that's good for them. No one is saying it's not.

But I do want to say that people who have been making their living writing short and using KU to their advantage (who were doing nothing wrong by the way, no matter how anyone wants to spin it) have a right to talk abut the changes, form new plans, and yes, be upset that their income is dropping drastically. It doesn't mean they are resorting to hysterics. It means they are trying to navigate new waters.


----------



## Tim C. Taylor (May 17, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> ... thought I'd share my 7am graph.


Thanks for sharing, Hugh. That's reassuring because I get the same thing. I estimate today I'll get three times as much KENP read as yesterday. I've never trusted Amazon Sales dashboard in terms of which day an event occurs. I suspect it depends on which time zone you operate in. Personally I'm going to write off the stats for the first day of this new system and wait a further week before comparing a week's data with the old system.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Oh fabulous. Believe it or not, yes, they do have to pay us every month.


Actually income as opposed to sales. They don't owe us an 'income' in other words - they don't employ us and pay a wage. We're just suppliers.

Authors constantly forget that because their earnings are 'their' income .To Amazon we're businesses, just like all their others suppliers.

I also think we're treated [by Amazon] like a bunch of prima donnas. (we certainly act like one a lot of the time).


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

My graph looks like Hugh's this morning. (I'd post it, but posting an image here requires too many steps, and I'm lazy.) I'd assume that yesterday's borrows were low because anything borrowed up until midnight the previous night and read through to 10% would have received its full compensation under the old terms. I would expect it to take a couple weeks to normalize--for the pages-read graph to reflect MOSTLY what people had borrowed after 2.0 began. 

I feel for people adjusting to 2.0. I had the same adjustment with 1.0, as I write novels and was previously all-in with KU. After it became clear that KU was greatly to the advantage of short, particularly erotic, works, I pulled everything out. I put one older, short series back into KU a few days ago, and can see that, as anticipated, I will be better off with 2.0. The estimator thing tells me my books will be about 500 pages apiece. 

I could, of course, simply have written short, erotic works, but (a) I'm not good at writing short stuff, and (b) my readership has told me loud & clear that they like long books. And (c) it was time to get out there, hold my nose, and test the cold waters of "wide." Which I did. I still have my long series wide, and it'll stay wide. 

I do have the feeling that Amazon made this change because so many novelists had left KU, and it was becoming APub and short/sexy stuff, at least in my genre. And presumably they felt they'd have a bigger readership, eventually, with more novels in there. I also think it was too expensive for them to compensate every piece of 10-page erotica at $1.35, when they were only getting $10/month from a reader who might be reading 50 of those things a month. Disparity that obviously couldn't continue--exactly the same situation Scribd has been facing and is now correcting. The way I see it, it's the same issue.

However, that's all been talked to death by far wiser heads than mine.

Thanks for sharing the graph, Hugh.


----------



## horrordude1973 (Sep 20, 2014)

my books have always been 150-200 pages. they sell pretty well at 2.99 but also did great in the old KU system. Mind you my books were that length long before KU every came about. it was just my model, write short and fast. KU did help me a lot. This new system is going to really ding me at .0057 per page unless I can suddenly write twice as fast as I was and I already write pretty damn fast.

Honestly I think .01 per page would be plenty fair for those of us who write shorts. So I'm hoping to see it rise to at least that. In the meantime I may pull some of my older books as they come out of KU and try them wide and see how that goes.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Jim Johnson said:


> Well, yes, you said, "Amazon doesn't move enough units to dictate certain terms for us."
> 
> Number of units moved is irrelevant. It's Amazon's system; they can dictate whatever terms they want. Included in their terms are the note that if writers don't like the changes, they can submit a request and have their titles pulled immediately. So if a writer doesn't like the system, they can be proactive and take action: 1) adapt and work with the changes, or 2) pull their titles. As Bezos noted in an interview last year, complaining isn't a strategy.


Perhaps I didn't convey my point properly. It happens. What I meant is that Amazon doesn't move enough units for us to accept their terms.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Briteka said:


> Further, is Amazon now paying him less on his shorts than he would make on a trade published deal? The same deals he lambasted for years because of them being unfair for the author.


I wrote a blog post this week about why I continue to write short fiction and why I put those works in KU. I make more from Amazon than I do with my sales to pro outlets, which have accepted a number of my pieces. I consider the pro publications money-losers for promo (and as favors to editors). Amazon made me a full-time writer and allowed me to quit my day job because of their revival of the short form.

Again: Why is this thread about attacking me instead of discussing KU? And yeah, I notice it's mostly just a few people kicking me over and over. Not sure why that feels good.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Matthew Stott said:


> Can't say I'm a huge fan of the idea. Especially as it can lead to situations like this. If you're all in, and they change the game, it can lead to a sudden reduction of earnings, panic, and you might not have any way to swiftly pivot as you're too invested. You don't have enough/anything built elsewhere to keep your head up. I'm all for using KU, i just hate the idea of anyone relying on it, because it might turn round and kick you in the rude parts.


Unfortunately for me, (or fortunately in another way), KU was more than 90 percent of my income vs sales. I think sales were like 7.5% of what I earned from KU. That kind of makes me involuntarily dependent on it. Of course I'm going to figure out how to sell for 2.99 on both amazon and the other platform and gradually ease my way out of KU so I'm no longer reliant on it at all. (It's just visibility now in KU2. The money made from this new system is useless)


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

I don't write erotica. I write paranormal and science fiction romance. The market has been rewarding books that are about 8k words long across the board in the romance catagory. That length was the highest return on investment. In any other business, if a person seeks out the highest ROI they are not accused of gaming the system or being naive. They are smart, and rich. Now I have to figure out how to game the new system. Oh, I mean, find the best ROI for my business. With novels.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> I wrote a blog post this week about why I continue to write short fiction and why I put those works in KU. I make more from Amazon than I do with my sales to pro outlets, which have accepted a number of my pieces. I consider the pro publications money-losers for promo (and as favors to editors). Amazon made me a full-time writer and allowed me to quit my day job because of their revival of the short form.
> 
> Again: Why is this thread about attacking me instead of discussing KU? And yeah, I notice it's mostly just a few people kicking me over and over. Not sure why that feels good.


This is the internet where it's hard to convey emotion. I'm not attacking you personally. I do feel that your opinions on publishing are flawed. I've felt this way for years since you and I went back and forth on this same issue on another forum. This has nothing to do with you as a person. I'm sure you're a great guy, and I hold no ill will towards you.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Hugh Howey said:


> Why is this thread about me instead of about what I posted?


Because a lot of people care what you think.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Deanna Chase said:


> Is the author of Author Earnings Report honestly saying he hasn't figured this out? I find that hard to believe. But just in case, here you go.
> 
> One novella in Select (110 KENPC pages):
> June 30th 101 borrows x $1.30 (estimated KU payout) = $131.30
> ...


So what you're saying by this math is that if we choose a length for a title that proves our point, then our point will be proven?

The math is simpler than that: There's $11,000,000 in a bucket. After a month of subscribers reading rental books, not buying a single thing, that bucket will be divvied up according to how much time those readers spent with authors' works. This will approximate, though not perfectly correlate, to how much time those authors labored over said works. All that money goes to authors.

Authors who wrote 10 page stories, which paid out in a single page turn, are going to lose 99.9% of their income.

It's a travesty.

But since it's a single pot, we can also create math that proves the opposite point. We aren't hearing from those authors, or people who celebrate that. I think they can watch me get kicked around for spreading reason and see why they should go back to writing and spend none of their time countering the FUD.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> We aren't hearing from those authors, or people who celebrate that.


No actually, we aren't. I've seen maybe two people who are going to benefit from the new KU. I'm really curious where all that money is going to go because I do not see those authors anywhere. Either they are hiding or they don't exist.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Briteka said:


> This is the internet where it's hard to convey emotion. I'm not attacking you personally. I do feel that your opinions on publishing are flawed. I've felt this way for years since you and I went back and forth on this same issue on another forum. This has nothing to do with you as a person. I'm sure you're a great guy, and I hold no ill will towards you.


Thanks for this. I needed a hug. I'm hugging you back, even if you weren't meaning to hug me and you just tripped over the carpet and tried not to bash your head into the coffee table.

I love disagreeing on stuff (see my history here). The ad homs just get tiring. Instead of people calling me a shill, they should just point out the flaws in my reasoning.


----------



## horrordude1973 (Sep 20, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> Thanks for this. I needed a hug. I'm hugging you back, even if you weren't meaning to hug me and you just tripped over the carpet and tried not to bash your head into the coffee table.
> 
> I love disagreeing on stuff (see my history here). The ad homs just get tiring. Instead of people calling me a shill, they should just point out the flaws in my reasoning.


where is your blog? I'm trying to figure out what to do as well as most my books are short


----------



## Kylo Ren (Mar 29, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Oh fabulous. Believe it or not, yes, they do have to pay us every month.


I'll rephrase. They don't owe anyone a livable income.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Khaleesi said:


> No actually, we aren't. I've seen maybe two people who are going to benefit from the new KU. I'm really curious where all that money is going to go because I do not see those authors anywhere. Either they are hiding or they don't exist.


Then it's a conspiracy, and Amazon is keeping all the money that they didn't need to put in the pot to begin with!

My guess is that 80%+ of authors won't see a 5% - 10% difference in monthly earnings from KU 1.0 to KU 2.0. We're just hearing from the 5% who will see an 80%+ difference in income.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

horrordude1973 said:


> where is your blog? I'm trying to figure out what to do as well as most my books are short


http://www.hughhowey.com/why-ku-short-fiction-still-makes-sense/


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Khaleesi said:


> No actually, we aren't. I've seen maybe two people who are going to benefit from the new KU. I'm really curious where all that money is going to go because I do not see those authors anywhere. Either they are hiding or they don't exist.


Um...I just posted on the previous page.

Anybody like me, who writes long novels and sells reasonably well. The ones who left KU entirely because it didn't work for us, and may now be putting at least a few books back in.

I put three books in as a test. The test is proving pretty convincingly that the "new KU" is indeed better for (reasonably) long novels. (90-115K), as long as readers tend to read all the way through my books. Which they appear to do, at least the ones who go on to read a second book. I'm sure lots of people give up on my stuff with the first book because it isn't to their taste.

So I will be putting my two upcoming releases into KU, with the pretty terrific caveat that I will be allowed to pull them at any time if that decision appears to be the wrong one.

We aren't posting because we don't want to seem like we're gloating. KU 1.0 was tough for us, and now it's tough for other people. That doesn't make me happy.

P.S. I guess, Hugh, it's easier to attack the messenger.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Hugh Howey said:


> My guess is that 80%+ of authors won't see a 5% - 10% difference in monthly earnings from KU 1.0 to KU 2.0. We're just hearing from the 5% who will see an 80%+ difference in income.


^^THIS


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I'm not sure time spent on a thing means anything in the greater scheme. I mean, I know I write novels faster than some people write short stories. Does that make my novels worse somehow? Not according to my readers. They don't care how much time or money I put into something, they'll never know. They care about the final product.  In the business of publishing, a story is worth what someone will pay you for it. (And I mean in terms of both money and time investment, because time is more precious than money to many people)

That said, I do think this new system will reward people who write books people a) want and b) can't put down. Which has always been my goal as a writer, so I'm fine with it. I figured out years ago that writing books people can't put down seems to be one of the keys to commercial success.   (now, consistently managing to pull that off book after book? probably something I'll spend the rest of my life trying to perfect, ha)

I also think a lot of serial writers are still going to get a decent share of the pie, because the market spoke already and those books gets borrowed like woah, and people seem to read through whole serials pretty quickly. The reader side of this isn't going to shift that much, I bet. People like what they like. The people who can figure out how to best provide that will still win out.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> Then it's a conspiracy, and Amazon is keeping all the money that they didn't need to put in the pot to begin with!
> 
> My guess is that 80%+ of authors won't see a 5% - 10% difference in monthly earnings from KU 1.0 to KU 2.0. We're just hearing from the 5% who will see an 80%+ difference in income.


My question is why aren't we seeing the authors who will benefit. I don't think it's a conspiracy. I just want to know where the money is going. I don't think Amazon is keeping it. I'm just curious why I don't see more than a couple of writers who will benefit. Where are these people who are getting their "fair share" of the same pool. I literally do not see them. This isn't hysteria, this is simple curiosity. I'd like to have a better idea of how this system is going to spread the money around, because, heck, I need my share too. Are these authors the ones who are already so successful that they don't come to forums at all? Because sliding the money away from novella authors to super successful novelists doesn't seem super fair. But that's just me.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> Um...I just posted on the previous page.
> 
> Anybody like me, who writes long novels and sells reasonably well. The ones who left KU entirely because it didn't work for us, and may now be putting at least a few books back in.
> 
> ...


Okay, Rosalind. You are author number two...


----------



## mrforbes (Feb 16, 2013)

Hugh,

I, for one, am waiting for more data. Especially because the graph looks the way it does on day 2 (mine is the same as yours). If it helps - I agree with your perspective on this . To be honest, even if I had spent the last year writing shorts, I would agree with your perspective. Which is why I didn't spend time writing shorter works to try to take advantage (it certainly isn't because I don't like money). I suspected the model was unsustainable and would change for year 2 - it was the reason I put my box set into KU in the first place - 3 months ago. So far, it went from being my 10th most profitable title to my 4th, literally overnight.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> My guess is that 80%+ of authors won't see a 5% - 10% difference in monthly earnings from KU 1.0 to KU 2.0. We're just hearing from the 5% who will see an 80%+ difference in income.


100% of children's book authors think otherwise.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

S.E. Gordon said:


> 100% of children's book authors think otherwise.


So in a Vinn diagram, the 100% of children's authors makes up what portion of the 20%?

Also: I'm a children's book author, and I love the change. So maybe 99.8%?

How many children's books are in KU? Does a rental system make sense for children's book authors? There are some valid questions here. Waxing poetically about KU 1.0 doesn't seem to me like one of them.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Annie B said:


> I also think a lot of serial writers are still going to get a decent share of the pie, because the market spoke already and those books gets borrowed like woah, and people seem to read through whole serials pretty quickly. The reader side of this isn't going to shift that much, I bet. People like what they like. The people who can figure out how to best provide that will still win out.


THIS, and why as a series writer and now, also, a serial writer, I have not panicked about any of it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Hugh Howey said:


> Then it's a conspiracy, and Amazon is keeping all the money that they didn't need to put in the pot to begin with!
> 
> My guess is that 80%+ of authors won't see a 5% - 10% difference in monthly earnings from KU 1.0 to KU 2.0. We're just hearing from the 5% who will see an 80%+ difference in income.


80 percent? Based on what please.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Maybe it's the hobby novelists who have 2 books ranked at 700000 who are going to go from $10 to $20 a month. And that is how the pot will be redistributed, along with all the already super successful authors who make what I make in a month in a day.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

ShaneJeffery said:


> 80 percent? Based on what please.


I said it was a guess right there in the post.

I'm sensing that you don't like me, and I just learned about this nice ignore feature, so I'm going to employ it and save both of us the back and forth. I wish you well.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

bb-8 said:


> I'll rephrase. They don't owe anyone a livable income.


Yeah, it's all just charity from the Zon.

"You're a writer are you? Why don't you get a REAL job?"


----------



## David Penny (Jun 8, 2014)

Khaleesi said:


> My question is why aren't we seeing the authors who will benefit. I don't think it's a conspiracy. I just want to know where the money is going. I don't think Amazon is keeping it. I'm just curious why I don't see more than a couple of writers who will benefit. Where are these people who are getting their "fair share" of the same pool. I literally do not see them. This isn't hysteria, this is simple curiosity. I'd like to have a better idea of how this system is going to spread the money around, because, heck, I need my share too. Are these authors the ones who are already so successful that they don't come to forums at all? Because sliding the money away from novella authors to super successful novelists doesn't seem super fair. But that's just me.


Hmm - at the danger of sounding socialist, hasn't the money *always* gone to the super-successful authors?

A couple of scenarios:

1. You're Stephen King, you sell a million books+ a year. You don't need KU and you have a bunch of money. Good for you. I like your books too.

2. You're an average writer interested in your craft and you write novella or novel length works that are well plotted and draw the reader in. You're middle of the road and have been annoyed because you were only getting $1.36 per borrow on your $4.99 book.

3. You write short erotica or romance in the 10-20 page mark and you're pissed because you were producing three books a week and getting $1.36 for each and now you're only getting 5 cents.

Which of these do you most sympathise with? I know which I do.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Hugh Howey said:
 

> I said it was a guess right there in the post.
> 
> I'm sensing that you don't like me, and I just learned about this nice ignore feature, so I'm going to employ it and save both of us the back and forth. I wish you well.


I haven't ignored you Hugh. And I'm reading everything you're saying with an open mind. So it sounds like you don't like me lol

Way to dodge my question by the way.


----------



## J.A. Sutherland (Apr 1, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Yeah, it's all just charity from the Zon.
> 
> "You're a writer are you? Why don't you get a REAL job?"


They owe us the terms of the contract for the length of the contract. Period.

They are a sales outlet, not the Medici family acting as patron.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

ShaneJeffery said:


> 80 percent? Based on what please.


It's a 'guess' not an estimate

Geesh! people.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Hugh Howey has set himself up as the "voice of indie authors" and is a stanch Amazon supporter. He also comes out with data reports about author earnings. The numbers he quotes will be taken seriously because of his position in our community. That is a fact. Calling the losers in this change hysterical doesn't help with the hysteria induced by having your income slashed overnight. You know what helps? Empathy. Oh, and real numbers that prove you aren't about to be homeless.


----------



## Salvador Mercer (Jan 1, 2015)

Kwalker said:


> Hugh,
> 
> My graph looks just like yours.
> I do fully believe yesterday had low reporting, because I like to believe a lot of people are like me and read when they go to bed.
> ...


This exactly. Everyone who saw low page numbers yesterday should have a little hope. K Walker has it right in my opinion. Amazon won't pay twice for the same book so many of the borrows from the end of June are being read but NOT being tallied on the page count as we will receive payment for them under the old system. I could be wrong, but I think everyone will see their new page graphs improve so take deep breaths and let the lag catch up as new readers download and turn your pages. 



Khaleesi said:


> No actually, we aren't. I've seen maybe two people who are going to benefit from the new KU. I'm really curious where all that money is going to go because I do not see those authors anywhere. Either they are hiding or they don't exist.


I just wanted to say that I respect my fellow Kboard authors and because I will personally benefit from this change I found it very hard to post on the matter at all and expect myself to have an objective opinion on the matter. If I am not alone in this boat then my guess is that many of your fellow authors read these posts and feel the pain of those who banked on shorter works and really have to count on their KU/KOLL royalties to get by on. Posting for me would seem like gloating and for that reason this is actually my first post in any thread about these changes, though I've read almost every one of them. Posting to cheer my personal benefit doesn't seem appropriate so I had, until this post, remained silent on the matter.

My final thought is that Select is voluntary. Amazon will do what it has to do, or indeed what it wants to do, and we must do the same. It's a personal decision for each of us and I will only say that you should do what's write for you (pun intended) and your family as an author, whether that means staying in or pulling your works. Personally I wish the entire industry much luck and success, it's a lonely business at the keyboard for hours at a time with no guarantee of compensation so the fact that you're writing is special. Always remember that. Words are forever.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Select might be voluntary, but authors are being told they are hysterical if they pull their books. There's no winning in this game of losing.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Salvador Mercer said:


> This exactly. Everyone who saw low page numbers yesterday should have a little hope. K Walker has it right in my opinion. Amazon won't pay twice for the same book so many of the borrows from the end of June are being read but NOT being tallied on the page count as we will receive payment for them under the old system. I could be wrong, but I think everyone will see their new page graphs improve so take deep breaths and let the lag catch up as new readers download and turn your pages.
> 
> I just wanted to say that I respect my fellow Kboard authors and because I will personally benefit from this change I found it very hard to post on the matter at all and expect myself to have an objective opinion on the matter. If I am not alone in this boat then my guess is that many of your fellow authors read these posts and feel the pain of those who banked on shorter works and really have to count on their KU/KOLL royalties to get by on. Posting for me would seem like gloating and for that reason this is actually my first post in any thread about these changes, though I've read almost every one of them. Posting to cheer my personal benefit doesn't seem appropriate so I had, until this post, remained silent on the matter.
> 
> My final thought is that Select is voluntary. Amazon will do what it has to do, or indeed what it wants to do, and we must do the same. It's a personal decision for each of us and I will only say that you should do what's write for you (pun intended) and your family as an author, whether that means staying in or pulling your works. Personally I wish the entire industry much luck and success, it's a lonely business at the keyboard for hours at a time with no guarantee of compensation so the fact that you're writing is special. Always remember that. Words are forever.


Your example is exactly the reason I'm switching to novels. In the old system, those ranks are not very impressive. Now 20k rank with 400 pages is a good rank.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Khaleesi said:


> Hugh Howey has set himself up as the "voice of indie authors" and is a stanch Amazon supporter. He also comes out with data reports about author earnings. The numbers he quotes will be taken seriously because of his position in our community. That is a fact. Calling the losers in this change hysterical doesn't help with the hysteria induced by having your income slashed overnight. You know what helps? Empathy. Oh, and real numbers that prove you aren't about to be homeless.


Here's the thing, Khaleesi. You change your name all the time. You don't link to your work. I bet half the people reading this would go and borrow at least one of your stories if you did link to them here, because we DO care and don't want to brag if we're doing well.

Now I don't know if I'm going to do well or not. But some people in this thread have been very open about things and some haven't. I feel sympathy for you, but seriously, what are we supposed to do?


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Khaleesi said:


> Hugh Howey has set himself up as the "voice of indie authors" and is a stanch Amazon supporter. He also comes out with data reports about author earnings. The numbers he quotes will be taken seriously because of his position in our community. That is a fact. Calling the losers in this change hysterical doesn't help with the hysteria induced by having your income slashed overnight. You know what helps? Empathy. Oh, and real numbers that prove you aren't about to be homeless.


For some of us, Hugh is a successful author with information. Nothing more. I happen to agree with a lot of what he says, but he's not my voice and he doesn't think for me.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> So in a Vinn diagram, the 100% of children's authors makes up what portion of the 20%?
> 
> Also: I'm a children's book author, and I love the change. So maybe 99.8%?
> 
> How many children's books are in KU? Does a rental system make sense for children's book authors? There are some valid questions here. Waxing poetically about KU 1.0 doesn't seem to me like one of them.


Data Guy would be the perfect person to speak to in regards to how many children's book authors make up that portion of the 20%. But screw them, right? They make up an insignificant piece of the pie.

The 100% was for theatrics, though nearly every children's book author in KU stands to lose from the new payout structure and lose BIG. 90%? Perhaps that's more realistic. And yes, even your lone children's book will make peanuts in KU if you give Amazon exclusivity. It's a good thing that the bulk of your work is in science fiction novels, not children's books. But what about the people who don't have that advantage and rely upon their children's book income to pay the bills? _Oh well!_

I don't disagree that the new system is good for some people. My mother, who publishes under the name Kathleen Kirkwood, stands to do very well. She writes 100,000+ word historical romance novels. She'll make out like a bandit.

Children's book authors are the collateral damage here. There's no way you can spin it, Mr. Howey. No Vinn diagrams, nothing.

The authors I've spoken to aren't "waxing poetically" about KU 1.0. They're picking up the pieces and trying to move on.


----------



## EG Michaels (Oct 15, 2013)

Khaleesi said:


> My question is why aren't we seeing the authors who will benefit. I don't think it's a conspiracy. I just want to know where the money is going. I don't think Amazon is keeping it. I'm just curious why I don't see more than a couple of writers who will benefit. Where are these people who are getting their "fair share" of the same pool. I literally do not see them. This isn't hysteria, this is simple curiosity. I'd like to have a better idea of how this system is going to spread the money around, because, heck, I need my share too. Are these authors the ones who are already so successful that they don't come to forums at all? Because sliding the money away from novella authors to super successful novelists doesn't seem super fair. But that's just me.


It's only day 1 1/2 of KU 2.0 and we're heading into a holiday weekend, so it's really premature to accurately determine how some authors will do under the new system. Author of shorter works, it may be clearer because they're not getting $1.38 for a 10 page book/report/story after the first page flip. I'm not knocking authors who produce quality work. I'm knocking the people who have thrown junk into KU to exploit the KU 1.0 system.

I have two books in KU, both of which are over 60K in length. With their KENPC page count, it should double the payout for each one vs what KU 1.0 had previously delivered. Obviously, it's only day 1 1/2 of KU 2.0 so I'll wait to see how the whole month's worth of sales and borrows/page reads play out to make a more educated conclusion.

I have a family member who is a short-story author. After talking things over with her, she's going to bundle her short stories into boxed sets, put a premium price on them, and put those into KU. The box set will allow her to get a higher KENPC page count with KU... it can qualify for a Book Bub ad. The individual short stories will still produce income for her, even if she doesn't put them into KU or moves some of them into Kindle Singles. Just as important, they become multiple sales points for getting people hooked into the whole series and a good number of those people may opt for the box set or sets.

My prediction?

KU 3.0 before the end of this year. KU 3.0 will address the complaints of authors of shorter works and genre-specific ones like children's books with a fair(er) compensation scale for them. I'm surprised that KU 2.0 hadn't done a sliding scale based on word count but that might encourage junk producers to pad their books in order to boost their earnings.

Right now, I think KU 2.0's biggest impact will be flushing a lot of the junk offerings out of KU that don't provide a quality reader experience.

Disclaimer: I'm not calling anyone else's published work a junk offering. But I think if you visit Amazon as a consumer, you'll see junk offerings in every category and genre, often with the majority of reviews being 1-2 stars. They were published simply to take advantage of the previous KU 1.0 payout system.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

J.A. Sutherland said:


> They owe us the terms of the contract for the length of the contract. Period.
> 
> They are a sales outlet, not the Medici family acting as patron.


Yeah, alright, I'm not crazy. I'm just pulling your legs. I know what was meant in the first place. But the little slice of truth in my joke is that they still have to treat us right.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Rubens4tune said:


> It's a 'guess' not an estimate
> 
> Geesh! people.


A guess based on what. I just wanted to know. So sorry for asking.


----------



## readingril (Oct 29, 2010)

Rosalind James said:


> So I will be putting my two upcoming releases into KU, with the pretty terrific caveat that I will be allowed to pull them at any time if that decision appears to be the wrong one.


Good to hear, Rosalind! I first read your books through KU and have been known to purchase both the read and unread with a sale (ok they aren't that expensive not on sale  ).

See? KU's premise does work.

Signed, 
Non writer lurking in this thread


----------



## Shiriluna Nott (Aug 26, 2014)

I'm cautiously optimistic about KU2. As a new author, it made sense for me to enroll in KDP Select for the exposure alone, and while I didn't necessarily LIKE only making 1.33 on a 150k word epic fantasy novel, I knew there was a pretty high chance I wouldn't be making up the difference in sales, being new and all. Under the old model, roughly half my monthly income was coming from KU; the other half from sales. I'm no indie success poster child, by any means, but I was making enough to pay the bills month to month. Without the KU income, there's no way that would have happened.

I feel terrible for the people worrying about making ends meet with the changes. I'd be really upset and probably panicking, too. But for myself, personally, I'm hopeful this will be a good change for novelists. Of course, waiting until August to know for sure (six looooong weeks for ALL of us!). I do think this was sprung on everyone without proper warning. It would have been nice to know a few months in advance so people could plan accordingly.


----------



## RaeC (Aug 20, 2013)

Khaleesi said:


> Select might be voluntary, but authors are being told they are hysterical if they pull their books. There's no winning in this game of losing.


This is what I've been thinking reading through this thread.

"i'm scared. I'm pissed. But I don't think I'm overreacting. I just want to take control of my business with the information, however little, I have..."

"NOBODY OWES YOU A LIVING!!!"


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> I know, right? You post a positive observation, and everyone goes nuts.
> 
> The way my KBoards participation has gone lately, this thread will be locked and fall into oblivion, rather than people being reprimanded as they should be for attacking a fellow member.


See, now that would tell me something.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Khaleesi said:


> Hugh Howey has set himself up as the "voice of indie authors" and is a stanch Amazon supporter. He also comes out with data reports about author earnings. The numbers he quotes will be taken seriously because of his position in our community. That is a fact. Calling the losers in this change hysterical doesn't help with the hysteria induced by having your income slashed overnight. You know what helps? Empathy. Oh, and real numbers that prove you aren't about to be homeless.


I've been a part of kboards since 2013 and even though I've had arguments with some folks here, I've never had a member tell me outright that they're setting the ignore function on me. I don't have anything against Hugh, but given his public action against me, I can't help but say I have lost respect in him - short of him apologizing. I get sometimes things can get misread and people can get emotional about things, no matter how far up the food chain you are.

But if he fails to do that, I think it should be laid out pretty clear for everyone he doesn't like people disagreeing with him.

Frankly, I'm hurt.


----------



## J.A. Sutherland (Apr 1, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Yeah, alright, I'm not crazy. I'm just pulling your legs. I know what was meant in the first place. But the little slice of truth in my joke is that they still have to treat us right.


The problem with "right", as with "fair", is that it's subjective. Now, subjectively, I think Amazon had carnal relations with the canine on this one, from the perspective of how and when they made the change. They knew the dollar amount for the pot and the number of pages, and should have, to be "fair", been more transparent, had an early, phased release of the KENPC number, announced a likely or range per-page number, and given 90-days notice.

But they didn't owe that to anyone -- and there may have been issues for their business that made doing so unwise. It's entirely possible they were seeing too many novels pulled from Select and a loss of subscribers, making it a better solution for them to act immediately.

I'd have been one of those -- I pulled my book from Select after its first enrollment because the $1.30 wasn't worth exclusivity, and I cancelled my KU subscription because I wasn't liking what was available. The KU format I was finding also irritated me as a reader -- here's the novel for $2.99 not in select, but the six parts of it are in KU. I didn't like interrupting my reading five times to switch to the next installment, so I just bought the thing, making KU less worth my money.

The day they announced the change I went back into KU as an author and subscriber. I felt the change would address both sides and make it worth my while again.


----------



## CDForness (Nov 25, 2013)

I see a couple people try to address the math for Hugh, but I've seen it explained differently (with the caveat that I read through this fast moving thread, quickly).

Amazon reported an 11 million dollar pot for July.  They reported 1.9 billion pages read for June.  11mill divided by 1.9 billion is .0057. 

Technically, even Novella writers take a hit.  Your 100 page Novella is worth 57 cents, if all of it is read.  

You will need to write approximately 250 page books to get the same payout as the last reported KU payout...and hope that someone reads all of your pages.  

There are many factors here so I can't really say who's better off.  


I write shorts.  I have a few dozen of them.  They are in KU.  I am not rushing to pull them.  I'm wait and see because I don't depend on the income.  My thought is that I write in a genre where folks devour one or more shorts a day.  If I have as many pages published as you do, regardless if you have two novels and I have two dozen shorts, I'd think we'd both have the same shot at the pot...maybe I do even better due to the habits of readers in my genre vs yours.  The questions are, is my writing more compelling than yours?  And am I writing for a more ravenous audience than yours?  I'm one lowly statistical point, but I read a few dozen shorts a month, but I average less than one novel.  

I would argue that I am not a particularly compelling writer at this stage of my career so I reasonably expect my income to go fiercely down. It will push me harder to develop as a writer. Thankfully I am not depending upon that income.  I do feel sorry for the honest, hardworking authors who do need this income.  

Personally, I think it does what it is intended, level the playing field better than before all though not perfect (minus the children's book writers, as previously stated).  But it's up to how ravenous the readers are of your genre, and your books that will determine your payout.

Forgive me for bringing up Cinisajoy (I am probably butchering the username from memory, humble apologies) but I recall her saying several times that she's downloaded several books and forgot they were on her Kindle.  She's one of many that downloads books with the intent to read later...but sometimes later never comes.  I filled my queue of 10 a long time ago, and some of those original one's are still unread.  This is the part that I think is worth watching...how often are our books being read vs. being downloaded and forgotten about (caveat: this occurs more with non-KU books than KU due to the 10 book limit of the latter).

That was a lot of talk without saying much.

TL, DR;

$11,000,000/1,900,000,000 pages read = $.0057 payout per page that people are guestimating.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> So what you're saying by this math is that if we choose a length for a title that proves our point, then our point will be proven?
> 
> The math is simpler than that: There's $11,000,000 in a bucket. After a month of subscribers reading rental books, not buying a single thing, that bucket will be divvied up according to how much time those readers spent with authors' works. This will approximate, though not perfectly correlate, to how much time those authors labored over said works. All that money goes to authors.
> 
> ...


No. I'm giving a real world example of what is happening for one particular case study- mine. I know how the math works. Some authors are going to do better in this system, some will do worse. You're acting like this a great thing for all situations. It isn't. It also means authors need to put on their business hats and form a new strategy. Acting like authors are resorting to hysterics because they aren't smart enough to see reason doesn't help.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

CDF said:


> Technically, even Novella writers take a hit. Your 100 page Novella is worth 57 cents, if all of it is read.


Please don't bring 'worth' into it. It's simply a matter of the 100 page novella earned a 57 cent bounty for a borrow. The worth of the book has nothing to do with anything. Someone borrowed it, read it to completion. You start telling people their novellas are only worth 57 cents and the boards will go berzerk all over again.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> I've been a part of kboards since 2013 and even though I've had arguments with some folks here, I've never had a member tell me outright that they're setting the ignore function on me. I don't have anything against Hugh, but given his public action against me, I can't help but say I have lost respect in him - short of him apologizing. I get sometimes things can get misread and people can get emotional about things, no matter how far up the food chain you are.
> 
> But if he fails to do that, I think it should be laid out pretty clear for everyone he doesn't like people disagreeing with him.
> 
> Frankly, I'm hurt.


People are more complicated than single events or exchanges. I'm probably also on his ignore list, but I haven't lost any respect for Mr. Howey. He's doing what he feels is right. I'm also doing what I feel is right--standing up for children's book authors. And I'll do it till the day I die.


----------



## Matthew Stott (Oct 22, 2014)

Deanna Chase said:


> It also means authors need to put on their business hats and form a new strategy.


Sure, but none of these things seem to last. I think that's always going to be the case. Uncertainty and pain!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

AdrianC said:


> This is what I've been thinking reading through this thread.
> 
> "i'm scared. I'm p*ssed. But I don't think I'm overreacting. I just want to take control of my business with the information, however little, I have..."
> 
> "NOBODY OWES YOU A LIVING!!!"


Let's not forget the implication that everyone being hurt was somehow this leech stealing money from novelists and doing far less work via the intricate 'gaming' known as 'doing exactly like Amazon told them to'.


----------



## Heather Hamilton-Senter (May 25, 2013)

Khaleesi said:


> Okay, Rosalind. You are author number two...


I have no idea why this thread has become a Hugh attack - disagree with him if you want and that's everyone's right, but we should always acknowledge that he has been a strong advocate for Indies and ever willing to share his perspective even though he often gets called on it quite aggressively - but I will go on record that I look to be doing at least the same and perhaps better with the new KU.

Of course, it has only been a day and a bit - how can any of us really know at this point? My books are longer but not mammoth, so that probably accounts for it in my case. However, I've had zero sales yesterday and today except for 1 on my novella. This has never happened before in an entire year. I don't see how it can be related to KU so it might be the summer slowdown, but I also wonder - as the post originally addressed - if the reporting overall is off.


----------



## B.A. Spangler (Jan 25, 2012)

What a lively board the last few days.

I write novels, ranging 60k to 90k words. I'm also one of the original KDP fans, but with KU I bailed and went wide.

Why?

For a 400 page novel:
10 borrows at 1.22 borrow rate = $10.22 royalty
10 sales at 3.99 (70% royalty rate) = $27.93 royalty

Staying in KDP for KU brought with it the risk of having my sales cannibalized by borrows. So I went wide.

And why I might return?
*assuming the same 400 page novel and what is equal to 10 borrows/sales.

4000 pgs read at .0057 = $22.8 
10 sales at 3.99 (70% royalty rate) = $27.93 royalty

While there is still a delta, the gap has narrowed. And there is also a greater attraction of tapping the Amazon KU readers which may make the gap a moot point.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Khaleesi said:


> My question is why aren't we seeing the authors who will benefit. I don't think it's a conspiracy. I just want to know where the money is going. I don't think Amazon is keeping it. I'm just curious why I don't see more than a couple of writers who will benefit. Where are these people who are getting their "fair share" of the same pool. I literally do not see them. This isn't hysteria, this is simple curiosity. I'd like to have a better idea of how this system is going to spread the money around, because, heck, I need my share too. Are these authors the ones who are already so successful that they don't come to forums at all? Because sliding the money away from novella authors to super successful novelists doesn't seem super fair. But that's just me.


Self published authors pricing their novels at $2.99 or below should benefit. They'll get more money than under the old system, and they'll get more money than going wide. This ignores the question of if novels should be priced that low, but by and large, all of those people will benefit. And there are a lot of them.


----------



## GoneToWriterSanctum (Sep 13, 2014)

You know, I respect Hugh Howey to the utmost. His voice is always the calming voice of reason, and his observations are always intelligent and well-thought-out.

_Because_ I respect him, I'm going to listen. I said in another thread that I had considered taking everything out of wide release and going all in with Select/KU. I then changed my mind, because I thought the per-page payouts were too low.

Upon reading Hugh's comments, I've changed my mind again.

Amazon was my first place to publish when I started writing. For a while, it was the _only_ place, and I was glad to be there.

Now, I'm going all-in. I've started the takedown process at all of my wide release retailers, and I'll give Select/KU a try. I should be able to sign them all up no later than Sunday. Let's see what happens.

Heck, it's only for 90 days, and I have very tiny sales everywhere else.


----------



## darkline (Mar 30, 2014)

Is it just me or has KU reporting been stuck for hours? Today I have the lowest number of sales in months too. Something is off.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

S.E. Gordon said:


> 100% of children's book authors think otherwise.


This children's author doesn't think it will make much difference because of low sales/borrows on children's books anyway  .


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

My sales were high yesterday, but I'd just done a bunch of promotion. Sales are down today and having half your borrows first thing in the morning is par for the course in my experience. The only difference is that borrows continued to be reported for a few hours longer last night. Instead of cutting off at 5pm pst, they cut off at about 9pm. Don't quote me on that because I'm not sure of the exact time.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Gee whiz what a conversation this is!

Some guy says it take longer to write a 100,000 word novel than it does a 10,000 word short.
Duh!
How about it takes about the same amount of time, or LONGER to write ten (10) 10,000 word shorts as it does one (1) 100,000 word novel.
Ten (10) times 10,000 does equal 100,000.
Plus, instead of one, there are now ten plots to create with a whole bunch of characters to deal with.
The amount of time it takes? That's a dumb comparison that clouds the issue.
Amazon zapped indie writers when it created KU. Amazon's action FORCED indie writers to produce more short stories to order to keep food on the table.
Now Amazon has zapped indies again because it is trying to draw in the trad novels.
Time is a phony argument.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

T. M. Bilderback said:


> You know, I respect Hugh Howey to the utmost. His voice is always the calming voice of reason, and his observations are always intelligent and well-thought-out.
> 
> _Because_ I respect him, I'm going to listen. I said in another thread that I had considered taking everything out of wide release and going all in with Select/KU. I then changed my mind, because I thought the per-page payouts were too low.
> 
> ...


I don't think calling people who are trying to make the best decisions for their own businesses hysterical is "the voice of calming reason."


----------



## Becca Fanning (May 17, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> I think they can watch me get kicked around for spreading reason and see why they should go back to writing and spend none of their time countering the FUD.


Making business decisions based on the only data available is not FUD. If your calculations show that you've taken an 80% revenue hit because of KU2.0, it's time to get out.


----------



## Jacob Stanley (May 25, 2015)

CDF said:


> I see a couple people try to address the math for Hugh, but I've seen it explained differently (with the caveat that I read through this fast moving thread, quickly).
> 
> Amazon reported an 11 million dollar pot for July. They reported 1.9 billion pages read for June. 11mill divided by 1.9 billion is .0057.
> 
> *Technically, even Novella writers take a hit. Your 100 page Novella is worth 57 cents, if all of it is read. *


Actually, this is not entirely true because the new normalized page counts revise almost everyone's books up quite a bit.

I have a 100 page novella, and KENP puts it all the way up to 180 pages for the purposes of the new system. Which means if it is read all the way through I get more than a buck... not as good as before, but not bad enough for me to feel cheated.

People with much shorter books, obviously, are in a different situation. Many of them are going to get the heck out, and i don't blame them a bit.

Another thing that's worth considering: when the short-story writers leave, that will result in an entirely different ecosystem than what existed last month. The 0.0057 rate may increase quite a bit with a smaller pool of books. Or maybe not. It's almost impossible to predict how it will play out.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Becca Fanning said:


> Making business decisions based on the only data available is not FUD. If your calculations show that you've taken an 80% revenue hit because of KU2.0, it's time to get out.


I find it humorous that the same people who are being told they are hysterical for pulling out are also the people who are told that "Kindle Select is a voluntary program" as if that makes it all better.


----------



## Lucas (Jul 15, 2014)

ADAPT 
That's all. You can say anything you want, share the "my way or the highway" opinions, but the fact still stands that KU2 is here for now.
We are indie authors, we should thrive in change. Get your books out of select and go wide, or stay. Simple.
ADAPT. 
... Goes back to hiding...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Salvador Mercer said:


> I just wanted to say that I respect my fellow Kboard authors and because I will personally benefit from this change I found it very hard to post on the matter at all and expect myself to have an objective opinion on the matter.


How are you benefitting from the changes? Post numbers, don't tell us this is what you hope will happen. I posted that yesterday and today I made 5 percent of what I made last week. Where are your numbers that you are benefitting?

Not one of you so called winners under the new regime has shown us numbers that you are making more money than you did before.


----------



## KMatthew (Mar 21, 2012)

I am of the crowd that is going to lose a mass amount of income from this change. Probably somewhere around 70%. While I do think this new payment system is more fair for everyone, I think the potential payout is not fair for anyone. If it does land at $0.0058, then a sale is definitely worth more than a borrow for most people. Someone who writes a 200 page book and prices it at $2.99 could get $2.07 from a purchase but will only earn $1.16 if someone reads their book all the way through. They could have at least made the payout consistent with what an author would make from a purchase. Isn't that the whole point of Select, to give the author some kind of benefit. I see no benefit from this new system for anyone.

Of course, the estimated payout is just speculation, which is why I'm going to give it a month and a half. No one really knows what authors will be paid until Amazon rolls out with it. At which point, if it's less than what I consider to be fair, I'll be contacting my Amazon rep to pull everything out.

One thing is for certain, things are going to shift with this new payout system. Authors who already have a following will continue to do well in KU(though not as well as before). Newer authors will struggle to gain traction. Authors will be getting paid based more on quality than actual words written(since subpar books will not be read all the way through).

Here's my graph, for sh*ts and giggles. And to throw numbers out there, I had 26,711 KENP yesterday and 33,934 KENP today so far.









And shame on you, Hugh.  Don't you know better than to share on here? If you have anything useful or insightful to share, people WILL attack you for it. I learned that the hard way. That's why so many of the wildly successful oldies go the way of the buffalo.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

S.E. Gordon said:


> People are more complicated than single events or exchanges. I'm probably also on his ignore list, but I haven't lost any respect for Mr. Howey. He's doing what he feels is right. I'm also doing what I feel is right--standing up for children's book authors. And I'll do it till the day I die.


I agree. He could just be having a bad day. Then again - I know already he doesn't fully 'get' my questions towards him etc. Maybe I didn't lace them with enough 'I love you Hugh but' for him to feel it was friendly enough. I understand the idea that the guy's ideas and innovation will still stand up beyond some flimsy altercation with myself, but still. I'm not going to let it go. His website is in my bookmarks. I've always read every post he's written with a ray of sunshine. As he has attacked me openly now, I just can't do that anymore.


----------



## Silly Writer (Jul 15, 2013)

Thanks, Hugh... I'm listening and cringing at the same time. Here's a (((hug))) for you.

I have several pen names. I first started out with novels. KU sucked for me (as it did for a lot of novelists), and I felt like I was getting screwed, so I pulled the novels to go wide and went after serials instead, with a new pen name.

I Didn't do it to game the system...I did it because that seemed to be what was catching fire. My episodes are 17-25k each, and when I get visibility (promo) I have a 98% read-thru to final episode. This took hard work...rewrites...and strategic writing to keep those pages turning and borrow buttons clicking. Writing short was HARDER for me than writing long. Truly it was. So I feel for "us" short-story writers. 

My new plan?
1) Put all the episodes into a Complete Set (omnibus), and let the readers decide which they want to have...6 episodes or one book. It pays the same if they read thru, and I think that's fair, even though it will be a huge difference in payout from KU1 to KU2. It still seems fair to me and I'm directly impacted.

2) put all my novels back into KU, now that they *might* be fairly compensated for the very long time they took to write.

3) be ready to pivot again, when Amazon announces a new-new program or KU3. 

My biggest concern is not for me, as now I know I've got to get on with finishing my novel series to make money... But rather for children authors. They can't pivot. And they aren't the only ones that will suffer. WE all will suffer if that's not straightened out. The young readers they WERE reaching are OUR potential readers in five, ten, fifteen years. We all better band together and pay attention...do what we can to help them now, so it helps us later.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

I pulled out all of my books from KU at the beginning of the year because it wasn't paying me to stay in.

I then wrote a book and put it into KU split into parts of 50-60 pages each. I got paid $1.35 per part and borrows were... okay, astonishingly the sales went through the roof, but that's not the issue here.

When KU2.0 raised its head, I decided to put a 480 page book that had never been in KU into it on 24th June. I knew I was going to take a kicking on the short books, so the long book going in was to compensate and obviously hopefully take advantage of the new page rate.

The point here is - we all have to run our own businesses in whichever way we believe works for us. If you only write short stories you had advance notice of what it was going to be like, therefore it is on you, and you alone, to produce a new business model to make it work for you again. Kicking Amazon (or Hughie, for that matter) isn't going to help you one little bit.

I'm not going to tell you what you should do for your business, but it's clear my latest change in policy is working for me although I'm not going to know for at least 6 weeks.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

KMatthew said:


> And shame on you, Hugh.  Don't you know better than to share on here? If you have anything useful or insightful to share, people WILL attack you for it. I learned that the hard way. That's why so many of the wildly successful oldies go the way of the buffalo.


I thought we were always nice to you. 

Anyway, if you don't mind answer, what do you think you'll do going forward? Go wide and still write at the same length or focus on more novels for KU?


----------



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

I'm about 30,000 pages short for what I finished the day with yesterday -- and at the rate it's going up I should pass yesterday's total in about an hour (maybe two if the updates are slower). I enjoy watching the graph. Now I must shower, though, two little kittens need booster shots.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> Again: Why is this thread about attacking me instead of discussing KU? And yeah, I notice it's mostly just a few people kicking me over and over. Not sure why that feels good.


What's your BDSM pen name, Hugh? lol.

I've seen the one person being quite rude to Hugh. Others are really just disagreeing with his assessment. That's fine. We all have to figure this out on our own. I pulled my titles on the 30th, or at least sent like 3 messages to have them pulled and it happened yesterday. I have my reasons. Hugh is offering his opinion, he's not the spokesman for Amazon or all Indie authors. But he is a successful author who has made business decisions that have helped his writing career. And yes, he is a great writer. I've read his Wool series and I'm a fan. Can't take that from him. And even after reading his opinion here I'd still read his work and likely give it the 4 or 5 star review that he's typically gotten from me.

Lets move on from this idea that short writers, especially erotica writers, were gaming the system. Amazon created an environment where short works published quickly made lots of money. To suggest that they took advantage sounds a bit bitter. Before KU they were doing fine with the $2.99 price point. But lets move on. I made a nice penny over the last year. Things have changed.

Whether the payout is fifty cents or a full penny, there will be people who make money and not just the top tier selling authors. I envision many authors of longer works written in series coming back to KU. I wish them luck and hope they make heaps of money. I've personally decided to focus on novellas and novels just in case I decide to come back to KU. So yes, KU has changed my writing strategy.

Where I will disagree with Hugh is the suggestion that people were being hysterical and doing a lot of arm flapping. I participated in many of the threads that popped up yesterday. Professional writers were trying to make sense of a new system that would impact their writing income. We tried to figure out how KENPC pages were calculated. Last I checked there was a growing consensus around the idea that character count (with spaces) divided by 1000 was a better estimate than word count. And that short chapters and short paragraphs along with images bumped the page count up. Why is this important? Someone who writes a novel and wants to maximize their KENPC will change how they write. Its the new system. Especially when two books can be 1,000 words apart but more than 100 Zonpages apart.


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> How are people calculating their KU income based on the $0.0057? Do they know how many of their pages were read in previous months? Are they taking total borrows, multiplying by the new KENPC, then multiplying by $0.0057? If that number is 60% lower, as many are saying, then where is all that extra money going? It all comes out of the $11 million fund, so that money is going to other authors, right?
> 
> I guess what's happening here is that a lot of authors are realizing they're going to make more money under a fairer system, and they're keeping that information to themselves? That could explain it.


It's pretty easy, Hugh.

Lets say I got five 45 page erotica shorts.

At $.00579 per page, 1 book read entirely would get me only $0.26 per book. For all five, that's $1.30

Hugh... $1.30 for FIVE books, read 100% through.

This hurts short smut and childrens books writers incredably hard. Now, I agree that KU 1.0 was super unfair to novel writers, but now KU 2.0 is even MORE unfair to everyone who doesn't write novels.

Lets say 5,000 people read all five of my shorts in a single month.

That's 225 pages per person for all five.

5,000 x 225 = 1,125,000 Nice big number, right?

Well... that comes out to $6513.75 for the month. Looks great, right?

But I'm being generous. I seriously doubt I could get 5,000 people to read my books every month.

So, what I and a great many other short smut writers are doing is simply going wide. It makes the most financial sense for us to do so under KU 2.0.

We don't need to wait a month, or two, too see that KU 2.0 is not good for us. We can just calculate pages and earnings ourselves. They'll still be rough estimates, but it gives us a pretty great picture of what KU 2.0 will be like.

$2.99 short smut shall reign supreme once more, just like before KU, and the readers will simply dump KU because most of the smut they want to read won't be in KU. Therefore, it makes little sense for them to have the subscription.

That all being said, I think KU 2.0 is fantastic. For everyone who writes novels and above. For everyone else? It's only good if you don't mind being paid in peanuts.

As more short story writers leave KU, the payout should increase for the writers who stay, which will increase their earnings. Everyone wins; except for maybe the childrens books writers. I have no idea if they can go wide and start pricing at $2.99 or not.

Edit: Let me add more estimates just for the fun of it.

Fifteen 45 page shorts. That's 675 pages altogether. $3.9 for only fifteen books, if read all the way through.

If 5,000 people read those 675 pages in one month, that comes too $19,000. That would be an amazing month. But again, I won't be getting 5k new readers every month. I'm sure some do, but I'm being optimistic with that estimate.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

You shouldn't call people hysterical in a condescending tone if you expect a good reaction. /shrug


----------



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

drno said:


> How are you benefitting from the changes? Post numbers, don't tell us this is what you hope will happen. I posted that yesterday and today I made 5 percent of what I made last week. Where are your numbers that you are benefitting?
> 
> Not one of you so called winners under the new regime has shown us numbers that you are making more money than you did before.


Here are your numbers: 
On a normal day I would have made $1,215 in borrows yesterday (I averaged the previous week to give me a baseline). I finished with $300 more than that yesterday going with the $.0057 number. I should pass yesterday's page reads fairly quickly (probably while I'm at the vet with the kittens). Everything after that will be an add on. I told you my numbers, but FYI, you are not entitled to anyone's private financial numbers just because you sit there and stomp your foot and throw a tantrum.


----------



## Indiecognito (May 19, 2014)

Here's my graph. Point is, the results aren't the same for everyone. Some people will do better today. Maybe I will, maybe not. But we can't act as though today's data is any more conclusive than yesterday's was in terms of the long game.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Everyone that's doing it - just stop attacking each other - the point(s) has/have been made (repeatedly), let it go and move on otherwise you will just keep picking at the sore and all it does is infect the forum.

We are authors, writers - can we just accept that people write stuff that isn't always what we like, or agree with - and then move on?


----------



## Silly Writer (Jul 15, 2013)

Rubens4tune said:


> Everyone that's doing it - just stop attacking each other - the point(s) has/have been made (repeatedly), let it go and move on otherwise you will just keep picking at the sore and all it does is infect the forum.
> 
> We are authors, writers - can we just accept that people write stuff that isn't always what we like, or agree with - and then move on?


Amen.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

I'm a writer of longer works with some of them in KU. This money has been a non-trivial part of my income for the last six months, when I made a stronger commitment to Select for the first time since KU came online. I think my income will be up modestly as a result of this change, and naturally, my inclination is in favor of it.

Having said that, _of course_ the people who are negatively impacted by it are going to be unhappy. It may be Amazon's right to make this or any other change, but it still stings for people who have been working in one environment to suddenly have the rules changed. It's not the first time people are being forced to adapt, nor the last, but I don't see any reason to dismiss their concerns.

As for the Hugh talk, the criticism here has been harder than usual. I don't think Hugh is helping matters by getting testy about it. It only inspires harsher responses. And please, calling his own sales "bupkis" is beyond silly. He's running a campaign to boost sales on Wool so that Ridley Scott will finally get the movie made. He recently posted a shot of himself literally flexing his muscles from the deck of a yacht he bought with book sales. If that's "bupkis," then sign me up!

Against that you have people worried about paying for preschool and affording rent as a result of the changes. Let's at least be aware that there are going to be winners and losers in the change and that some people are, in fact, in for a world of hurt, at least in the short term.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Navigator said:


> As more short story writers leave KU, the payout should increase for the writers who stay, which will increase their earnings. Everyone wins; except for maybe the childrens books writers. I have no idea if they can go wide and start pricing at $2.99 or not.


I did some of the same calculations as I have 24 shorts averaging 45 Zonpages. I don't need a month to see the writing on the wall. But I will say that the $0.0057 looks like it makes sense. I'm sure Amazon knew we'd do the math on that with the 1.9 billion pages read comment. But I think it may be to lower expectations. I can see the rate being very close if not slightly above a penny. At least at the start. And yea, children book authors are getting screwed.



Khaleesi said:


> You shouldn't call people hysterical in a condescending tone if you expect a good reaction. /shrug


Agree with this. Love Hugh but I was apart of that "hysteria" and it wasn't as crazy as some are making it seem. We were all making observations of a new system and sharing our thoughts to gain a better understanding of what KU would mean. Like Swolf has said over and over again, no one is losing their mind. They are trying to find clarity.


----------



## Kylo Ren (Mar 29, 2014)

Well, I think we've seen the last of that pesky Hugh Howie around here. I'd say our work is done. *dusts off hands


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> I'm sure Amazon knew we'd do the math on that with the 1.9 billion pages read comment.


A brilliant move by Amazon to unload the content that they don't want.


----------



## bberntson (Oct 24, 2013)

Doglover said:


> I hope it is a glitch because for the first time in forever there have been no sales for two days. I am very depressed.


I'm experiencing the same. Is part of it still the 'summer slump' mixed with the recent changes? I was getting a head of steam there, there, kerplooey. Bugger!


----------



## KMatthew (Mar 21, 2012)

Briteka said:


> I thought we were always nice to you.
> 
> Anyway, if you don't mind answer, what do you think you'll do going forward? Go wide and still write at the same length or focus on more novels for KU?


Unfortunately, not everyone has been nice, which is why I won't be starting anymore threads and have stripped everything out of my profile.

I polled my readers and asked what they wanted. I'll be beefing my installments back up to around 20K a piece, but I'm going to continue serializing. Two products is better than one.

And I won't decide whether or not I'm going to pull out from KU until they announce the amount of the first payout. Right now I'm all in, hoping to capitalize on a higher KU All Star bonus from the mass exodus and from having mores titles available through KU.


----------



## Heather Hamilton-Senter (May 25, 2013)

drno said:


> How are you benefitting from the changes? Post numbers, don't tell us this is what you hope will happen. I posted that yesterday and today I made 5 percent of what I made last week. Where are your numbers that you are benefitting?
> 
> Not one of you so called winners under the new regime has shown us numbers that you are making more money than you did before.


I'm doing the same or slightly better today than normal. I said that already before you posted this - I don't need to share my exact numbers. I look at my day's dollar total and it's about the same as it is every day, though perhaps may nudge higher by the end of the day.


----------



## Heather Hamilton-Senter (May 25, 2013)

bberntson said:


> I'm experiencing the same. Is part of it still the 'summer slump' mixed with the recent changes? I was getting a head of steam there, there, kerplooey. Bugger!


Yup, I posted earlier the same experience - two days with only 1 sale and I normally get lots more than that. My ranking has dropped quite a bit - which I hate - but I'm hoping it's just reporting slowness and not summer slowness LOL! However, dollars wise - if the expected payout is as calculated - I'm doing the same as usual.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

Khaleesi said:


> While I'm waiting to see what happens and not yanking my work. I find this whole,"you were gaming the system and don't deserve your income" thing a bit condescending. I'm a single mother and the sole provider of my 4 year old child. I'd like for all the people yelling that authors who adjusted to the old KU system to look me in the face, as a real human being who is taking a massive pay cut, and tell me "it's just the logical facts!"
> 
> If novel writing had made sense for the last year, I would have done that. I built my income off of what was bringing me the most money (which guess what, is logical). I'm changing my writing strategy as of two weeks ago. But when millionaires tell me that I'm hysterical because I'm shocked and dismayed that I might have to take my daughter out of the preschool she loves or might lose the first car I ever owned, I find it a bit... irritating.


I was going to say, "Badly done, Hugh," in my Mr. Knightly voice (when he called us greedy) but this is better put.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

S.E. Gordon said:


> A brilliant move by Amazon to unload the content that they don't want.


You know what's really awesome?

In the months after KU launches, Amazon bent over backwards with articles and data dumps about how shorts were the most popular format and were totally the future.

Then a few month sin, presumably when they realized that paying $1.30 for a form that can be read 10 at a time wasn't the best idea for a service that only costs $10, they started dumping data about how readers 'preferred' longer works in KU.

People were doing exactly what they were told to do and now they're being cast aside for it.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Why is everyone getting so heated about what, after all, are just guesstimates? 
If writers are already taking their books out of KU then the pool will be divided between fewer writers. 
Amazon can at anytime suddenly decide to increase the pool.

Sits back to await the ACTUAL figures


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

This whole things feels icky. It's coming across as a patronizing Company Store man trying to quell dissenting opinion by labelling it hysteria. It's not exactly Harlan County, but feels gross anyway.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> You know what's really awesome?
> 
> In the months after KU launches, Amazon bent over backwards with articles and data dumps about how shorts were the most popular format and were totally the future.
> 
> ...


And this goes back to the "why" of the whole thing. I do not think that Amazon cares about its authors. No company does. This move was not at all about making it fairer for novel writers. Amazon would pay you a a half percent royalty if they could get away with it. Amazon was seeing something in their internal data to make this change. It wasn't about payout because Amazon fully controls how much it pays out for KU. So it's something else. Maybe they didn't like the way short story writers were skyrocketing to the top of the author rankings. Maybe they didn't like their subscriber numbers. I don't know. But I can guarantee this change wasn't made to make it more fair for anyone.


----------



## CJAnderson (Oct 29, 2014)

A lot of good points in this thread and I do agree that Amazon should have given more of a warning. At least six months to allow authors to prepare for the change. Changing the rules so drastically with just a 30 day(?) notice is pretty extreme. *I seriously doubt the business and marketing minds at Amazon just suddenly realized one day that borrows heavily favored the short books.* They had to have known it would happen. Not exactly Rocket Science.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> You know what's really awesome?
> 
> In the months after KU launches, Amazon bent over backwards with articles and data dumps about how shorts were the most popular format and were totally the future.
> 
> ...


Doesn't KU swing in your favor this time around, Vaal? It might be worth it for you to put something in there and test the waters, assuming you haven't already.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> You know what's really awesome?
> 
> In the months after KU launches, Amazon bent over backwards with articles and data dumps about how shorts were the most popular format and were totally the future.
> 
> ...


That's assuming that Amazon's intention with KU 2.0 is to get rid of shorts. Perhaps their aim is to get rid of "crappy" shorts, and stop rewarding authors who are throwing them up to make a buck without regard to reader engagement?

I've seen more than a few posts in recent months from readers who said they left KU because of lack of novel length work, so I don't think it's just Amazon making data up for their own purposes.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, I'm driving and seeing multiple reports for this thread.  It's going to be a few hours before I can read through and see what's going on.  I can't really even read the reports yet.

Let's be civil, OK?

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

KMatthew said:


> And shame on you, Hugh.  Don't you know better than to share on here? If you have anything useful or insightful to share, people WILL attack you for it. I learned that the hard way. That's why so many of the wildly successful oldies go the way of the buffalo.


Yes and it has nothing to do with the "insightful" information they give newbies who now cannot pay rent! Shame on people with brains!

http://www.kboards.com/index.php?topic=162157.0


----------



## geronl (May 7, 2015)

Mine is still 0

0
x0
____
0


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> Let's be civil, OK?


Oh, balls...


----------



## funthebear (Sep 26, 2014)

drno said:


> Yes and it has nothing to do with the "insightful" information they give newbies who now cannot pay rent! Shame on people with brains!
> 
> http://www.kboards.com/index.php?topic=162157.0


I'm still making five figures with that strategy. It's as valid now as ever, it just won't make you rich like it did before.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Maximillion said:


> What's your BDSM pen name, Hugh? lol.
> 
> I've seen the one person being quite rude to Hugh.
> 
> Last I checked there was a growing consensus around the idea that character count (with spaces) divided by 1000 was a better estimate than word count.


No there wasn't a growing consensus around this idea. I read the same thread and all I saw was that you suggested it and there were those who were pro and those who were against it.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

S.E. Gordon said:


> Doesn't KU swing in your favor this time around, Vaal? It might be worth it for you to put something in there and test the waters, assuming you haven't already.


Even if I could trust Amazon after the last three times I've gotten screwed over by their whimsy, 70% of my money comes from Kobo, Apple and BN. I have a ridiculously international following, so it it's never going to make sense for me to gamble on exclusivity to a company my readers don't use.

Although I am morbidly curious what the page counter would peg RB:The Complete Saga's quarter million words at page-wise.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

What a depressive place Kboards is lately. Like a moth, I can`t help but come back for more!


----------



## Kylo Ren (Mar 29, 2014)

geronl said:


> Mine is still 0
> 
> 0
> x0
> ...


Me too. For a laugh, ask Siri was zero divided by zero is.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

I got nothing, I'm just honored to be in a post that's going to be locked and deleted.

I've updated my ambivalence from the end of the Select Golden Era of freebies. Somehow all six chambers remained empty.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> Even if I could trust Amazon after the last three times I've gotten screwed over by their whimsy, 70% of my money comes from Kobo, Apple and BN. I have a ridiculously international following, so it it's never going to make sense for me to gamble on exclusivity to a company my readers don't use.
> 
> Although I am morbidly curious what the page counter would peg RB:The Complete Saga's quarter million words at page-wise.


Perhaps you could intentionally design one work, and one work only, for inclusion in KU for experimental/informational purposes. Obviously it would need to be a longer work, which is no small investment.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

It begins...



> "By placing the emphasis on length of book rather than quality of book, Amazon is shutting out more than just erotica authors. Nonfiction authors and especially children's book authors - whose works tend toward the shorter side - are also going to be hard hit by this change.
> 
> "The author of a cookbook used to receive a flat fee anytime someone borrowed one of their books. Now, they will receive a pittance unless the reader scrolls all the way through to the end of their book. And even then, they might not make much unless their book is long. And who reads cookbooks beginning to end?"


http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/02/amazon-pay-self-published-authors-per-page-read-kindle


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> Here are your numbers:
> On a normal day I would have made $1,215 in borrows yesterday (I averaged the previous week to give me a baseline). I finished with $300 more than that yesterday going with the $.0057 number. I should pass yesterday's page reads fairly quickly (probably while I'm at the vet with the kittens). Everything after that will be an add on. I told you my numbers, but FYI, you are not entitled to anyone's private financial numbers just because you sit there and stomp your foot and throw a tantrum.


Thanks for the numbers, Miss Amazon! Now we have proof that for the super best selling novel writers the new KU is better. I think this means that more best selling novelists will come back into KU. Rosalind James thinks about coming back, Hugh Howey the same and I'm waiting to hear what Holly Ward will do.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Rykymus said:


> That's assuming that Amazon's intention with KU 2.0 is to get rid of shorts. Perhaps their aim is to get rid of "crappy" shorts, and stop rewarding authors who are throwing them up to make a buck without regard to reader engagement?


They sure picked a discerning method of getting rid of just the bad actors then.

As always, I have to ask you how you're telling them apart without reading them. And how Amazon intended to separate the wheat from the chaff. Do NOT say pages read, because a complete read through of a short is going to be like a dime or a quarter (hey, like I predicted when I was just being 'anti-Amazon' or whatever. Neat!) and not worth it to a lot of people.



> I've seen more than a few posts in recent months from readers who said they left KU because of lack of novel length work, so I don't think it's just Amazon making data up for their own purposes.


They were there the whole time. They just weren't reported until Amazon needed to try and reign in the shorts and woo the novelists back.

And I really hope novelists are watching this because at any time, Amazon could decide they want to encourage shorts again and suddenly you're looking mighty expendable again, like you were in July '14.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

S.E. Gordon said:


> Perhaps you could intentionally design one work, and one work only, for inclusion in KU for experimental/informational purposes. Obviously it would need to be a longer work, which is no small investment.


Why would I put a ton of work into a book and then tell the loyal readers who got me where I am today, who I now hang out with online, who have literally bought me things (not paid me, I mean a DvD got sent to my house because I offhandedly said I was looking for it)... that they can't have it for three months?

And in the process uphold a program I feel is antagonistic toward my very future as a writer who is not currently living in a box?

I don't see any positives in this action for me.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

Surprisingly, I actually agree with what you're saying, Vaalingrade. The marketplace will always be volatile and will have the tendency to change on a dime. We all have to be prepared to not only change with it, but to be insulated against the negative effects of those changes. For some, that means going wide. For others, it means keeping your day job. For myself, it's my mailing list and my savings account.

There is nothing wrong with going all in, just as there is nothing wrong with going wide. You just have to know what's right for you, and be prepared to deal with the consequences if you turn out to be wrong. But blaming your woes on a big corporation that makes changes to protect its interests? That's just naive.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

S.E. Gordon said:


> Perhaps you could intentionally design one work, and one work only, for inclusion in KU for experimental/informational purposes. Obviously it would need to be a longer work, which is no small investment.


Did that, failed horribly, unpublished it a couple of months later. Now I plan to expand it into a novel and publish it wide, just like all my other books.


----------



## Matthew Stott (Oct 22, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Why would I put a ton of work into a book and then tell the loyal readers who got me where I am today, who I now hang out with online, who have literally bought me things (not paid me, I mean a DvD got sent to my house because I offhandedly said I was looking for it)... that they can't have it for three months?
> 
> And in the process uphold a program I feel is antagonistic toward my very future as a writer who is not currently living in a box?
> 
> I don't see any positives in this action for me.


Probably best not to, then. I haven't published yet, but plan to put each new release (for now) in KU for one or two turns, then pull and go wide. I think going wide is always going to give you the better long term, sustainable option.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> As always, I have to ask you how you're telling them apart without reading them. And how Amazon intended to separate the wheat from the chaff. Do NOT say pages read, because a complete read through of a short is going to be like a dime or a quarter (hey, like I predicted when I was just being 'anti-Amazon' or whatever. Neat!) and not worth it to a lot of people.


Something else that people leave out of the equation is that each short has to be proofed, converted to an ebook, have a cover, etc. just like a full-length novel. So there's a lot more publishing overhead to account for. It's also a lot more cumbersome to push out updates across your whole catalog to add new back matter links. I can easily spend weeks when I need to push out significant updates across my catalog of 60 shorts to Amazon/B&N/Google/Kobo/All Romance/Narcissus/Smashwords/D2D/etc.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

drno said:


> Thanks for the numbers, Miss Amazon! Now we have proof that for the super best selling novel writers the new KU is better. I think this means that more best selling novelists will come back into KU. Rosalind James thinks about coming back, Hugh Howey the same and I'm waiting to hear what Holly Ward will do.


I would be shocked if HM Ward came back to KU. Her serials are in the 20K range each. She'd be making less than half in KU than she does in a sale.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

KelliWolfe said:


> Something else that people leave out of the equation is that each short has to be proofed, converted to an ebook, have a cover, etc. just like a full-length novel. So there's a lot more publishing overhead to account for. It's also a lot more cumbersome to push out updates across your whole catalog to add new back matter links. I can easily spend weeks when I need to push out significant updates across my catalog of 60 shorts to Amazon/B&N/Google/Kobo/All Romance/Narcissus/Smashwords/D2D/etc.


Yeah. People have asked why I don't sell the individual issues of Descendants. I am NOT doing 86 covers and 86 uploads. Not no way, not no how.


----------



## geronl (May 7, 2015)

bb-8 said:


> Me too. For a laugh, ask Siri was zero divided by zero is.


My 12-year old nephew could have long "conversations" with Siri, oh it was funny for about 10 minutes but it got really annoying


----------



## edwardgtalbot (Apr 28, 2010)

Several people have implied that the fact that we haven't heard from too many people who stand to gain in the new system means that not very many will. I don't really think that's accurate. I count at least five or six people on the thread who pretty clearly stand to gain, but I definitely recognize that many more people on kboards have posted details which make it seem likely that they will lose on KU2.

I am pretty certain that I stand to gain from it. My two 310 page novels are being calculated close to 700 zonpages, so unless my previous borrows have read over 10% but less than 40%, or unless the .005-.006 number is way off, I'll make more. Possibly double or more. But there are a couple of reasons why I haven't made a big deal of it. Most notably, it is clear that a lot of folks will be hurt by this. These are my fellow authors whose back I'd like to have more often than not. So I don't want to make a big deal of my likely gains.

The second reason is that I think by nature most of us are much more likely to react strongly when faced with possibly losing income than when faced with possibly gaining income. Even if I moved more than the handful of units that I do per month, I suspect I would be very cautious about my expectations. There are a lot of unknowns:

-What will the payout be? Although I would be surprised if the payout deviates significantly from the .005-.006 range (because Amazon wouldn't have given us the data they have without knowing we'd assume that), who knows? If enough folks pull their books or KU reading goes down for seasonal or other reasons, pages read could drop from June to July.

-I don't know how far folks who borrow my books are reading. Maybe all of those who get past 10% get to the end in which case my income from borrows will triple. Maybe the first 10% of my books are awesome and then they start sucking and everyone stops by 20%.

-What else is Amazon going to change? Honestly, I expect some other changes to rankings/algorithms that they won't announce. I think it's correct to look at this as a major decision by Amazon to try to jump-start KU and I don't think they're going to limit it to just our royalty rate.


----------



## Heather Hamilton-Senter (May 25, 2013)

drno said:


> Thanks for the numbers, Miss Amazon! Now we have proof that for the super best selling novel writers the new KU is better. I think this means that more best selling novelists will come back into KU. Rosalind James thinks about coming back, Hugh Howey the same and I'm waiting to hear what Holly Ward will do.


Well, I'm not Miss Amazon (and I hope you meant that as a compliment to Amanda, who deserves all her success, and that you weren't just being sarcastic) and I'm doing about the same, perhaps better if the reporting is stuck because it hasn't moved for a bit. This isn't necessarily just for the superstars.

But really, how can we possibly know anything for sure after 1.5 days?? Particularly right at the beginning of the summer slowdown which may also be affecting the bottom line....


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

***********


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Gaming the system, taking away from novel writers, etc. These are so unfortunate because they imply cheating and theft, essentially vilifying people who wrote shorter fiction and profited under KU 1.0. I hope people don't really see short-form writers as cheats and thieves, but I'm starting to wonder. This is a group of writers, where I assume words are chosen carefully.

Just the statement that shorts writers were _taking away_ from novelists is so inaccurate.

Amazon GAVE shorts writers more per word than they gave novelists in KU 1.0. Short-form writers didn't TAKE anything. And as for gaming the system, I find that description accurate of people wrote 7-page incoherent crap will the intention of getting the downloader to open the file at or past 10%. They knew there was no value in the things they uploaded--they were scammers gaming the system. Someone writing erotic shorts because it was profitable to do so was _not_. Using the word greed to describe erotica writers is also amazing. As if people who wrote short work that was heavily borrowed and highly profitable should have pulled out of KU to not be greedy?

It's a shame the way things are being framed, not just in this thread but in kboards in general.

I do agree that for many people, a wait-and-see approach might be best. When Amazon makes any big change, they break a dozen things. Nothing's going to run smoothly for a while, most likely, so I doubt reporting is going to be that accurate at first. And reads on July 1st wouldn't have been from anything borrowed previously that had hit 10%, I assume. My guess would be the 1st would be a low day across the board.

I started out with short erotica, and made a living at it. Then I moved on to longer works in other genres, before KU. Short erotica and erom writers are still my tribe, and it's pretty devastating watching the pain and panic of people I care about who are set to lose 70-80% of their KU income. Seeing the language used while discussing this, language that implies wrongdoing on their parts and greed (good fortune and business sense enough to make hay while the sun shines, anyone?), just makes it worse.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Rykymus said:


> That's assuming that Amazon's intention with KU 2.0 is to get rid of shorts. Perhaps their aim is to get rid of "crappy" shorts, and stop rewarding authors who are throwing them up to make a buck without regard to reader engagement?
> 
> I've seen more than a few posts in recent months from readers who said they left KU because of lack of novel length work, so I don't think it's just Amazon making data up for their own purposes.


It doesn't matter the quality of the short, you lose money by being in KU, so the only reason a person would stay in is due to some sort of loyalty to Amazon.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

drno said:


> Thanks for the numbers, Miss Amazon! Now we have proof that for the super best selling novel writers the new KU is better. I think this means that more best selling novelists will come back into KU. Rosalind James thinks about coming back, Hugh Howey the same and I'm waiting to hear what Holly Ward will do.


Text is hard. I hope that's not sarcastic. Amanda has never had a bad word to say about anybody else and has not expressed a drop of glee at the fact that some people's income will be heavily slashed. And she has every right to be happy about earning more under KU 2.0.

Maybe you meant it as a compliment. If so, ignore me.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> Thanks for this. I needed a hug. I'm hugging you back, even if you weren't meaning to hug me and you just tripped over the carpet and tried not to bash your head into the coffee table.
> 
> I love disagreeing on stuff (see my history here). The ad homs just get tiring. Instead of people calling me a shill, they should just point out the flaws in my reasoning.


FWIW, Hugh, I agree with you 1,000%. Not trying to be a butt-kisser, but your logic on this entire thing has always been flawless. And sending you a virtual hug!!!! You rock!


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> _Bonus Thought!_ Because I hope maybe Amazon is planning a KU Kid subscription (one that includes indies - and maybe comics and graphic novels) that will recompense children's book borrows better in a model where they don't have to compete with word-heavy adult books.


A KU Kids subscription makes a lot of sense. Thanks for coming up with the brilliant idea!


----------



## edwardgtalbot (Apr 28, 2010)

Shelley K said:


> Text is hard. I hope that's not sarcastic. Amanda has never had a bad word to say about anybody else and has not expressed a drop of glee at the fact that some people's income will be heavily slashed. And she has every right to be happy about earning more under KU 2.0.
> 
> Maybe you meant it as a compliment. If so, ignore me.


I feel certain she meant it as a compliment - that's how I read it


----------



## DawnLee (Aug 17, 2014)

drno said:


> Thanks for the numbers, Miss Amazon! Now we have proof that for the super best selling novel writers the new KU is better. I think this means that more best selling novelists will come back into KU. Rosalind James thinks about coming back, Hugh Howey the same and I'm waiting to hear what Holly Ward will do.


I'll hazard a guess that one of the reasons many authors aren't posting their numbers is that they're trying to be considerate. Despite all of the vitriol on this thread, I'm sure there are plenty of authors who are thinking that there are good people being hurt by the KU changes, and for them to post their own positive numbers would just be rubbing salt into a wound.

However, I think comments like the one I've quoted are another one of the reasons that authors aren't posting their positive numbers. Hugh is Amazon's pimp and Amanda is Miss Amazon? Why? Because she has the audacity to be a bestselling author? Good for her. I'll admit I've never read her work, but I'm willing to bet she worked her a** off to produce it. If you turn around and find yourself with a bestselling book, I doubt you'll think that you deserve derision for it.

I'm not a "super-bestselling author," but I am making a fulltime living and I'm probably going to do better with KU2 than I did with KU1. I won't apologize for that, because I don't write with KU in mind, I write with the goal of engaging readers. When KU changes again, and it will, I'll still be writing the same books, because they're what I want to write.

I'm damned fortunate to be doing what I love and actually able to support my children from it. I hope I never get over being overwhelmed by it. I wish that for every author here, not just the novel writers or the insert-your-favorite-genre writers. I don't think anyone needs to apologize for doing well, anymore than the people who aren't doing well need to apologize for that. Only, I don't see anyone asking them to.

Comments like the one above belong on middle-school playgrounds. I'm pretty sure if Amanda Lee called one of the authors here who is being hurt by KU2 a "loser," villagers with flaming torches would be upon her forthwith. Or, more realistically, she would just look like an idiot.


----------



## RyanAndrewKinder (Dec 14, 2014)

A lot of salty people in the threads and even more people saying not to worry. I get both sides. My book falls on the side of not good for kindle unlimited. I will still test it out, but at a normalized page rate of 170 pages, it considers my book of prompts to not be worth lending. The lesson is: tell amazon why I will opt for unerollment, then release the book wide and hope for the best.

I wonder how well amazon unlimited is actually doing. I don't know many people who have it. I can imagine amazon saying to hell with the headache and just doing away with it.


----------



## Heather Hamilton-Senter (May 25, 2013)

Thank you Dawn - well said. I truly hope that comment wasn't meant the way it sounded, but even if not, it was still condescending.

That said, if there's ever a Miss Amazon contest, I'll enter and hope to win  !


----------



## Matthew Stott (Oct 22, 2014)

Let's all be nice! NICENESS POWER!


----------



## Heather Hamilton-Senter (May 25, 2013)

Matthew Stott said:


> Let's all be nice! NICENESS POWER!


When, oh when will we get a Like button?!


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Heather Hamilton-Senter said:


> When, oh when will we get a Like button?!


+1


----------



## Daniel Kenney (Sep 18, 2014)

S.E. Gordon said:


> A KU Kids subscription makes a lot of sense. Thanks for coming up with the brilliant idea!


I agree, a KU Kids Subscription might be the way to go. There is a structural problem that kid's writers have. Most kids don't have the ability to buy their own books (some certainly do but not most.) One of the advantages of the borrow system is it allows kids to do their own "buying" so to speak. It's a great way to have some of our work sampled (beyond samples  )

I happen to be one of those kid's authors who gets alot of borrows and this new system will drop my income by quite a bit. I write books that aren't super short and aren't super long. I'm stuck in that mucky middle. So, I'm not going to get killed with this new system but I won't do very well either if I leave my books in KU. And of course, I fully understand that I don't have to. But, if writers of long novels were allowed to voice how the old system didn't particularly fit them the best then we certainly shouldn't begrudge writers of kids books for pointing out that this new system doesn't particularly fit us, right?

And although I'd love Amazon to address even folks like me in the murky middle, the fact is, they really should do something (at the very, very least) about Picture Book authors. On another discussion, I saw 2 different authors who had their picture books counted as 1 page in the new scheme...but most were in the 20-30 page range. I'm sorry, if a kid reads and entire picture book and one of those authors only gets 25 x 1/2 a cent or even 25 x 1 cent.....there's not any universe in which someone can convince me that is fair. There's no logic to substantiate your argument.

So, this idea of the Kids KU might be the best. Amazon clearly doesn't want to motivate kids authors (and particularly picture book writers) to put their books in this KU system so my hope is that they would have a separate KU KIds subscription service. That would make sense and that's something I could get behind.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Ah yes! If only they'd used their powers for niceness instead of evil!










This is only an excuse to use this quote. It doesn't really fit, I'm aware...


----------



## edwardgtalbot (Apr 28, 2010)

RyanAndrewKinder said:


> I wonder how well amazon unlimited is actually doing. I don't know many people who have it. I can imagine amazon saying to hell with the headache and just doing away with it.


I don't think Amazon considers it a headache. They consider it a business situation for which they have to evaluate different alternatives and pros and cons. Which gets to your first question - how well is it doing? We have absolutely no way of knowing. They could be losing most of that 11 million dollars every month. Or it could be wildly profitable (that I actually doubt). I know several people who have it and I have had it from the beginning, but I am far from a typical reader. I love it. I don't spend less on books than I did before KU, because I generally bought mostly low priced and sale books anyway. But I would say I get more quality books for the money than I previously did


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Considering Amazon have a special kindle kids creator, designed for the implementaion of graphic heavy picture books and comics, I am confidently (averbmsndwuwj  ) optimistic that they may have some special kids author roll-out. We could do a petition between the picture/kids authors and send a nice email to them? These books SHOULDN'T...yes....SHOULDN'T....compete with adult works and lengthy novels. It`s a different art entirely. Amazon can do as they wish of course, but if ANYONE tells me to go wide...when I`ve used their software to CREATE my books ( hence being stuck in some way ) I`ll send em` a virtual body-slam. Joking


----------



## Daniel Kenney (Sep 18, 2014)

Andrew Murray said:


> Considering Amazon have a special kindle kids creator, designed for the implementaion of graphic heavy picture books and comics, I am confidently (averbmsndwuwj  ) optimistic that they may have some special kids author roll-out. We could do a petition between the picture/kids authors and send a nice email to them? These books SHOULDN'T...yes....SHOULDN'T....compete with adult works and lengthy novels. It`s a different art entirely. Amazon can do as they wish of course, but if ANYONE tells me to go wide...when I`ve used their software to CREATE my books ( hence being stuck in some way ) I`ll send em` a virtual body-slam. Joking


Agree Andrew. I'm not sure of how such a system would work...and as pointed out in one of the threads yesterday, such a system would have its own scammers to deal with...but with both Picture Books, Chapter Books, even Middle Grade books we're dealing with a substantial body of literature with its own norms for what constitutes a book. And I think most of us who are writing/creating books that conform to the fairly well established norms would like to be constituted for our book. So, I don't know exactly how such a Kid's system would work....but it makes all the sense in the world to separate kids books from adult books both in the library as well as in this general discussion. So, to your point...Yes, we need to gather as many picture book/kids book authors together as possible and press Amazon for a different solution for dealing with our work. And a KU Kids might just be the right approach.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

> Really low.
> 
> As usual, the chicken littles got up before the roosters. Blogging about this now, but thought I'd share my 7am graph.


It's interesting to watch someone introduce a thread by mass labeling people as chicken littles while they label themselves as superior - "the rooster" - and then, later, complain that people are not treating them with respect.


----------



## EG Michaels (Oct 15, 2013)

Daniel Kenney said:


> I agree, a KU Kids Subscription might be the way to go. There is a structural problem that kid's writers have. Most kids don't have the ability to buy their own books (some certainly do but not most.) One of the advantages of the borrow system is it allows kids to do their own "buying" so to speak. It's a great way to have some of our work sampled (beyond samples  )
> 
> I happen to be one of those kid's authors who gets alot of borrows and this new system will drop my income by quite a bit. I write books that aren't super short and aren't super long. I'm stuck in that mucky middle. So, I'm not going to get killed with this new system but I won't do very well either if I leave my books in KU. And of course, I fully understand that I don't have to. But, if writers of long novels were allowed to voice how the old system didn't particularly fit them the best then we certainly shouldn't begrudge writers of kids books for pointing out that this new system doesn't particularly fit us, right?
> 
> ...


Great points Daniel. If there was a KU for kids, then we'd probably get it for our children who are just discovering their own love for reading.

Children's books is a great example of a genre where the expectation is a shorter number of pages. Anyone who has/had kids knows that they aren't going to sit down and read a 300 page book on their own. At least not until they're much older.

I would encourage the authors like you who are producing quality works to organize and petition Amazon to make changes to help balance the playing field. IMHO, a good answer might be to institute some book size criteria for specific genre or age levels. That way a 20 page kids book author get compensated fairly for their works.


----------



## Daniel Kenney (Sep 18, 2014)

Daniel Kenney said:


> Agree Andrew. I'm not sure of how such a system would work...and as pointed out in one of the threads yesterday, such a system would have its own scammers to deal with...but with both Picture Books, Chapter Books, even Middle Grade books we're dealing with a substantial body of literature with its own norms for what constitutes a book. And I think most of us who are writing/creating books that conform to the fairly well established norms would like to be constituted for our book. So, I don't know exactly how such a Kid's system would work....but it makes all the sense in the world to separate kids books from adult books both in the library as well as in this general discussion. So, to your point...Yes, we need to gather as many picture book/kids book authors together as possible and press Amazon for a different solution for dealing with our work. And a KU Kids might just be the right approach.


YIKES! would like to be compensated...not constituted. That sound painful. Compensated is better


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Heather Hamilton-Senter said:


> Well, I'm not Miss Amazon
> But really, how can we possibly know anything for sure after 1.5 days??


I made $1.37 yesterday and today I made $2 in borrows. Last week I was making $20 per day in borrows.


----------



## 4eyesbooks (Jan 9, 2012)

When this new KU payout was announced I contacted my KDP contact who assured me that there would be some sort of adjustment for children's books (page multiplier or a special bonus for kidlit authors was suggested).  She assured me that Amazon was committed to keeping quality content in their children's ebook KU area.  Once I saw what my KENPC was for each of my books I contacted her again and got a very different response.  

"At this time, we currently only compensate for pages read, no matter your book’s page count. We’re unable to provide alternative compensation for children’s books, but are still actively looking at the concerns and feedback from authors like yourself. Stay tuned as we continue to work on making this system more fair for all authors."

This response did not make me feel very confident that our genre is important to Amazon.


----------



## Annabel Chant (Feb 24, 2015)

A kids' subscription could be a really good idea, especially if they worked it so only those books showed up. I know some children's authors have had concerns regarding the inappropriate alsoboughts they sometimes acquire   .


----------



## EG Michaels (Oct 15, 2013)

4eyesbooks said:


> When this new KU payout was announced I contacted my KDP contact who assured me that there would be some sort of adjustment for children's books (page multiplier or a special bonus for kidlit authors was suggested). She assured me that Amazon was committed to keeping quality content in their children's ebook KU area. Once I saw what my KENPC was for each of my books I contacted her again and got a very different response.
> 
> "At this time, we currently only compensate for pages read, no matter your book's page count. We're unable to provide alternative compensation for children's books, but are still actively looking at the concerns and feedback from authors like yourself. Stay tuned as we continue to work on making this system more fair for all authors."
> 
> This response did not make me feel very confident that our genre is important to Amazon.


I've contacted KDP support with a question and gotten 2-3 different answers. So I wouldn't give much weight to the latest response you got. I'd suggest you try to find someone higher on the Amazon food chain and talk to them. If you're friendly with a high profile author then it might be worth reaching out to them. They may have an email address of a bigger Amazon fish to contact with your concerns.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> When this new KU payout was announced I contacted my KDP contact who assured me that there would be some sort of adjustment for children's books (page multiplier or a special bonus for kidlit authors was suggested). She assured me that Amazon was committed to keeping quality content in their children's ebook KU area. Once I saw what my KENPC was for each of my books I contacted her again and got a very different response.
> 
> "At this time, we currently only compensate for pages read, no matter your book's page count. We're unable to provide alternative compensation for children's books, but are still actively looking at the concerns and feedback from authors like yourself. Stay tuned as we continue to work on making this system more fair for all authors."
> 
> This response did not make me feel very confident that our genre is important to Amazon.


Thanks for posting this, Angela.

So what do you say to this, Mr. Howey? Still fair, all things considered


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

edwardgtalbot said:


> I don't think Amazon considers it a headache. They consider it a business situation for which they have to evaluate different alternatives and pros and cons. Which gets to your first question - how well is it doing? We have absolutely no way of knowing. They could be losing most of that 11 million dollars every month. Or it could be wildly profitable (that I actually doubt). I know several people who have it and I have had it from the beginning, but I am far from a typical reader. I love it. I don't spend less on books than I did before KU, because I generally bought mostly low priced and sale books anyway. But I would say I get more quality books for the money than I previously did


KU users spend 37% more at Amazon than non-KU users. At least I think I read 37%. It may be higher.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

Just in case you're wondering where he is...

http://www.hughhowey.com/great-ku-flip-2015/


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

anniejocoby said:


> FWIW, Hugh, I agree with you 1,000%.


Well, not really a 1000 percent, because you pulled all your titles out of KU. Hugh has pulled half his books out of KU. It's a different dynamic.


----------



## edwardgtalbot (Apr 28, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> KU users spend 37% more at Amazon than non-KU users. At least I think I read 37%. It may be higher.


Very good point, Cin!


----------



## Matthew Stott (Oct 22, 2014)

Someone said:


> It's interesting to watch someone introduce a thread by mass labeling people as chicken littles while they label themselves as superior - "the rooster" - and then, later, complain that people are not treating them with respect.


But it isn't calling out anyone in particular, just the observation that many people seem to be running about panicking. Then showing reason for them not to panic. (I've no idea if he's right or not, I'm not even in KU!) I think that's different to direct, personal disrespect, because that's actually directed at a specific person. One is: 'there's no need for this sort of attitude, it's daft!' the other is 'YOU ARE AN IDIOT. YES YOU.' Different.


----------



## Heather Hamilton-Senter (May 25, 2013)

drno said:


> I made $1.37 yesterday and today I made $2 in borrows. Last week I was making $20 per day in borrows.


Yikes, that's not good. Very sorry to hear it. I only made $5 yesterday and normally I'm in the $20 range. Today though, KU has normalized but no sales - so the summer slowdown is also a factor.

I meant that we don't really know what the change is going to mean collectively for us all at this point. For those like me who write in the mid-range of novels, 60,000 to 90,000, I can't tell yet whether I'm going to see an increase, decrease, or no real change. For those with much shorter works, the hit seems immediate. But I have no guarantee people will finish my books and give me the extra revenue - I quit reading books all the time for various reasons which have nothing to do with the quality of writing (and sometimes do).

No answer here except to wonder if reading one short work can then lead to another of the author's short works and on and on. So in a sense, they become like chapters of an author's larger body of work and eventually create the same outcome....


----------



## 4eyesbooks (Jan 9, 2012)

The person that I spoke with at KDP is the one who interviewed me for the KDP newsletter and has been spearheading the kidlit content in KU on Amazon.  I would think they would have the best and most accurate information on this new payout system for our genre.


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

For nearly a year, KU borrows across the board were exactly the same, a 600 page opus that took three years to write, was paid exactly the same for a borrow, as a 12 page short story. And all the short story writers yelled, YAY! 

Now, going forward, borrows will be paid by the number of pages read. About the same amount of money is going into the pot, but not every book is going to be paid the same. Does that mean the short stories aren't as good as the long novels? No, of course not. It just means they're shorter.

The old system was fraught with problems and opened the door to scammers and gamers. People pulled novels, chopped them up into a serial and released them individually, for one reason and one reason only. To make money. Others dumped poorly written stories, with little or no editing into KU, knowing they'd likely not sell anything, but a couple of days of work could get them ten borrows a day for a year. Throw more out there and make thousands.

That kind of mindset gives the reading public in general a poor view of indies. Personally, I welcome a meritocracy. And I'm sure that most good writers, who toil for months on end to produce quality reading material that their fans love welcome it as well. Most of my books will now pay nearly as much for a borrow as a sale. More so in the case of one of them.

The KENPC calculates the number of pages not by the number of pages in the paperback, that'd be too easy for gamers to just increase the font size and line spacing. It doesn't go by the number of lines in a book, because again gamers would simply start a new paragraph with every two word sentence. The key word in KENPC is normalized. Regardless of how you format, space, or write a book, there's one thing that they all have in common. Keystrokes. Being paid by the number of times your fingers tap a key, absolutely levels the playing field across all genres, and type of books. Nothing could be more fair.

I'll go back to munching popcorn and watching while this post gets flamed. Actually, no I won't. I rarely visit here anymore, due to the negativity.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

Matt
But we sure know who the rooster is, don't we?
He wrote so many put downs and disrespectful comments about people who wrote shorts that I lost count. He even said people who wrote them wrote them out of greed. Saying an entire genre of authors were motivated by greed...
If that is't disrespectful on an authors' forum, I don't know what is. But it obviously isn't an issue. Perhaps it isn't because of the voice behind the put downs. IDK why it isn't an issue; I just know that the powers that be on AC don't consider it an issue.

He lost a reader and not because of different views on a program. He wants to say the replies were about that, but they weren't. You can't accuse an entire genre of authors of writing in a genre because they are motivated by greed and not expect some blowback. So he didn't lose a reader because he likes KU2.0; he lost a reader because of his very condescending and disrespectful remarks. Now I doubt he cares he lost a reader - well, actually a reader who had the Wool series put on a high school read list and will have it taken off too - but that doesn't change the fact that he did.

There's a way to say you like a program that others don't without hefting yourself as a superior and then heckling down at all of those you think are below you. This wasn't it.


----------



## Heather Hamilton-Senter (May 25, 2013)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> I'll go back to munching popcorn and watching while this post gets flamed. Actually, no I won't. I rarely visit here anymore, due to the negativity.


I was wondering where you went recently! Don't go away - we need more positivity on this forum


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> I'll go back to munching popcorn and watching while this post gets flamed. Actually, no I won't. I rarely visit here anymore, due to the negativity.


I already went anonymous - After this week I'm thinking hard on staying in here at all.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Rubens4tune said:


> I already went anonymous - After this week I'm thinking hard on staying in here at all.


General note that changing your name isn't enough to really go anonymous. Go back through your post history and clean up the posts with personal information, such as twitter accounts and links to books.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

Wayne, there's nothing to flame in your post IMO. It isn't condescending at all.
I'd just take issue with this
You said >>>> "For nearly a year, KU borrows across the board were exactly the same, a 600 page opus that took three years to write, was paid exactly the same for a borrow, as a 12 page short story. And all the short story writers yelled, YAY! "

Short writers didn't say YAY because borrows were paid the same across the board. They said YAY because, just like every other author type, people were reading what they wrote.

Where this idea that this is some battle between short and long writers got started, IDK
Wait, maybe I do
"_We made this switch in response to great feedback we received from authors who asked us to better align payout with the length of books and how much customers read._- Amazon - https://kdp.amazon.com/help?topicId=A156OS90J7RDN
Hmm, I wonder why Amazon would ever want to turn what is a per book pay cut for most ( pay cut for any KU book where approx. pages READ < 250 ) into a battle between authors rather than a battle between the ones who are getting paid and the one doing the paying.... 
Gee. IDK. Beats me

But boy, it sure would be nice if people were yapping about the terrible, non-standard KENPC v1.0 formula that Amazon is billing as a standard. I wonder why they aren't. IDK, maybe because they have something different to yap about?


----------



## sinapse (Apr 28, 2015)

My apologies in advance to those who'd rather not get into numbers. My apologies also to Indies whose catalog or interests fall outside our rather narrow target zone. Hopefully the analysis will help you in some minor way going forward.

I take the advice of the many successful self-pubbers to heart when they say one needs to be a good writer half the time and a good business manager the other half the time.

This post asks:

Can we derive a new "sweet spot" word count for KU borrows and what might it be? How can we use that derivation in planning our writing products. How can we use the derivation in deciding whether to keep a given title in KU or going wide with it? Is it worth reworking and/or repackaging older material for republication and listing in KSelect?

My business half-brain, or half-wit as some have called it, has focused over the past four months on designing a business model for our participation in KSelect/KU. (We have a rough plan for wide distribution but only KU is at issue here, given the changes.)

FWIW over the four months research I developed several working assumptions.

1  The pay per 10% read title scheme was KDP's "jump-starter" to quickly pull as many authors and coincidentally subscribers into KU 1.0 as possible. (Whether that was the best jump-start technique or smart is not relevant here.) That scheme could not be expected to last long once they saw the amount of scammy trash rapidly accumulating in KU by the end of 2014. LOL - I'm referring to the content, not the subscribers!

2  It seemed to me and others only a question of time before KDP moved to a per word or per page basis of some kind.

3  It appeared to me that the working average "real word" count per Kindle page-equivalence was about 240 average words. Meaning, to keep this basic, if all the Kindle-displayed grown-up fiction pages in a month were published as paperback pages, the average words per "real equivalent page" would be 240, give or take. No big shock that it would be close to the well-established trad publishing number. 

4  Long term, it seemed reasonable (to me, with my former corporate marketing hat on) to expect KDP to pay KU authors about $.00004 to $.00005 per borrowed word, for those words read.  (Not going to go into how that range was derived here.)

5  On an idealized 240 word "real page" basis, I therefore estimated a per page-read payout of from .0096 cents to .012 cents.

Let's do the math. Under the above assumptions, over the long term:

-  a 10K word, 40ish "real page" short that was 100% read would earn from $.40 to $.50 in KU-bucks. 
-  a 20K word novelette would earn $.80 to $1.00
-  a 4oK novella would earn $1.60 to $2.00
-  an 80K novel would earn $3.20 t0 $4.00

The conclusion for our project is that we saw a 20-30K word sweet spot with a payout over time at about 90 cents per fully read borrow. I saw how to make that borrow payout rate work within our larger business model, and how to build our various candidate serials in 15K to 35K installments. Guided now by those conclusions, we've proceeded with final draft production across three different erom serials.

Let me be crystal clear here: I assumed KDP would be ready to pay at least roughly a US dollar for each "sweet spot" borrow over time. And that amount was fine with us, because we designed our books to work with it, on average. Meaning some would be less, and that would be OK with us, since they would be intended to bring new readers into our little community of like-minded pervs and hot-bloods, where they'd be borrowing the titles that earned us more. And bumping our title rankings. And signing up on our lists. And buying a high proportion of new releases instead of borrowing them. 

Caveats:

1  I did not care about longer works, since we don't plan to publish any. I have views on the KU economics of full-scale novels, but they are irrelevant.

2  Ditto children's and other illustrated works. Ditto non-fiction. Ditto the other genres. Sorry.

3  All our titles will be in serials or story arc-linked series, in the voraciously-read erom genre, so (assuming we do our targeting and promo well, thanks mainly to wisdom gained from many KBoarders) we know from real world experience we can count on a high average percentage-read figure, as opposed to non-steamy one-off titles spread across several genders.

4  I was not concerned with short erotica in our analysis, or the way it was rationally used to exploit the flawed KU 1.0 scheme. It's a business, folks. Nor are we opposed to XXX erotic content, far from it: the fact is we have 16 intensely erotic romance titles in draft and pre-production, but all are at least 12 to 15K words. Many are upwards of 35K. The average is about 25K. Lo, the new "sweet spot".

5  I had a very long career in online apps and computer services software, so I realized once I got into KDP that they had a host of behavioral and operational metrics trad publishing couldn't dream of. Plus they could implement a host of delivery alternatives. At speed. And they will make decisions that may (knowingly) jeopardize a part of their business or platform (read: us) if it promises to hurt the big competitors they face out there in the real world, or in the near future world as Amazon sees it. Plus they are driven by a consumer-value mantra that means anyone who is an Amazon supplier will find their margins squeezed. Period.

6  Semi-full disclosure: I have over ten years experience as an Amazon non-publishing merchant. I've had the magic 'Zon discovery carpet yanked from under my product lines a number of times. I also can think like a high level suit, being a recovering one, so am never surprised by any marketing or operating tactic such people foist on their suppliers or customers. It's business.

7  A long term average means looking way out there. In this crazy business, that's probably just 24 months. Said another way, KDP could well pay more than my estimates and then drop the rates once they had the mix of titles they want. As they did with the KU 1.0 scheme.

8  What constitutes a "real page equivalent" for you will vary, as will your "effective words per real page." For example, our titles are heavy with dialog so we'd expect fewer words per "real page", and hence, a bigger reward. Not from "scamming"; from well-written fast moving dialog.  

9  Averages for business or operation plan modeling are not going to describe anyone exactly. They are best guesses as supported by whatever numbers we can grok from a black box. Yours will vary. Figure them out. Then apply them to your catalog, old and new alike.

OK, now how does my pre KU 2.0 "probable payout per word read" stack up versus the new KU?

First, we don't know yet.  Not with "finality", as if anyone can expect any such thing in this market.

Second, we still have no meaningful number for the effective equivalent real words per KENP page yet.

But KDP has given us an estimated per page payout for now of $.0058, and that's a helluva lot less than my working estimate of between .0096 and .012, right?

Probably not, actually. As we are learning by the hour, KDP's new page fudge machine tends to inflate what I define as "real pages" by 50%, 100%, 200% or even more. 

Once we get more numbers, and can then let the air out of the page fluff balloon, we'll be able to convert to the actual word counts and equivalent "real pages" for each book.

My working guesstimate as of this morning is that we'll discover that KU 2.0 is paying just about a penny a page, or a little more!

Congrats to the many of you who called that correctly! 

Therefore as of now, I expect to be close to accurate on my "per real page" payout estimate, and off a bit on my estimate of a per read-word rate of $.000045 (due to the black-box page metrics of KENP.)

Hey! What's in a word, right?

If your mix of writing and titles can't work around the new $1.00 for a sweet spot edition, then pulling out of Select and going wide may be in order. But for the series authors and many others who can add up the total benefits of having a title in KU, it probably won't be, IMO. But there are going to be exceptions, of course. 

It's not rocket science; it's pocket science. Your iPhone and my Android device. My pocket, and yours.


----------



## BGArcher (Jun 14, 2014)

I've been reading a lot of posts the last few days and my emotions have been majorly up and down. The thing is, over the last year I've made a good amount of money off of KU, and that's entirely from shorts. As of yesterday, doing just shorts to pay my bills isn't viable, but that's okay for me... Because I've been working on full length mystery thrillers for the better part of three years, I just haven't published them yet. If life is about turning lemons into lemonade, that's where I am going with this change. I'm going to focus on getting those novels ready for publication (because I do care about my readers and turn out a quality product, even when it's romance shorts) and then I'll go WIDE with them. 

The funny thing is, I'll probably keep my shorts in KU, even if I make a lot less from them. I have a feeling that KU is going to change a lot in the next few months, do to both backlash and like many have said, we have no clue actually how much they are going to pay us per page. I would even considering being on Amazon exclusively with the mysteries, but this change has reminded me to not keep all my eggs in one basket. 

I didn't get into this business to make a fast buck. I got into this business because I love writing (all writing) and will have a long CAREER out of it. If that means in the next three months I don't make as much money as I was making on shorts the last six months, so be it. I know in the long run (6 months down) having a new series out that is on all platforms with a solid mailing list is the way to really survive, and that's exactly what I plan on doing. If anything, this change has woken me up from my shorts drunken stupor to get focused on long term goals, and I can't help but admit that's a good thing.


----------



## Tamara Rose Blodgett (Apr 1, 2011)

*


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

DawnLee said:


> Hugh is Amazon's pimp and Amanda is Miss Amazon?
> .....and I'm probably going to do better with KU2 than I did with KU1.


Probably isn't cutting it for me. Last week I thought I was probably going to do better because readers like my short stories. so more page reads. Yesterday and today I made plus minus 10 percent of the borrow revenue I was making last week. You see I like to see facts. Amanda gave me facts.


----------



## edwardgtalbot (Apr 28, 2010)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> For nearly a year, KU borrows across the board were exactly the same, a 600 page opus that took three years to write, was paid exactly the same for a borrow, as a 12 page short story. And all the short story writers yelled, YAY!
> 
> Now, going forward, borrows will be paid by the number of pages read. About the same amount of money is going into the pot, but not every book is going to be paid the same. Does that mean the short stories aren't as good as the long novels? No, of course not. It just means they're shorter.
> 
> ...


I for one have valued your insights and hope you won't visit too infrequently. But I don't disagree about the negativity. The only thing I can say is that having been very active here from 2010 partway into 2012, I saw the same thing. The three years I spent largely away from the board had nothing to do that, but my suspicion is that over the years there are ebbs and flows and times when more topics set people off. It is certainly true that a lot of folks express strong opinions, often in ways not everyone finds productive. It makes sense to consider whether the benefits and interactions with those who don't outweigh the negativity. For myself I only read maybe one out of 25 posts, usually ones having to do with promotion or nuts and bolts like changes to KU. The latter can often devolve 

In any case, I overall agree with your assessment. I will benefit from the changes, so I guess it's easy for me to say that. The only thing I would say is that considering the effort required to publish a legitimate work (not one expressly intended to dump meaningless content), what would be more fair would be some sort of hybrid approach with an amount for pages read and a smaller amount tied to number of units read to a certain page/percentage. Such an approach would have some challenges and would be even easier to attack and complain about, but probably would be more "fair". Still wouldn't solve the issue of books heavy in images, particularly non-fiction and kids books. And scammers would have an easier time than in KU2, though not as easy as in KU1.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

KMatthew said:


> I polled my readers and asked what they wanted. I'll be beefing my installments back up to around 20K a piece, but I'm going to continue serializing. Two products is better than one.
> 
> And I won't decide whether or not I'm going to pull out from KU until they announce the amount of the first payout. Right now I'm all in, hoping to capitalize on a higher KU All Star bonus from the mass exodus and from having mores titles available through KU.


I read through the thread (skipping over the more irate posts..) and this has to be one of the most logical bits I've read yet. My gut has been telling me that 20k serials might still do well under KU2. But your post narrows things down for me more.

I know some people can be really mean. But I wanted to say thanks for sharing this. This makes perfect sense and has helped me clarify some things.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

I'm not saying the writing wasn't on the wall. It's never a surprise that someone wants to pay people less, is it? 
A big point that is being lost in the long vs short battle is that the change in Amazon's subscription model isn't about shorts vs longs; it's obvious it isn't. If you have a tough time with that point, look at Scribd and what they are doing with romance. This isn't about shorts vs longs; it's about who is gong to get gutted when the subscription model fails. I'd think when 2 of the big offerings are making major changes, we'd notice the distributors ain't gutting themselves.

So considering KU2.0 and Scribd, what I m saying here is that I am stunned at what is nothing less than a celebratory tone about fellow authors being gutted.
To me - in a forum comprised of a bunch of professionals who all offer the same product - it is shocking to see producers of one type of the same product darn near celebrate the gutting of producers of another type of the same product.

We all got an ox here. Some have a brown ox, some have a black ox, some might even have a polka dot ox. The type of ox doesn't matter; we all got an ox. Now while it might not be your brown ox being gored - heck that goring of the black ox might even help your brown ox find some food - oxen are still being gored. When you are an ox farmer - even if a mass goring drives the price of your oxen up - the mass gorring of oxen should be something to take note of.

IDK. I'm surprised. I'd think producers who all make the same product would be concerned when producers of a few types of same product are getting gored. Nope
But hey
*Keep on cheering. After all, there's a reason to celebrate. More people are gonna see your ox....
Just hope he doesn't get too fat like the short oxen did on KU2.0 and the romantic oxen did on Scribd*


----------



## edwardgtalbot (Apr 28, 2010)

sinapse said:


> Let's do the math. Under the above assumptions, over the long term:
> 
> - a 10K word, 40ish "real page" short that was 100% read would earn from $.40 to $.50 in KU-bucks.
> - a 20K word novelette would earn $.80 to $1.00
> ...


A very informative post, but you made a leap here that you didn't explain. How do you arrive at the 20-30K word sweet spot? There must be some specific facts you didn't mention related your writing/book model that informed this. If I were purely concerned about the amount of dollars per hour of work I made, I'd write long books. Because even if we assume that writing 20,000 words takes 20% as long as writing 100,000 words (and this varies a lot between authors so there's no one answer to how true that is), publishing a book properly takes overhead. There's the cover, of course. Then editing - you can find an editor who charges purely by the word, but most would charge a bit less for one 100K book than five 20K books. Then there are small things - writing the description, doing promotions, maintaining the product page, uploading the book, creating front and back matter and converting the HTML to mobi/azw, managing accounting for the extra titles. Conservatively I'd have to say that if I put cost and time into one general bucket, what's required to get a book out other than the writing and editing is equivalent to another 10,000 words of writing time. I could have one 100K novel written and published and 40K of the next one written in the same time/cost required to write and publish five 20K books.

Now if it turns out that you can sell books more effectively to customers at 20-30K words because of reader demand, how quickly the author(s) can produce them, and/or them being more effective for sell-through, then I could easily see 20-30K being a sweet spot. And you'd weigh how increasing or decreasing word counts impacted this effectiveness, balancing it of course against the overhead I mentioned for publishing a book. But I didn't see anything in your post about these issues so I couldn't figure out how you arrived at your sweet spot number. Note: it undoubtedly varies by genre as well.


----------



## Daniel Kenney (Sep 18, 2014)

When I read about Holly and others whose revenue took a big hit after the original KU, I felt genuinely bad and I wanted there to be a more fair system. 

When I read about Picture Book authors who will start to make anywhere from 1 - 25 cents for a full read through of their book, I feel genuinely bad and I want there to be a fairer system.

My guess, is most of the people on this thread fall into this same camp of being concerned for both situations. Most of what I've read is not so much hysteria as it is concern. I didn't think Holly and others were being hysterical, I thought they were voicing legitimate concerns. That's most of what I'm seeing now, legitimate concerns. The great thing about a forum like this, is, hey, let's be real, a great many of us are fumbling around in the darkness looking for doorknobs. It's nice to be able to come to a spot where others sort of know what that's like and to give each other a listen and a bit of a hug. 

As for Picture Book/Kids Book authors...there may be a few different solutions.

First, we could all opt out of select and KU. Maybe KU just isn't the right place for kids books. ONe potential problem (and somebody smarter than me will have to help me out here) are big 5 titles able to get into KU without having to be exclusive to select? If so, then that would be a drawback...meaning, readers would still have access to relatively famous titles in KU.

Second, Amazon could come up with some way of recognizing that Children's books are different than other books. I said this on another forum and the very intelligent responder told me to show him the evidence that Children's books are different than other books. Um, come take a walk with me through a bookstore, possibly? What constitutes a picture books is different from what constitutes an adult cozy mystery. What constitutes a chapter book is different from what constitutes a an Epic Fantasy Novel. Each is a book. The paperback versions of each in a bookstore are probably fairly comparable in price. And yet, in this new KU system, the monetary value of a read through of one would be dramatically higher than that of another and that doesn't make much sense to me. So, I could see Amazon coming up with some tiered system of what constitutes "normal" for a particular category. If your book fits within that "normal word count etc.." then you get the full borrow....or you get a percentage of a full borrow depending on what percentage of the full book the reader read.

Third, Amazon could come up with a separate store for Kids Fiction. A book has to choose whether it can be in Kids or in Adult but not in both. The problem category here would be YA which spans both categories. One of the good things about the borrowing system is it does allow some kids the freedom to do some 'buying' on their own and that helps with discoverability. If the smart folks at Amazon could maintain some quality control of the Kids store, it could be a really welcome addition to parents and kids alike.

So, there's some thoughts about some things that are concerning. Thanks! Dan


----------



## DawnLee (Aug 17, 2014)

drno said:


> Probably isn't cutting it for me. Last week I thought I was probably going to do better because readers like my short stories. so more page reads. Yesterday and today I made plus minus 10 percent of the borrow revenue I was making last week. You see I like to see facts. Amanda gave me facts.


I say "probably," because I'd be foolish to bank on a day and a half of numbers for an as yet to be determined payout. But I can give you the facts. My sales on the two books in my series generally run 35-40 sales per day each. Borrows have been running 20-25 per book per day. Yesterday, my total sales for the two books were 79. My pages read were 23,762 for two books that are 48k in length. So far today, I have 72 sales and 14,281 pages read.

So yeah, I will "probably" be okay with the new KU. Then again, maybe not. My approach won't change either way. I'll focus on sales rather than borrows. I'll try really hard to write books that people enjoy, and I'll be exceptionally grateful if they do. I'll wish success for everyone else who's working their butts off to do good work, whether that work takes the form of a 20k short or a 300k opus. Borrows have always been a question mark as far as earnings, and I just choose not to focus on them, whether they're paid by borrow or by page read.

Those are my facts. Extrapolate at will.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> I'm not surprised. I'm not shocked at all. I just think their outrage has no ethical foundation. As you eloquently put, their outrage is based on greed. I'm highlighting that.
> 
> Everyone acts like this isn't a zero-sum game, but it is. The pot is finite. So these poor souls you're concentrating on were taking money from novel-length writers, who were also trying to earn money for their families, and investing more time and effort to do so.


I am sorry, but you shouldn't make blanket judgements like that.

Not all of us short story authors are driven by "greed" or to game the system into paying us more.

*I WAS thinking of the consumer* (and not my own bank account) when I opted in with my short stories. _The sole reason _ is so that I can offer them FREE on occasion. My decision based on so many complaints and reviews I've read by customers who balk at paying ANYTHING for short stories, even 99 cents. I make NOTHING from free downloads. I even offer one free at my blog (that isn't in KDP Select).

Now, I'm rethinking _ everything_ regarding short stories. 

Heck, I don't get that many borrows anyways. I could benefit more from going wide than keeping everything on KDPS/KU. AND, I can still offer my shorts on my blog, and/or make certain stories permafree.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

I want to tell all children's book authors how sorry I am that this is happening to you. At least short writers can bundle.
One of the best things we can do in this country is put books in the youngest of hands. KU1.0 made that very financially feasible for a lot of parents and worked for the authors too, especially when compared to KU 2.0. 
While I am bummed about the effect on the short portion of my catalog, if Amazon would grant me one wish and one wish only, it'd be for them to figure out how to keep it economically feasible for the authors to include children's books in KU2.0 so parents have an affordable option to put them in their children's hands again.

I see you children's books authors are starting a "unite campaign". Are people who don't write or purchase children's books, but strongly believe Amazon has to apply a fix welcome? I'm more than willing to promote and/or advocate for anyone's children's book if promotion and/or any book related actions are part of the plan. 

I know people reading my shorts can't change the world, but kids reading children's books can. So, again, I am so sorry to see this happen to a genre that can and does impact our future.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Someone said:


> I'm not saying the writing wasn't on the wall. It's never a surprise that someone wants to pay people less, is it?
> A big point that is being lost in the long vs short battle is that the change in Amazon's subscription model isn't about shorts vs longs; it's obvious it isn't. If you have a tough time with that point, look at Scribd and what they are doing with romance. This isn't about shorts vs longs; it's about who is gong to get gutted when the subscription model fails. I'd think when 2 of the big offerings are making major changes, we'd notice the distributors ain't gutting themselves.
> 
> So considering KU2.0 and Scribd, what I m saying here is that I am stunned at what is nothing less than a celebratory tone about fellow authors getting gutted.
> ...


I have no doubt Amazon will find a way to pay all ox less by Christmas time.


----------



## Michael Murray (Oct 31, 2011)

Daniel Kenney said:


> When I read about Holly and others whose revenue took a big hit after the original KU, I felt genuinely bad and I wanted there to be a more fair system.
> 
> When I read about Picture Book authors who will start to make anywhere from 1 - 25 cents for a full read through of their book, I feel genuinely bad and I want there to be a fairer system.


Kids books should be in a special category and paid much better - they create readers and that's a Good ThingTM for everyone.


----------



## DawnLee (Aug 17, 2014)

Someone said:


> I know people reading my shorts can't change the world, but kids reading children's books can. So, again, I am so sorry to see this happen to such an important for our future genre.


This times 1000. I sincerely hope that Zon does find a way to make KU equitable for the authors of children's books. Regardless of what kind of revenue kids' books brings to Amazon, we need more great kids' books, not fewer of them.


----------



## Salvador Mercer (Jan 1, 2015)

drno said:


> How are you benefitting from the changes? Post numbers, don't tell us this is what you hope will happen. I posted that yesterday and today I made 5 percent of what I made last week. Where are your numbers that you are benefitting?
> 
> Not one of you so called winners under the new regime has shown us numbers that you are making more money than you did before.


KENPC v1.0: 478
KU1: 1 unit x $1.35= $1.35
KU2: 478 pages x 0.0057 = $2.72

KENPC v1.0: 400
KU1: 1 unit x $1.35 = $1.35
KU2: 400 pages x 0.0057 = $2.28

No hoping, I could make less than I make now, if so, so be it. It's also pretty hard to post numbers showing how much more money anyone has made in the last 36 hours compared to what? Another 36 hour period sometime last month? A 36 hour period for my first month?

Who is a 'so called winner'? Hugh may or may not be right on several things he said, but I'm pretty sure he's right when he said you were rude. You did accomplish the rare feat of making me regret my first post on the subject and even drew me in to make a second post. I doubt I'll post a third.


----------



## 4eyesbooks (Jan 9, 2012)

As a kidlit author trying to produce high quality content I really appreciate the support being shown in this thread.  Anyone who supports our efforts is welcome in our "unite" campaign.  We can use all the support we can get.  Right now our genre is pretty down in the dumps, but I have every confidence that we will persevere.  After all, we dream and design in beautiful color and this bump in the road will not dampen our spirits or creativity for long.


----------



## Julianna (Jun 28, 2015)

DawnLee said:


> I say "probably," because I'd be foolish to bank on a day and a half of numbers for an as yet to be determined payout. But I can give you the facts. My sales on the two books in my series generally run 35-40 sales per day each. Borrows have been running 20-25 per book per day. Yesterday, my total sales for the two books were 79. My pages read were 23,762 for two books that are 48k in length. So far today, I have 72 sales and 14,281 pages read.
> 
> So yeah, I will "probably" be okay with the new KU. Then again, maybe not. My approach won't change either way. I'll focus on sales rather than borrows. I'll try really hard to write books that people enjoy, and I'll be exceptionally grateful if they do. I'll wish success for everyone else who's working their butts off to do good work, whether that work takes the form of a 20k short or a 300k opus. Borrows have always been a question mark as far as earnings, and I just choose not to focus on them, whether they're paid by borrow or by page read.
> 
> Those are my facts. Extrapolate at will.


Is that 48k combined or 48k each?


----------



## DawnLee (Aug 17, 2014)

Julianna said:


> Is that 48k combined or 48k each?


48k each.


----------



## J.A. Sutherland (Apr 1, 2014)

I have started and deleted so many responses in this thread today. Wow. And the way the thread has gone is the epitome of the zero-sum game.

In general, the changes are a more equitable distribution of the pot.

In general, there were scammers who put up utter nonsense, knowing that someone who "borrowed" had no advantage in complaining -- and there were some questionable tactics, like splitting a novel into multiple parts. Questionable, only because KU _is_ zero-sum.

In general, the panicked response of the general community, not those on the fringes for whom the impact is clear, is irrational without more data.

Specifically, shorts writers, legit serials, and especially children's picture books, are taking it in the shorts sans-lube with this change.

Novel writers took it hard with KU1, I think. That's zero-sum.

I empathize with those taking the hit. I hope Amazon comes up with a KU3 that level-sets some of the impact. I think a separate subscription service for children's books would be smart. But it's zero-sum ... someone'll be hurt just as much as someone gains by the next set of changes.

But what I saw today was Hugh Howey made some general statements about the panicked reaction -- and I didn't take them as targeted at the fringes (those whose income will either clearly benefit or clearly be hurt by this change), but at the general middle where it's still an open question as Amazon normalizes KENPC and the influx/outflux of titles settles. And people who are hurting, legitimately impacted by the change, took it personally -- when I don't think you're who he was talking about at all.

Maybe I'm wrong, but there are two ways to read this thread and it's either that or Hugh Howey ... who remains a staunch and vocal evangelist for self-publishers, who spends his time and money gathering, analyzing, and disseminating data that helps self-publishers, and who could, instead of doing those things, hop on his new boat [I am so jealous you bastard] and wave buh-bye to the whole mess ... yeah, instead he dropped in to taunt and insult you.

I see misunderstanding, not malice.

That's my 0.57 cents.


----------



## Ros_Jackson (Jan 11, 2014)

KU eligible titles just ducked briefly below a million. I'm seeing 1,000,344 now, but I don't think numbers are too precise. I think that's a loss of around 20,000 titles since the new payment system launched, whilst overall KDP titles keep on rising. 

There's going to be a point when authors find an equilibrium, because if too many pull their titles there could be a boost for those remaining. But what's really going to matter medium-term is whether this apparent exodus has any effect on subscriber levels, or on the genres that subscribers tend to borrow. 

I'm waiting and watching with interest. I've always been wide, but I'm seriously considering putting something in KU 2, even if it's not a full novel. Those 1.9 billion pages read took me by surprise and have made me think twice about my plans. Thanks to everyone on this thread who has crunched the maths so I didn't have to.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

I'm jumping right in the middle here, just for fun.

I have nothing of value to add at all, and no real thoughts on the matter. I'm just watching everyone go ballistic with a look of surprise on my face.

I didn't like the comments though that this board is really negative. 

Yes, it's true there are lots of people freaking out right now over something they can't control and can not really tell what it is yet... but there are hundreds of other really great positive threads going on...

One supporting a Kboarder who is sick
One with a fantastic new book by one of our own with an accompanying app that we are all loving
One on the excitement of starting Nano
Several where people have asked for help with covers or blurbs and are being given it in spades
Even one saying how much they love this place and the people on it 

I could go on.... But I wont. I'll just say how fantastic it is that there are so many different sorts of people on here with lots of different points of view and that most of you have really interesting and intelligent things to say... oh bum, now I'm making myself puke with all this sickly sweetness


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2015)

DawnLee said:


> Yesterday, my total sales for the two books were 79. My pages read were 23,762 for two books that are 48k in length. So far today, I have 72 sales and 14,281 pages read.
> Those are my facts. Extrapolate at will.


Thank you! Good job!


----------



## DawnLee (Aug 17, 2014)

drno said:


> Thank you! Good job!


You're welcome. I'm so relieved that you're pleased.


----------



## sinapse (Apr 28, 2015)

edwardgtalbot said:


> How do you arrive at the 20-30K word sweet spot? There must be some specific facts you didn't mention related your writing/book model that informed this. If I were purely concerned about the amount of dollars per hour of work I made, I'd write long books.
> ....
> Now if it turns out that you can sell books more effectively to customers at 20-30K words because of reader demand, how quickly the author(s) can produce them, and/or them being more effective for sell-through, then I could easily see 20-30K being a sweet spot. And you'd weigh how increasing or decreasing word counts impacted this effectiveness, balancing it of course against the overhead I mentioned for publishing a book. But I didn't see anything in your post about these issues so I couldn't figure out how you arrived at your sweet spot number. Note: it undoubtedly varies by genre as well.


Sorry I wasn't clear. Your later part contains most of the answer. The 25K (as a target average for a large catalog or long serial/series) sweet spot is the result of just the kind of investigation you describe. Plus other elements, including:

- Finding a size that can easily support a $2.99 selling price per installment
- A size that lends itself to being meaty enough in a set of three to warrant a boxed edition
- A size that lets us do "Liliana Nirvana" type "all-in" (mini)series launches
- A size that lets the first time reader get a meaningful "taste test" of a really scandalous story line without having to read a looong book, or, read, say, an 8K installment and feel the character(s) weren't developed enough.

These are just the tip of the iceberg.

We want a convenient size for readers on the go, or who have less than an hour for a satisfying bedtime read. Every one of our installments tells a meaningful story, while moving the (multiple) arcs forward.

It's about excitement: with a 500 page "big" novel, you can only buy it once. We want the reader having fun "opening" a new present (installment) after installment after installment.

We're about branding. We want that shared serial cover up on Amazon pages as often as it can be. We want to up the odds of it being talked about in social media. We want to build contests and events at some point centering on "what happened next", "did she or didn't she", "did they or didn't they?" Soap opera? Move over, Mr, Dickens. His sweet spot was a chapter, in case some of you have forgotten.

It's about story arc flexibility - - if we see a reaction to a given 20K installment, we can adjust the next installment or a following one to pick up on that reader hint.

With 20-30K installments, we can fold in current events and satirize "right now" situations with an installment.

We want to put the first "volume" of a series out quickly and learn fast if it can get traction with our target audience(s) - - and if it cannot, be able to drop development and move to the next candidate serial.

It's about "first to market" and then, speed of follow-up. So we need meaty chunks that can be plotted and done at speed. I've done multiple start-ups and learned the hard way.

I realize much of this won't be palatable to many writers. We see fiction as entertainment, not "art". We want superior written entertainment, but we want it when the readers do, which is as soon as they fall in love with our lead characters.

You mention the editing cycle, and that is the bottleneck. Part of my training was in operations research, so improving the edit process is actually a top priority. I won't go into that key set of issues here, or the solution we're testing right now.

A major point I did not feel the need to make: this serial/series plan is NOT applicable to what some of the short writers were accused of, namely breaking a big work into serial-sized bytes.

Don't mistake me: I love long works personally. I read all of the Marquis de Sade, talk about snoresville, and War and Peace three times, cover to cover. But the times they are a-changin'.

When I put my writer hat on, I love creating funny stories that expose the far and darker sides of the human chimpanzee species. I love it when the Beta readers tell me how umm, "engaging" the stories are. But my business hat loves even more to hear them talk about the pacing and the excitement of anticipating the surprises and heat in the next volume.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Evenstar said:


> I'm jumping right in the middle here, just for fun.
> 
> I didn't like the comments though that this board is really negative.
> 
> ...


SEE MY SIGNATURE! !!!!!


----------



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

> KU eligible titles just ducked briefly below a million. I'm seeing 1,000,344 now, but I don't think numbers are too precise. I think that's a loss of around 20,000 titles since the new payment system launched, whilst overall KDP titles keep on rising


If that is true, a lot of writers must be dropping out of Select.


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

Deanna Chase said:


> Is the author of Author Earnings Report honestly saying he hasn't figured this out? I find that hard to believe. But just in case, here you go.
> 
> One novella in Select (110 KENPC pages):
> June 30th 101 borrows x $1.30 (estimated KU payout) = $131.30
> ...


Here's the problem with trying to figure out where a writer stands financially only two days into the new system. Those borrows on June 30th came from readers reaching a 10% read whether they checked out the book that day, a few days earlier, or more than a month ago. The pages read in July count ONLY new pages read. Now I'll agree there should also be some pages from books borrowed previously that had not yet reached 10% but had some pages read during the first two days of this month. That number probably is not significant. In other words, IN MY OPINION, all data at this point in the new system is meaningless. Let's see the comparisons of June and July at the end of July. Better yet, let's wait until August 15 so we not only have full month results but also the exact per page payment. Then an effective discussion can ensue.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

Okay
Happy thread note
I remembered reading the "See Inside" of DawnLee's _See You_ and, even though I could picture the cover, I couldn't recall her name or the book's name for nothing. It has been driving me nuts because I planned on _See You_ being one of my beach reads. 
YES
YES
YES
DAWN, I'M SO GLAD YOU ARE POSTING. I WANTED TO FINISH YOUR BOOK SO BAD AND I COULDN'T. TY ( and yes, I did yell that  )

Seriously, if you are in the market for that type of book, check out DawnLee's _See You_. The "Look Inside" is VERY good and others who have read the book in entirity say it is an EXCELLENT read.


----------



## DawnLee (Aug 17, 2014)

Thanks, Someone.  I hope you enjoy it. Poor _See You_ doesn't make much money, but it's still my favorite.


----------



## Tallytally (May 5, 2015)

So why is KU particularly damaging for illustrated children's books?  I see a lot of folks mentioning this, but I'm not grasping why.  Is it because the illustrations take so much more time/money to make?


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Dreadlord Tally said:


> So why is KU particularly damaging for illustrated children's books? I see a lot of folks mentioning this, but I'm not grasping why. Is it because the illustrations take so much more time/money to make?


Because it isn't financially viable to write anything that offers a half a penny in royalty, and some children's author are apparently seeing "1 page" under this new scheme because they don't count illustrations. So, to be in KU, you must sell your book for half a penny. This is obviously ridiculous.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Sapphire said:


> Here's the problem with trying to figure out where a writer stands financially only two days into the new system. Those borrows on June 30th came from readers reaching a 10% read whether they checked out the book that day, a few days earlier, or more than a month ago. The pages read in July count ONLY new pages read. Now I'll agree there should also be some pages from books borrowed previously that had not yet reached 10% but had some pages read during the first two days of this month. That number probably is not significant. In other words, IN MY OPINION, all data at this point in the new system is meaningless. Let's see the comparisons of June and July at the end of July. Better yet, let's wait until August 15 so we not only have full month results but also the exact per page payment. Then an effective discussion can ensue.


Question:
Let's say you have a good idea of how many borrows you get a month. Let's say your book is 50 pages. You know the payout will be anywhere from a half a cent to a cent per page whereas last month you were getting $1.34.
Let's do 100 borrows. Last month you made $134.00.
This month each book is worth anywhere from $.25 to $.50. Ok that means those 100 borrows are now $25 or $50.
So this author stands to lose just this month alone anywhere from $84 to $109. 
Now I don't know about you but that is one heck of a drop.
Add zeros as necessary to figure anyone's loss.


----------



## 4eyesbooks (Jan 9, 2012)

Children's illustrated picture books have KENPC's ranging from 1-30 pages generally.  At $.0058 per page (as has been estimated) our books would receive pennies for children that borrow and read our titles.  Our illustrations are very costly and the time we spend on our books is significant, but yet Amazon seems to think our work is not worthy of much from the KU side.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Briteka said:


> Because it isn't financially viable to write anything that offers a half a penny in royalty, and some children's author are apparently seeing "1 page" under this new scheme because they don't count illustrations. So, to be in KU, you must sell your book for half a penny. This is obviously ridiculous.


I totally get the frustration by children's book authors. They are in a special class and I think Amazon needs to make things right with them. But, for the rest of us, we aren't selling our books for a half a penny. I just did the math for my pages read yesterday. I'll even give my pitiful page and borrow numbers. I had 4045 pages read yesterday. At .006, that came out to 24.27. I divided that by 1.35 for a general payout per borrow we were getting. It came to 18. Guess what? That's pretty close to an average number of borrows for me--especially on a Wednesday, which has been slow the last several weeks anyway.


----------



## J.A. Sutherland (Apr 1, 2014)

4eyesbooks said:


> Children's illustrated picture books have KENPC's ranging from 1-30 pages generally. At $.0058 per page (as has been estimated) our books would receive pennies for children that borrow and read our titles. Our illustrations are very costly and the time we spend on our books is significant, but yet Amazon seems to think our work is not worthy of much from the KU side.


There's an rule I try to follow: Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.

It is entirely probable that Amazon didn't even consider illustrated children's books in developing the changes. But, having made the change there's little they can do about right this minute.

That sucks, but I seriously doubt anyone made a conscious determination of worth.


----------



## Robert Bidinotto (Mar 3, 2011)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> For nearly a year, KU borrows across the board were exactly the same, a 600 page opus that took three years to write, was paid exactly the same for a borrow, as a 12 page short story. And all the short story writers yelled, YAY!
> 
> Now, going forward, borrows will be paid by the number of pages read. About the same amount of money is going into the pot, but not every book is going to be paid the same. Does that mean the short stories aren't as good as the long novels? No, of course not. It just means they're shorter.
> 
> ...


^^^THIS. And a big, cheery "Amen."


----------



## edwardgtalbot (Apr 28, 2010)

sinapse said:


> - Finding a size that can easily support a $2.99 selling price per installment
> - A size that lends itself to being meaty enough in a set of three to warrant a boxed edition
> -With 20-30K installments, we can fold in current events and satirize "right now" situations with an installment.
> -I realize much of this won't be palatable to many writers. We see fiction as entertainment, not "art". We want superior written entertainment, but we want it when the readers do, which is as soon as they fall in love with our lead characters.


Thanks for the answers, that's exactly what I was figuring. I personally don't much like reading very short works other than a few every month or two, but I have found myself very engaged by works from 20K words and up. I would never extrapolate my own preferences to all readers but I can certainly believe that 20-30K is long enough to get most readers, especially in a subscription situation.

I have highlighted above some of the things you said that resonate particularly with me. I know we're getting derailed from the thread in a sense, but on the other hand I think the kinds of analysis you're doing are critical to evaluting KU, either the old or the new. I guess an initial question I have is what genres you are talking about - your first post mentioned erotica but also suggested you do a lot more than that. Thriller readers (my audience) tend towards full length novels, but I have seen enough successful sel-pubbed thrillers under 50K that I am convinced there's an angle here for 20-30K serials. Particuarly when you consider how appealing cliffhangers would be (infuriating and appealing at the same time, a perfect marketing combination). I don't at this point think I can write enough words in a short enough elapsed time to do it myself, but it's always in the back of my mind.

I have written three books between 25K and 40K and I totally agree it's a sweet spot for $2.99. It's absolutely true that there are plenty of full length woprks for $2.99, but I think most readers are more than happy to pay it once they get hooked - whether it's a free or 99 cent initial volume, promotions, advertising, whatever.

I'm curious what kind of pricing and success you've had with a boxed set of 3 totalling 75K words? I would think anything above about $4.99 and you'd start competing with a whole slew of boxed sets of three full length novels by authors selling really well. I could potentially see hooking readers with an episode or two and THEN they'd spring for the boxed set since it would be cheaper than $2.99 per.

The current events angle is the biggest reason I would like to try my hand at this sort of thing "someday". I write conspiracy thrillers which directly incorporate current and recent events and being able to respond with something within six weeks of it happening would be great.

For the books I write and mostly read, it's entertainment, so I'm with you there.

Again, thanks for the responses!


----------



## 4eyesbooks (Jan 9, 2012)

I spoke to one of the KDP folks heading up the kidlit area prior to this change who stated that they would seriously consider incorporating a page multiplier when factoring our KENPC due to the heavy graphics in our books and then after the program began I was given a completely different response stating everyone gets paid per page...period.  They were made aware of this issue before the launch.  They may still try to make things right for kidlit authors...I hope they will, but at this point we have to give serious consideration to pulling our titles from KU.


----------



## T.K. (Mar 8, 2011)

I don't have any new insights to add, but I did want to say my graph looks similar to the others posted. And I can understand the worry and frustration many are feeling, too. It's a new system and we don't quite know what to expect. I don't think people are jumping the gun by being apprehensive. It's out of our control and people in general do not like things that are out of their control. It's uncomfortable, and for some, it's down right scarey. As writers 'our economy' is experiencing change and we don't know whether it will be good or bad.  Time will tell.


----------



## sinapse (Apr 28, 2015)

cinisajoy said:


> Question:
> Let's say you have a good idea of how many borrows you get a month. Let's say your book is 50 pages. You know the payout will be anywhere from a half a cent to a cent per page whereas last month you were getting $1.34.
> Let's do 100 borrows. Last month you made $134.00.
> This month each book is worth anywhere from $.25 to $.50. Ok that means those 100 borrows are now $25 or $50.
> ...


How many words in the book, Cin? If 50 pages is KENPC, what is the "real" page count?

For example, if 50 is KENPC, the "real" page count might be 15 or 16. In that example the word count would likely be 3500 or 4K. Meaning the author is, yes, being paid about 30 cents. *A devastating percentage drop, and no one here has suggested otherwise*. But that is precisely the effect the KDP puppetmasters *want* in this case. To move the lost dollar over to the longer works. They're not concerned with fairness, just, for want of a term, "balance".


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

4eyesbooks said:


> I spoke to one of the KDP folks heading up the kidlit area prior to this change who stated that they would seriously consider incorporating a page multiplier when factoring our KENPC due to the heavy graphics in our books and then after the program began I was given a completely different response stating everyone gets paid per page...period. They were made aware of this issue before the launch. They may still try to make things right for kidlit authors...I hope they will, but at this point we have to give serious consideration to pulling our titles from KU.


Maybe what you should do is approach mother's groups? Doesn't Amazon have a huge diaper delivery biz? Find out where those moms hang out. There's likely a forum somewhere, possibly right on Amazon itself. Tell them what's going on and how children's authors will likely have to pull out of KU because of this. Maybe if you can get enough of them angry that they won't be able to find books for their kids on KU, they'll make a stink to Amazon.


----------



## 4eyesbooks (Jan 9, 2012)

MaryMcDonald - that is a very good idea.  Certainly something else to chew on.  Thanks for your input.


----------



## CJAnderson (Oct 29, 2014)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> For nearly a year, KU borrows across the board were exactly the same, a 600 page opus that took three years to write, was paid exactly the same for a borrow, as a 12 page short story. And all the short story writers yelled, YAY!
> 
> Now, going forward, borrows will be paid by the number of pages read. About the same amount of money is going into the pot, but not every book is going to be paid the same. Does that mean the short stories aren't as good as the long novels? No, of course not. It just means they're shorter.
> 
> ...


What I don't understand is....why didn't Amazon think of this BEFORE launching Kindle Unlimited? Hard to believe that nobody on Amazon's staff could see this happening. And it went on for how long? Just doesn't make sense.


----------



## sinapse (Apr 28, 2015)

edwardgtalbot said:


> Thanks for the answers, that's exactly what I was figuring. I personally don't much like reading very short works other than a few every month or two, but I have found myself very engaged by works from 20K words and up. I would never extrapolate my own preferences to all readers but I can certainly believe that 20-30K is long enough to get most readers, especially in a subscription situation.
> 
> .... I have seen enough successful sel-pubbed thrillers under 50K that I am convinced there's an angle here for 20-30K serials. Particuarly when you consider how appealing cliffhangers would be (infuriating and appealing at the same time, a perfect marketing combination).
> 
> ...


You're very welcome.

I wasn't clear, again. Our focus is rigorously erotic romance with comedic, excuse me for the word, thrusts. No other interest, including "erotic", as the word is used in Amazon. We concluded late last year that the 50 shades phenom had broken through another barrier in terms of giving women what they want more directly. The Kindle allows them to enjoy these stories in privacy; it's a question of finding the stories they want to read.

This is not to suggest the sort of blitzkrieg strategy we're shaping wouldn't work in other genres. I have a massive story arc outline in hand for a future fiction serial that would "fit". But very little about the future is funny, and eroticism is far easier to invoke in a small cove in the Lesser Antilles on a lovely cat like Mr. Howey is building, than in one of his silos.

Thrillers would fit as you suggest, and cliffhangers work. The ones in here who don't like them do not speak for the masses of readers out there. And the current events angle is huge, IMO. I won't risk any spoiler alerts but we have set our erotic romance serials in the world of today, precisely so we can use the events and trends as a backdrop. Over the (parallel) courses of our story arcs, our characters will get involved in climate destruction evils, government scandals, corruption of African dictators, and a wonderfully entertaining currency bear trap to rip off upwards of a billion or so from Chinese speculators.

We have absolutely no experience with a boxed set of three novellas at, say $7.99 going head to head with a set of novels. I'm not concerned, since our target audience will be coming to us for our world, its characters, its provocative story content, and its considerable heat. Competition? Bring it!


----------



## danpadavona (Sep 25, 2014)

DawnLee said:


> Thanks, Someone.  I hope you enjoy it. Poor _See You_ doesn't make much money, but it's still my favorite.


Dawn, I'm more of a lurker than a poster on Kboards, but I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your level-headed stances and positive attitude. And I'll have you know that it resulted in me checking out your Amazon page and immediately downloading the first book in your Florida series. I love warm weather locations and suspense, so how could I go wrong?  Can't wait to dive in tonight.


----------



## ishouldbewriting (Mar 3, 2015)

sinapse said:


> How many words in the book, Cin? If 50 pages is KENPC, what is the "real" page count?
> 
> For example, if 50 is KENPC, the "real" page count might be 15 or 16....


I know other people are reporting differently, but of the 3 books I left in KU I have a 49pages=49pagesKENPC, 31pages=30pagesKENPC and 33pages=34pagesKENPC, so there hasn't exactly been a huge jump for all of us.


----------



## sinapse (Apr 28, 2015)

ishouldbewriting said:


> I know other people are reporting differently, but of the 3 books I left in KU I have a 49pages=49pagesKENPC, 31pages=30pagesKENPC and 33pages=34pagesKENPC, so there hasn't exactly been a huge jump for all of us.


Then you are getting hit very hard, indeed. Hard to suggest ideas or offer advice. Not really my place to, anyhow.

Thanks for sharing, and all the best.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

sinapse said:


> How many words in the book, Cin? If 50 pages is KENPC, what is the "real" page count?
> 
> For example, if 50 is KENPC, the "real" page count might be 15 or 16. In that example the word count would likely be 3500 or 4K. Meaning the author is, yes, being paid about 30 cents. *A devastating percentage drop, and no one here has suggested otherwise*. But that is precisely the effect the KDP puppetmasters *want* in this case. To move the lost dollar over to the longer works. They're not concerned with fairness, just, for want of a term, "balance".


I was going by KENPC. So it would be accurate for KU. And it was just an example.


----------



## DawnLee (Aug 17, 2014)

danpadavona said:


> Dawn, I'm more of a lurker than a poster on Kboards, but I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your level-headed stances and positive attitude. And I'll have you know that it resulted in me checking out your Amazon page and immediately downloading the first book in your Florida series. I love warm weather locations and suspense, so how could I go wrong?  Can't wait to dive in tonight.


Hey Dan, thanks so much. That means a lot.  I'm not even much of a lurker anymore, but drop me a line and let me know how you liked it.


----------



## danpadavona (Sep 25, 2014)

DawnLee said:


> Hey Dan, thanks so much. That means a lot.  I'm not even much of a lurker anymore, but drop me a line and let me know how you liked it.


Will do. I also sent it to my wife's Kindle, as I think she'll like it. We're 3 weeks from vacationing at VA Beach, so this will get us in the mood. 
My author page just Liked your author page on Facebook, so I'll definitely give you a shout out once I'm done.


----------



## markhealy (Jun 5, 2014)

My graph is all over the place.  It jumps up quickly and then sits still for hours on end.  Whether this is reader behaviour or 'ironing out the kinks' I guess I will have to wait and see.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Well, my numbers are lower today than yesterday. There goes that theory.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

I have two serial instalments still in KU scheduled to come out soon. I started those serials back when I was experimenting with length and had decided to give KU a try with a serial project.  

The product page says one is 41 pages and the KENPC is 92 pages. For the other, the product page says 56 pages and the KENPC says 141 pages. Why such a huge jump? 

Either way, I used to make $1.35 per borrow and now, a 100% read through (assuming a $0.0056 per page payout) will = $0.51 for the one and $0.79 for the other so my income falls by half if both are read through 100%.

The series wasn't much of a revenue stream for me so that 50% loss won't really hurt, but I feel for the authors whose catalogue is primarily serial novellas in KU and who used to make bank from borrows. 

What would it have cost Amazon to give authors at least 30 days notice? And since KU is a 90-day commitment, it might have been really courteous to give 90 days notice?

*shakes head*


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

My graph finally moved. Looks like I've had 4 full read-throughs of my books in KU (two on one title, one each of the other two). Doing the quickie math with pages, I'm making about 48 cents a full read-through of each novella. That's quite the drop from 1.35, and quite a difference from the 2 bucks I make on sales (fortunately, my borrows are only about 1 per every 2 sales, so I still get more sales monies than borrows anyway).

As I figured, so far showing a big income drop, but I guess nice to know people read all the pages. Of course, looking at the 90% or more sell-through on the series, I could have guessed that already.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Khaleesi said:


> Well, my numbers are lower today than yesterday. There goes that theory.


Don't worry; someone more worthy is benefiting.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

lilywhite said:


> I don't understand how you know this? With only pages read to go by, but no actual number of borrows, I feel like there's a missing variable here that's really important.


She probably meant the equivalent to ...


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

lilywhite said:


> I don't understand how you know this? With only pages read to go by, but no actual number of borrows, I feel like there's a missing variable here that's really important.


Because looking at Bookreport and the breakdown of pages, they are exact to the number of pages the new Kindle system has. So I am making an educated guess. If a book is 88 pages and 88 pages show up as read... that looks like a single read-through to me. So one book is showing 176 pages read today (that's 88 twice) and the others are showing 88 and 77 pages read each (which is their exact page number). I don't think that's a crazy leap to assume four full reads of the three books today looking at those numbers.


----------



## Tallytally (May 5, 2015)

Briteka said:


> Because it isn't financially viable to write anything that offers a half a penny in royalty, and some children's author are apparently seeing "1 page" under this new scheme because they don't count illustrations. So, to be in KU, you must sell your book for half a penny. This is obviously ridiculous.


Ahhh, yes thank you that helps me understand! So text is the only thing that matters for Amazon's page calculations? A full-page illustration would disappear into the ether.

While I definitely wouldn't expect a borrow to equal a sale in terms of earnings for standard prose stories, half a penny for a borrow because a book is mostly illustration is, as you said, obviously ridiculous. Good to see the kidlit authors are talking with Amazon about this! I hope they listen and fix this oversight.


----------



## P.T. Phronk (Jun 6, 2014)

I got zero pages read today. I'm choosing to believe that they are still working out kinks in the system, so all this snarky discussion, as well as my flat graph, are based on inaccurate data. If I believe hard enough, it must be true.


----------



## Ainsley (Dec 26, 2013)

L C Storm said:


> If that is true, a lot of writers must be dropping out of Select.


Excellent. Wheat from chaff time.

Except children's books. Those folks have my sympathies.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

Monique said:


> Don't worry; someone more worthy is benefiting.


LOL...this is why I love Monique! You win the internetz today!


----------



## geronl (May 7, 2015)

Phronk said:


> I got zero pages read today. I'm choosing to believe that they are still working out kinks in the system, so all this snarky discussion, as well as my flat graph, are based on inaccurate data. If I believe hard enough, it must be true.


Somehow I got a sale today, but the thin blue line remains dead, Jim...


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

Khaleesi said:


> Well, my numbers are lower today than yesterday. There goes that theory.





Monique said:


> Don't worry; someone more worthy is benefiting.














Ainsley said:


> Excellent. Wheat from chaff time.
> 
> Except children's books. Those folks have my sympathies.


.... But not the erotica writers? Or are we chaff as well? =|


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

Monique said:


> Don't worry; someone more worthy is benefiting.


Just to clarify, that _someone_ isn't me


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Navigator said:


> .... But not the erotica writers? Or are we chaff as well? =|


I'm guessing we're chaff.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Sapphire said:


> Here's the problem with trying to figure out where a writer stands financially only two days into the new system. Those borrows on June 30th came from readers reaching a 10% read whether they checked out the book that day, a few days earlier, or more than a month ago. The pages read in July count ONLY new pages read. Now I'll agree there should also be some pages from books borrowed previously that had not yet reached 10% but had some pages read during the first two days of this month. That number probably is not significant. In other words, IN MY OPINION, all data at this point in the new system is meaningless. Let's see the comparisons of June and July at the end of July. Better yet, let's wait until August 15 so we not only have full month results but also the exact per page payment. Then an effective discussion can ensue.


I'm not deaf to the fact the we need more data. I am however aware that some people who write short cannot wait six weeks to make changes if their income is going to be 50-70% less. So some people need to watch closely right now and might have to make quick decisions.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> .... But not the erotica writers? Or are we chaff as well? =|


I feel bad for the erotica authors as well. I remember the push back my mother got when she told people she wrote historical romance novels. Not cool.


----------



## Desert Rose (Jun 2, 2015)

KelliWolfe said:


> I'm guessing we're chaff.


Of course we're chaff. And scammers. And gaming the system. Not to mention stupid and deserve to finally be punished for stealing money from novelists for all this time. Or at least, that's what I've gathered from Kboards since the announcement.


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

Dragovian said:


> Of course we're chaff. And scammers. And gaming the system. Not to mention stupid and deserve to finally be punished for stealing money from novelists for all this time. Or at least, that's what I've gathered from Kboards since the announcement.


That's what I've gathered as well. =|


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> Nah ... when people are objectively wrong, I don't agree to disagree.
> 
> KU 1.0 was broken.
> 
> ...


After reading this and thinking about it, I have this to say.

The unfairness of the KU 1.0 payment system was not the fault of the authors who worked hard to put out tens of thousands of serial instalments and short works and children's books that were borrowed like hotcakes, obviously pleasing their readers. It was the fault of Amazon for creating a flawed system in the first place. If there is blame, and there is, it should be on those who thought up the payment system -- not the authors who responded to it.

When KU 1.0 came out, I remember pundits lauding the rise of the short work and how KU was an expression of that. How it was the result of new technology, and how everyone was too busy to read a 500 page tome, especially on a mobile or tablet and that authors had to adapt. Given the pay structure of KU 1.0, one can't blame authors for responding and writing short works, serial instalments, and erotica. They profited under the KU 1.0 system because of the payout system and made life-changing money. Yes, there were some scammers, as there always are whenever there is a new system put in place. We decent humans seek to benefit from a new system, and try to adapt. So do scammers, who look for ways to exploit it and make $$$ without actually doing the work or producing a legit product.

The serial writers and short erotica writers and children's book writers were not _scamming_. Period. They were not being unfair. They were creating legitimate products.

It was Amazon's scheme that was unfair and I say that as someone who appreciates Amazon for being an innovator that allowed me to have a career as an author in the first place. This is not ADS. I respect Amazon -- most of the time. But I am able to be critical of it when I feel it is deserved.

This is all on Amazon, IMO, NOT on individual authors who altered their writing plans to fit the new reality or who started out as serial writers. Amazon created KU as a way of competing with Scribd and Oyster and they are the ones who developed the payment structure. Under KU 1.0, a 500-page book was rewarded as much as a 10 page scraped scamlet. This is not to say that a short work is worth any less than a longer work on the basis of length alone. One of my all-time favourite pieces of fiction is a short story and I would gladly pay $10 to own a copy of it. On the other hand, I recently read a terrible (in my opinion) full-length novel that I paid $9.99 for. The short story was better in every sense of what makes fiction great but the author of that work could probably only charge 99c for it in today's market.

Clearly, there is no easy formula on length and price. It really comes down to what the market will bear.

Did Amazon really think this whole subscription service through when it launched KU 1.0? Doesn't seem so. A whole tier of successful authors emerged as a result of KU 1.0 writing short serials that made more from a borrow than from a sale and who did very well in KU.

Then Amazon pulled the rug out from under them -- the rug it placed beneath their feet.

It gave those authors a paltry 2 weeks notice when I'm sure Amazon had this in the works for quite a while and could have given 90 days notice or even 60 days. If it had, serial writers and erotica writers and children's book writers could adjust their strategy and maybe bank some money. But no.

Wham, bam, thank you but no thanks.

As to arm flapping and hysterics, some good advice if you see someone hyperventilating because they think they're going to die: it's not advisable to ridicule them. Instead, you hold their hand and sit with them until the panic attack passes and they can think straight again when the adrenaline runs out.

Frankly, IMO, the subscription model sucks largely. It is a scam system, IMO, that relies on users NOT getting the true value of their subscription price. That's how companies make money off subscriptions. They count on subscribers NOT getting the full value of the subscription. So subscription service is _not_ about customers. It's about a way to make money by not giving customers the full value. And in KU 1.0, and now 2.0, it's about not paying authors for the full price of their work.

So a double screw over.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

MaryMcDonald said:


> Maybe what you should do is approach mother's groups? Doesn't Amazon have a huge diaper delivery biz? Find out where those moms hang out. There's likely a forum somewhere, possibly right on Amazon itself. Tell them what's going on and how children's authors will likely have to pull out of KU because of this. Maybe if you can get enough of them angry that they won't be able to find books for their kids on KU, they'll make a stink to Amazon.


Some possibilities:

Amazon Customer Discussions > Baby Forum
Amazon Customer Discussions > Children's Book Forum
Amazon Customer Discussions > Parenting Forum
Amazon Customer Discussions > Kindle Book Forum

I couldn't find forums dedicated to either Kindle Unlimited or to Amazon Mom.

The Amazon discussion forums are basically unmoderated. I'm sure some are "nicer" than others. Take care in posting. Observe for a while first. If you see death threats being made, go elsewhere.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

And again, let's not forget, Amazon took time out to try and convince writers they needed to write more short fiction. It's not that authors discovered a secret formula to make gold, Amazon directly told them to produce shorts for KU in several of their wider communications.

How is doing exactly what they said they wanted 'gaming'?


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> And again, let's not forget, Amazon took time out to try and convince writers they needed to write more short fiction. It's not that authors discovered a secret formula to make gold, Amazon directly told them to produce shorts for KU in several of their wider communications.
> 
> How is doing exactly what they said they wanted 'gaming'?


Exactly.

They did not receive the borrow payment unfairly.

Amazon created a system that rewarded short works more than longer works. That spoke volumes and many authors heard what Amazon was saying and responded.

To shrug or blame the victim when they are now being harmed by the new system and say so what -- they were unfairly compensated is, well, heartless.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

Sela said:


> After reading this and thinking about it, I have this to say.
> 
> The unfairness of the KU 1.0 payment system was not the fault of the authors who worked hard to put out tens of thousands of serial instalments and short works and children's books that were borrowed like hotcakes, obviously pleasing their readers. It was the fault of Amazon for creating a flawed system in the first place. If there is blame, and there is, it should be on those who thought up the payment system -- not the authors who responded to it.
> 
> ...


Yes. THIS. To all of it.
I don't have a horse in this race. I've been in KU a couple of times without gaining traction to make it worth my while to stay in. It's the exclusivity that prevents me from playing and based on Russ Grandinetti's recent comments about KU THAT is not going to change. So it's a NO for me. My long novels (320 up to 430 pages) will stay wide. I'm finally making some headway on Apple and Google which offsets total revenues earned with Amazon, and definitely part of my strategy.

@Sinapse I loved your entire posts, so thought provoking and insightful. Thank you. Your tactics and strategies provide a new way of considering things I found quite inspiring.

I find it disturbing how Amazon rules. Granted, the company has done so much for Indies with the platform for eBooks, but they are not altruistic on any level. Look how they tend to divide the group. Let's be kind to one another. This reminds me of Friday layoffs and pink slips. No different really. Never a fun day.

Hugh, an analogy starting off with chickens and roosters is never going to go well. Truly. I see some of what you're saying and agree we need to give the program time. However, I do recall when KDP Select /KU came out you had an ample amount of time to try it out without the shackles of exclusivity. For others, it's a huge burden and again, another Amaxon tactic that effectively divides us. See how that works? Just sayin'.

Edited to fix quote highlight.


----------



## Ros_Jackson (Jan 11, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> And again, let's not forget, Amazon took time out to try and convince writers they needed to write more short fiction. It's not that authors discovered a secret formula to make gold, Amazon directly told them to produce shorts for KU in several of their wider communications.
> 
> How is doing exactly what they said they wanted 'gaming'?


Good point. Some people in this thread are equating the new structure with a quality filter. Personally, I have a lot of respect for short story writers. Count me amongst the writers who will take much longer to write 1000 words of a short story than 1000 of a novel.

I think it might be useful to see this as an attempt to create churn in the KU catalogue, similar to the idea that if the same films are always available on a streaming service then nobody will buy them. So in order to create turnover, there's this discrimination based on length. Next time it might be based on genre, or release date, or the percentage of adjectives.


----------



## Miss Bee (Sep 8, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> And again, let's not forget, Amazon took time out to try and convince writers they needed to write more short fiction. It's not that authors discovered a secret formula to make gold, Amazon directly told them to produce shorts for KU in several of their wider communications.
> 
> How is doing exactly what they said they wanted 'gaming'?


This is exactly what I think a lot of short story, erotica, etc. writers (not scammers) are trying to get across. The old adage "make hay while the sun shines" applies here. KU 1.0 shined some serious sun on short story writers and they made hay. Some of them made lots and lots of hay. Now the sun has on moved to the writers of longer works with KU 2.0. This is not the fault of those who simply followed the guidelines that Amazon put out with KU 1.0.

As someone who has a few erotica titles out there (and some still in KU), I never once looked at my sales graph and thought, "I'm sticking it to those novel writers today, go me!" I checked my dashboard and was happy when I saw borrows and even happier when I saw sales.

I have two twelve-year-old daughters, and one of them seems to think that anytime I say something positive about her sister I am somehow taking something away from her. That's a really lousy way to live your life, and am trying to convince her of that. Then again, she's 12. I think most of us here are long past that age and should know better by now.

For now, I'll leave some of my short stories in KU and others I've taken out to publish at multiple vendors. When I complete a couple of novels I have in the works, I'll decide whether to put them in KU based on how the system is working at that time. Because that's how you run a business -- by assessing the market and acting accordingly, and adjusting your strategy when the parameters change.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2015)

'Gaming' is being applied incorrectly.

To 'Game' something is to maximise your level of success by knowing how something works and tuning your product to benefit from it.

This isn't cheating or spamming - it requires research and commitment and designing something to fit the model.

The only problem people have is their 'model' needs to be versatile and flexible and this is where people are making the mistake. Don't blame Amazon for changing the rules of the game - adapt, modify your design until it fits the new model. Play the game... 'Gaming IS playing the Game'


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

Just a couple of points.

I'll preface this with the fact that I'm basically a novelist. I stand to gain (but not much -- I'm mostly not in Select) by this change in KU.

1. As a couple of others have said, you cannot equate 10 10k shorts with 1 100k novel. The novelist needs one cover and one bout of marketing. The short story author needs 10 covers and needs to get the word out 10 times. The poor Children's Book author needs the equivalent of 31 covers for a 30 page book.

2. (And this is the BIG ONE) This is NOT, as some have suggested, a zero-sum game. Short story writers are not and were not taking money out of the pockets of novelists. Some have suggested that paying the same for a novel as a short story means the novelist has to work harder for his/her money and therefore deserves a bigger share. This isn't exactly true, though it looks to be so.

The truth of the matter -- as I see it -- lies in the fact that Amazon had decided on a subscription service, and they pretty much knew what they wanted to pay an author -- any author -- for the right to lend out their book -- any book, long or short. They then -- with all the numbers that we don't have at hand -- made the 'fixed fund' fit their pre-made decision.

If it were a zero-sum game, there wouldn't be additions to the fixed amount of 3 Million dollars. They added to the fund each month the amount necessary to bring the per-borrow price to the amount that they had pre-decided it would be. They started off with a generous $1.81 per borrow. Perhaps they had it near what the 70% royalty on a $2.99 book would bring in order to convince authors that KU was no danger. Then, month after month they experimented, seeing how low they could take this new 'royalty' before they began to lose authors. By May they had reduced it to $1.34 (if memory serves).

Who out there believes that Amazon would have added as much extra to the fund if all the short story authors -- those 'greedy scammers' -- had abandoned KU to the novelists only?

I don't know the figures, but let's just as a hypothetical example say that short story borrows made up 50% of all borrows and thus received 50% of the fund. Now, assume that all short story books got pulled from KU (and that short story readers didn't borrow novels instead). Does anyone here believe that Amazon would have added 6.8 Million in April to bring the fund up to 9.8 Million dollars, and thus pay novelists $2.72 per borrow?

As long as the fund isn't fixed -- and it hasn't been, Amazon has raised the amount each month since they unveiled KU -- it isn't a zero-sum game. And, in their latest email, Amazon has confirmed that it still isn't: "_As previously announced, the KDP Select fund for July and August will also be at least $11M._"

"AT LEAST" $11M doesn't mean $11M. The fund isn't fixed. It still isn't a zero-sum game. Amazon will decide how much it wants to pay authors per KENpage read, and they will add to the fund accordingly ... or not ... just as they have previously decided how much they want to pay per book-borrow.

We hear Amazon saying that they will put money into the pot and that we'll all get a share, our share depending upon the popularity of our books. And that's true as far as it goes. So we're led into believing it's a competition. If I sell more books, the price per share goes down and you suffer. It isn't true. It has never (for KU) been true. Amazon probably decided on the worth of each share before a single book got borrowed, definitely before the worth of the share was announced.

Novelist were not -- and are not -- competing with authors of shorter works. No one -- not short story authors, not serials authors, and not even scammers (and they aren't the same thing) -- was taking money out of the pockets of novelists. That's right, the only one losing money to the scammers was Amazon itself.

3. Amazon has now changed the rules of the game. They say it is to make things more fair -- "_We made this switch in response to great feedback we received from authors who asked us to better align payout with the length of books and how much customers read._" You can believe that if you want. If I were a gambling man, I'd bet everything I own and everything I could borrow, on this being a minor consideration. And, just like before, the price they'll pay per page read will likely be on the generous side for the first month, then will drop until Amazon finds the most efficient price point for their purposes (whatever they may be). Does anyone expect different?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Rubens4tune said:


> 'Gaming' is being applied incorrectly.
> 
> To 'Game' something is to maximise your level of success by knowing how something works and tuning your product to benefit from it.


That's not what anyone ever has meant when they accused people of gaming the system. Gaming implies manipulation and underhanded tactics.


----------



## David Wisehart (Mar 2, 2010)

D.A. Boulter said:


> As long as the fund isn't fixed -- and it hasn't been, Amazon has raised the amount each month since they unveiled KU -- it isn't a zero-sum game.


Of course it's a zero-sum game.

Doesn't matter if the pool grows or shrinks.

At some point, before payout, it's a fixed sum.

That sum is divided between authors.

The gain for some authors is balanced by the loss for other authors.

Ergo: a zero-sum game.


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

David Wisehart said:


> Of course it's a zero-sum game.
> 
> Doesn't matter if the pool grows or shrinks.
> 
> ...


Wrong.

If Amazon said: We will have an $10 million dollar payout no matter how many books get borrowed, and you will share that $10 Million dollars according to your share of the total -- then that's a zero-sum game. If someone borrows another book of mine, everyone else loses just that little bit.

However, if I'm correct and Amazon has predetermined how much they will pay per borrow (and the fact that they keep raising the amount of the pot -- and when the pot is announced -- tends to indicate this is so) then it doesn't matter how many of my books get borrowed or what proportion of the books borrowed are mine, you won't receive less for any books of yours borrowed. If Amazon has determined that we'll all get $1.35 per book borrowed and adjust the pot to reflect that, then if your borrow percentage equals 80% of the total, I'll still get $1.35 for the single book of mine that gets lent out. If the pot is divided by 1000 shares, one of which is mine, I'll get $1.35. If the pot is divided by 1,000,000 shares and one is mine, I'll still get $1.35. It's not a zero sum game.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

You will always get paid per-whatever-unit-of-measurement exactly what Amazon wants you to be paid. You are never going to earn less in that respect because of the actions of any other author. That's one of the many places people are going wrong when shaking their fists like Cobra commander at short writers. Short writers didn't take crap out of their pockets; Amazon did.


----------



## David Wisehart (Mar 2, 2010)

Amazon:

"Under the new payment method, *the amount an author earns will be determined by their share of total pages read* instead of their share of total qualified borrows."

Amazon is describing a zero-sum game.


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

David Wisehart said:


> Amazon:
> 
> "Under the new payment method, *the amount an author earns will be determined by their share of total pages read* instead of their share of total qualified borrows."
> 
> Amazon is describing a zero-sum game.


True. They are describing a zero-sum game.

HOWEVER, the question is: When do they decide the amount of the pot?

From the 14 August 2014 KDP letter to me (and all authors):

Kindle Unlimited (KU) is off to a great start with a strong early response from customers. Due to this early surge in demand, we are adding a KU "launch bonus" of $500,000 to the KDP Select global fund for July 2014.

From the 15 October 2014 KDP letter:

We have continued to see strong response from customers to Kindle Unlimited (KU) and are adding a bonus of $2 million in September to the previously announced base fund amount of $3 million.

And the same for every other month.

Now, the question is: When did they make the decision to increase the size of the pot, and what criteria did they use to determine by how much the pot would be raised?

I suggest they made that decision AFTER they saw how many borrows had occurred. Had they kept their pot at the stated level for September, we would have had a $0.91 payout per share instead of the $1.52 which we received. Everything depends on when and why the decision was made to raise the pot. We got word of it 15 days AFTER they had the figures for the month.

And that has happened every month.

What you are saying is that they determined the pot without regard to the number of borrows. Their letter states differently. They raised the pot because of large number of borrows.

If the pot is established AFTER they had the figures for the total borrows for the month, then they are in effect deciding how much to pay per borrow, and thus fitting the pot to the per-share payout they've determined. That's not a zero-sum game.

If they establish the pot BEFORE they have the figures for total borrows, then you are correct. That would be a zero sum game.

The fact that they stated that the base amount would be $3M and then boosted it each month -- only letting everyone know halfway through the next month what the pot was for the previous month -- argues that I have made the correct deduction.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

The entire subject of not knowing how many books were downloaded for borrow to get some kind of idea has been tickling in the back of my head.

When KU1.0 was stroking right along, many novelists determined that the royalty for their $3.99, $4.99 etc books weren't worth risking for $1.3x payout, even for the possible increased visibility. Fair enough. I think we've soundly beaten that into the ground that those were suck terms for novelists.

Now, KU2.0 rolls around and on the surface appears to be the better deal. It's the _potential_ to make more money on the per page read model.

I'm tripping over that word _potential_. Of course, it's still early in the game and no one knows so we're all trying to make decisions, business decisions, based on scant, overinflated and guesstimated figures.

Amazon appears more than willing to keep authors of all stripes in the dark about certain key facts.

Such as giving us information we need to make better decisions.

And here's my point. IF, under this new, spiffy, really-cracking-good-deal for authors bears out to end up paying authors $1.3x per book for pages read...how is that a better deal at all? Why say it wasn't acceptable when it was a flat rate but now, with the _possibility_ of making more, it's okay?

This is not sarcasm, this is genuine curiosity in why it wasn't good before, but it's good now.

Until Amazon gives us some figures on borrows to go with pages read, you'll never know.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2015)

Amazon will never intentionally and willingly pay the author more money that they are already prepared to put in the pot. Ergo, there will be no more money to go around - it will just be split differently. It may well be a zero-sum game IF the pot is defined by an algorithm that is pre-set beforehand and cannot be confirmed until all the dust has settled on payments and numbers.

Whichever way you're wanting to slice and dice this, it's still Amazon's intention to pay as little as possible, while keeping the majority of us under the thumb. They don't want you rich and walking away - they want to feed you enough so that you have to come back next month for more, but not enough for you to save or invest your way out of their clutches.


----------



## AuthorX (Nov 11, 2014)

a_g said:


> The entire subject of not knowing how many books were downloaded for borrow to get some kind of idea has been tickling in the back of my head.
> 
> When KU1.0 was stroking right along, many novelists determined that the royalty for their $3.99, $4.99 etc books weren't worth risking for $1.3x payout, even for the possible increased visibility. Fair enough. I think we've soundly beaten that into the ground that those were suck terms for novelists.
> 
> ...


It's a magic trick... Amazon just changed the rules and hid borrow information, so no one would know the actual rate per borrow. In all likely hood most authors (including long novel authors) are going to receive less per borrow than in KU than before, and Amazon will no longer have to inflate to Prize Pool each month because number of pages read is not likely to go up unless there are more KU subscribers. Previously, they had to continually grow the pool because borrows were going up due to authors releasing stories of appropriate length for the $1.40 payout. A reader can borrow more books and read them partially, but a reader cannot increase their reading speed.

Also most authors are so confident that their books are being read 100% the way through that when they see 300 pages read in their dashboard, they think that the $1.50 payout is for one borrow, when in actuality its probably for many borrows. (One 60% read through and two 20% read through- for example).... or 50 cents per borrow.

KU 2.0 = Life under the veil


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

a_g said:


> The entire subject of not knowing how many books were downloaded for borrow to get some kind of idea has been tickling in the back of my head.
> 
> When KU1.0 was stroking right along, many novelists determined that the royalty for their $3.99, $4.99 etc books weren't worth risking for $1.3x payout, even for the possible increased visibility. Fair enough. I think we've soundly beaten that into the ground that those were suck terms for novelists.
> 
> ...


One has to understand the difference between expectations and reality.

The reality is that writers of short pieces are going to suffer because their payout for a borrowed book is going to go from $1.35 (approx) to something well under half of that.

As Amazon says that the pot for the next two months won't be under what they expect it to be for June, that means others will gain. Those who will gain are authors with longer books who can get their readers to finish their books. That's also reality.

Most of our expectations come from the idea that anyone who reads 10% of our books will finish them. Thus, my 550 KENPage novel will generate a 'royalty' of $3-$5 for each borrow -- maybe more these first two months. My expectations may be too high. Perhaps my writing isn't what I believe it to be. Maybe those borrows I get all drop out at 15%. If I add those who drop out before they get to 10%, (who I don't know about at this time) maybe I'm lucky to see an average of 20% read (based on past borrows). Then, instead of getting a raise from $1.35 to $5 per borrow, I might see a drop to somewhere between $0.50-$1.00.

But we're all optimists, and believe that those borrows mean full reads.

And that's your answer -- optimism.

Now, here's where things might get tricky.

It now doesn't pay to have a short story in KU. If I have a 40 page story and I'm going to get 20 cents for it no matter what its list price, then why would I keep it in KU? Better to sell it outside of Select and get $0.35 - $2 (depending on list price) per sale.

Also, those authors of longer works who have good marketing skills but less skill in keeping a reader reading will find things going into a tailspin. I've been getting $1.35 for each 10% borrow of my 550 KENP novel. I'm expecting $3-$5 for it now. But, if the borrow rate stays the same, but all my readers get disgusted by my poorly worked-out plots or lousy writing and ALL give up at the 11% mark, then I'll be getting $0.27-$0.55 per borrow. My earnings will drop considerably. Better perhaps to get the readers to buy my book. So, I'll take my novel out of Select.

Good writers of longer works will prosper considerably -- for the first two months (if Amazon keeps its word). But Amazon has its own idea about how much to pay for books, and over the months the pay per page will get adjusted until it finds that level.

Only at that point will we see what Amazon really wants. Only then can we decide whether the change worked out for us. But, until then, we're all -- novelists, that is -- optimists.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Deanna Chase said:


> I'm not deaf to the fact the we need more data. I am however aware that some people who write short cannot wait six weeks to make changes if their income is going to be 50-70% less. So some people need to watch closely right now and might have to make quick decisions.


^^ Exactly.


Sela said:


> After reading this and thinking about it, I have this to say.
> 
> The unfairness of the KU 1.0 payment system was not the fault of the authors who worked hard to put out tens of thousands of serial instalments and short works and children's books that were borrowed like hotcakes, obviously pleasing their readers. It was the fault of Amazon for creating a flawed system in the first place. If there is blame, and there is, it should be on those who thought up the payment system -- not the authors who responded to it.
> 
> ...


^^ Yes.

I have more to say but for now...


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> This is not sarcasm, this is genuine curiosity in why it wasn't good before, but it's good now.


Let me echo this point as well. If an average royalty in the $1.30ish range wasn't good enough then, why is it good enough for novelists now?


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

D.A. Boulter said:


> Also, those authors of longer works who have good marketing skills but less skill in keeping a reader reading will find things going into a tailspin. I've been getting $1.35 for each 10% borrow of my 550 KENP novel. I'm expecting $3-$5 for it now. But, if the borrow rate stays the same, but all my readers get disgusted by my poorly worked-out plots or lousy writing and ALL give up at the 11% mark, then I'll be getting $0.27-$0.55 per borrow. My earnings will drop considerably. Better perhaps to get the readers to buy my book. So, I'll take my novel out of Select.
> 
> Good writers of longer works will prosper considerably -- for the first two months (if Amazon keeps its word). But Amazon has its own idea about how much to pay for books, and over the months the pay per page will get adjusted until it finds that level.


Here's where I disagree with you. You are making the assumption that whether or not a significant portion of the book is read, is solely in control of the writer.

It's not.

Speaking as a reader (and not just a fellow writer) I buy books all the time that I don't finish. Either I get busy or maybe I just decide to read it later. That behavior before effected no one's income. The book I bought still meant the author got paid.

Now whether or not the author get's paid depends on something completely outside of their control - reader habits.

You also now have no idea how many copies of a book you've sold and what your month-to-month income might be. Also any clue on how well your marketing efforts may have done - are obliterated. *You will also have no idea how well you would've done that month if you were paid by sale and not pages read.*

A significant amount of control over your writing career is lost if you're in KU. I don't count that as a plus - I count that as Amazon taking control away from Authors.

Not that I'm surprised - like others have said. Subscriptions are only profitable to a company if the majority of people don't use them fully. They also don't pay the company well if the suppliers (in this case us) are getting too big of a cut.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> *'based on time spent writing'*
> 
> Tell us more about your feelings on the short form and the work people put into producing quality works in it.


I very seldom agree with Vaal, but please, let's hear some more story story bashing. There hasn't been nearly enough of that around here. And the dig about chopping up novels? You're going there?



Hugh Howey said:


> FUD.
> 
> The pot is being split according to time spent writing and time spent reading. All the money is still going to authors. Your share is just based on something more fair than how you chunk up your novel or series.
> 
> The rest of my thoughts on the mass hysteria: http://wp.me/p6nPrM-8Wh


Lots of room on that wool bale, isn't there?



> Tell us more about your feelings on authors who confront hysteria with reason.


But you aren't using reason. You're being arrogant and dismissive of people with real financial concerns. People who are fellow writers who don't get the special benefits from Amazon that you do.

Amazon was naive? They didn't know how KU was going to work out? You can't be serious. And if you are, well...

Ack.

This isn't worth my time. I'm not even a fourth of the way through the thread, and already you've painted yourself as a victim of some sort, when we know full well you have an advantage over most of us in your relationship with Amazon.

Short story writers did nothing wrong. NOTHING. People who wrote serials did nothing wrong.

If anyone was wrong, it was Amazon with their entire program. Want to blame someone for novelists getting the shaft? I'll give you a hint: it starts with "A" and ends "mazon".

Back on ignore you go.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Vicky Foxx said:


> You also now have no idea how many copies of a book you've sold and what your month-to-month income might be. Also any clue on how well your marketing efforts may have done - are obliterated. *You will also have no idea how well you would've done that month if you were paid by sale and not pages read.*


But you're forgetting the part where the borrower reads a book because they weren't worried about risk. Yes, Amazon will issue refunds, but most people don't want to go through the hassle of returning a book. There's no way to factor how many people borrowed a book just because it feels 'free' to do so.


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

Vicky Foxx said:


> Here's where I disagree with you. You are making the assumption that whether or not a significant portion of the book is read, is solely in control of the writer.
> 
> It's not.
> 
> ...


Not sure what you are disagreeing with.

Writers with good marketing skills will bring readers to their books -- thus they'll get more borrows than writers with poor marketing skills who don't or can't do the same. But if those who borrow find that the book doesn't live up to expectations (poor writing, lousy plots, whatever), they won't finish it. They may get up to 10% (the old threshold) but they won't finish.

Do you disagree with that?

Good writers will prosper because a significantly greater number of borrowers who get up to 10% will finish their books.

You disagree with that?

Good marketers, who can get people to their books, may feel it more productive to get out of Select if they can't hold the reader's attention -- as evidenced by a drop in earnings through borrows. IF they can get them to buy, it won't matter whether the reader reads one page or all.

Do you disagree with that?

You're quite correct that we'll no longer know how many people get to 10% in our books. But if an author has been averaging $135 per day and with the new system finds she's averaging $20 per day, she can pretty well deduce that those borrowing her books aren't finishing them.

By the way, you're mistaking borrows for sales. We still have exact figures (if you can trust Amazon) on how many books we've sold. What we won't have is figures on how many times our books were borrowed AND the reader made it to 10%. We've never had accurate figures on how many times our books were borrowed.

And, no, I'm not making the assumption that you assume that I'm making. My assumption is only that fewer people will complete a poorly-written book than will complete a well-written book. For every 100 readers who make it to 10%, I'm saying that more will drop out if they find the book is poorly written.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Miss Bee said:


> This is exactly what I think a lot of short story, erotica, etc. writers (not scammers) are trying to get across. The old adage "make hay while the sun shines" applies here. KU 1.0 shined some serious sun on short story writers and they made hay. Some of them made lots and lots of hay. Now the sun has on moved to the writers of longer works with KU 2.0. This is not the fault of those who simply followed the guidelines that Amazon put out with KU 1.0.
> 
> As someone who has a few erotica titles out there (and some still in KU), I never once looked at my sales graph and thought, "I'm sticking it to those novel writers today, go me!" I checked my dashboard and was happy when I saw borrows and even happier when I saw sales.
> 
> ...


That's what gets me. I was busy writing. I wasn't sitting around laughing at long writers. Erotica writers have always written short stories. We didn't tailor the way we write to game anything. Amazon tailored the system to make it worth our while to put our work in KU because they needed to reach a certain number to appeal to subscribers. Shorts didn't get dumped because we were gaming the system. They got dumped because they were too popular and it was costing Amazon too much. the same reason Scribd got rid of romance. And the comment I read, oh somewhere else, about us scammers putting out 10 short stories a year. HA! Try 50 to 100, that's how lazy we are.


----------



## NoahPorter (Sep 15, 2013)

she-la-ti-da said:


> Short story writers did nothing wrong. NOTHING. People who wrote serials did nothing wrong.
> 
> If anyone was wrong, it was Amazon with their entire program. Want to blame someone for novelists getting the shaft? I'll give you a hint: it starts with "A" and ends "mazon".


+100


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> Writers with good marketing skills will bring readers to their books -- thus they'll get more borrows than writers with poor marketing skills who don't or can't do the same.


If an author has good marketing skills and reader engagement to begin with, why bother going exclusive?


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> And the comment I read, oh somewhere else, about us scammers putting out 10 short stories a year. HA! Try 50 to 100, that's how lazy we are.


Some of the funniest, hardest working and savviest people I know are erotica authors.

+1,000


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Daniel Kenney said:


> Agree Andrew. I'm not sure of how such a system would work...and as pointed out in one of the threads yesterday, such a system would have its own scammers to deal with...but with both Picture Books, Chapter Books, even Middle Grade books we're dealing with a substantial body of literature with its own norms for what constitutes a book. And I think most of us who are writing/creating books that conform to the fairly well established norms would like to be constituted for our book. So, I don't know exactly how such a Kid's system would work....but it makes all the sense in the world to separate kids books from adult books both in the library as well as in this general discussion. So, to your point...Yes, we need to gather as many picture book/kids book authors together as possible and press Amazon for a different solution for dealing with our work. And a KU Kids might just be the right approach.


KU Kids sounds like a great idea. I hope Amazon would then weed out the erotica writers who have 'girls' and 'boys' as tags. As it is, I would not allow a child of mine to browse Amazon unsupervised. Try typing in _KU book for boys_ and see which books come up


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

S.E. Gordon said:


> If an author has good marketing skills and reader engagement to begin with, why bother going exclusive?


I can't speak for them as I'm not one of them. My marketing skills suck. As for reader engagement, you'd have to ask my readers. I think most authors have an exaggerated idea about their ability to enthrall.

However, Amazon algorithms appear to give added emphasis to books that are in Select, thus giving even greater exposure. Depending on sales results from other distributors, that extra exposure might make it worth going exclusive.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> I can't speak for them as I'm not one of them. My marketing skills suck. As for reader engagement, you'd have to ask my readers. I think most authors have an exaggerated idea about their ability to enthrall.
> 
> However, Amazon algorithms appear to give added emphasis to books that are in Select, thus giving even greater exposure. Depending on sales results from other distributors, that extra exposure might make it worth going exclusive.


I didn't mean to come across as argumentative.

If it were me, and I had full confidence that my work would do well in any market, I wouldn't base the bulk of my earnings potential on variable reader tendencies.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> I hope Amazon would then weed out the erotica writers who have 'girls' and 'boys' as tags.


I'm not in favor of another purge, but since there is a problem, Amazon should add a check box to submission forms that says something to the effect of "This title contains mature content" so that adult titles aren't accidentally mixed in with children's books.


----------



## edwardgtalbot (Apr 28, 2010)

S.E. Gordon said:


> Let me echo this point as well. If an average royalty in the $1.30ish range wasn't good enough then, why is it good enough for novelists now?


My two 100K word novels are almost 700 zonpages. I will likely make about $2.50 for a novel read 65% through. I'm picking 65% based on numbers that have floated around from Kobo and B&N in the past about average read-throughs - it could be wildly off either direction. In any case, I'd be making almost twice the $1.35

There are a lot of unknowns. And Amazon could pay less per page in the future than it appears they will in July. Overall I don't think the question authors should ask themselves relates to $1.35 vs whatever we'll wind up making now. It should be whether the expected amount per borrow along with any other advantages of Select like promotion are worth exclusivity and/or lost sales that are borrows instead (not all borrows would have been sales but some would). This likely is not a simple calculation for many novelists even without all the unknowns of this being brand new, if nothing else because exclusivity is more difficult to evaluate with hard numbers. We are fortunate to have various authors on kboards sharing numbers in and out of Select so at least we have some data points to evaluate beyond our own experience over time.


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

S.E. Gordon said:


> I'm not in favor of another purge, but since there is a problem, Amazon should add a check box to submission forms that says something to the effect of "This title contains mature content" so that adult titles aren't accidentally mixed in with children's books.


Have you ever gone to Smashwords, or many other sites which have stuff for both Adults and Children? They have an Adult filter that the browser gets to turn on or off. I'm sure that authors of erotica and stuff like that want kids bringing up their books about as much as the parents of those children want it. Why can't Amazon have the same thing? I'm sure that most authors of adult-themed books would gladly tag their books such, if the customer could turn off the filter.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> My two 100K word novels are almost 700 zonpages. I will likely make about $2.50 for a novel read 65% through. I'm picking 65% based on numbers that have floated around from Kobo and B&N in the past about average read-throughs - it could be wildly off either direction. In any case, I'd be making almost twice the $1.35


No, no, no. I'm specifically talking about the novelists with books in the 200-250-page range (or zonpages, to be more precise) who weren't happy with the $1.30ish payout in KU 1.0. That's exactly what they stand to make under the new system, but with more variability, since not every person is going to read every page. What changed their thinking?

Novelists with awesome books + high page counts theoretically will do better, so I understand why they are excited.


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> KU Kids sounds like a great idea. I hope Amazon would then weed out the erotica writers who have 'girls' and 'boys' as tags. As it is, I would not allow a child of mine to browse Amazon unsupervised. Try typing in _KU book for boys_ and see which books come up


Yeah a program like KU Kids would actually prompt me to un-retire from Children's Books. 
Children's books though, it's one of few genre's that I'm having a hard time justifying NOT trying to publish them traditionally.

The advance for a writer/ illustrator is higher than what I'd expect for a near lifetime earning potential of a self-published Children's book. :/


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> Have you ever gone to Smashwords, or many other sites which have stuff for both Adults and Children? They have an Adult filter that the browser gets to turn on or off. I'm sure that authors of erotica and stuff like that want kids bringing up their books about as much as the parents of those children want it. Why can't Amazon have the same thing? I'm sure that most authors of adult-themed books would gladly tag their books such, if the customer could turn off the filter.


An adult filter for Amazon has been brought up many times, and quite frankly, I'm surprised they haven't implemented something like this. It makes too much sense.


----------



## Matthew Stott (Oct 22, 2014)

Perhaps people should look as KU less as a way to directly make bank, and more as a way (like perma-free) to raise visibility as an author to push your None-KU works? (with the advantage over free that you still make some cash-ola?)


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

S.E. Gordon said:


> I didn't mean to come across as argumentative.
> 
> If it were me, and I had full confidence that my work would do well in any market, I wouldn't base the bulk of my earnings potential on variable reader tendencies.


I didn't think you were. I was simply answering your question to the best of my ability.


----------



## edwardgtalbot (Apr 28, 2010)

S.E. Gordon said:


> No, no, no. I'm specifically talking about the novelists with books in the 200-250-page range (or zonpages, to be more precise) who weren't happy with the $1.30ish payout in KU 1.0. That's exactly what they stand to make under the new system, but with more variability, since not every person is going to read every page. What changed their thinking?
> 
> Novelists with awesome books + high page counts theoretically will do better, so I understand why they are excited.


Ah, okay. So based on what I have seen from zonpage calculations for most users, 200-250 zonpages is likely a novella, not a novel. Based on my two Select novels, I would estimate that my similarly written and formatted 35K word novella would be right in that range - it's not in Select so I have no way of knowing for sure. I'm considering novel to be minimum 50K words which a pretty standard definition. But I don't want to get too hung up on terminology. I haven't seen too many folks who write books in the 30-45K range indicating that they were unhappy before with $1.35 and now are happy with what will amount to the same. Are there a bunch of those in the thread that I missed?


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> Yeah a program like KU Kids would actually prompt me to un-retire from Children's Books.
> Children's Books though, it's one of few genre's that I'm having a hard time justifying NOT trying to publish them traditionally.


I've done quite well self-publishing children's books, and KDP Select/KU had a lot to do with it. I can't imagine what a publisher would pay for a children's book these days, let alone a picture book, but it can't be much. I think you're better off doing it all yourself, even with the changes to the payout system.

Amazon will probably correct this. Undercutting children's book authors gives them incredibly bad publicity. Even Mr. Howey needs to admit that he may have been wrong about this, that he hadn't considered the impact to the children's book authors, and that some forms of short writing are worth more than mere pennies.

But I won't hold my breath...

You'll always be a children's book author. If it's something that you enjoy, keep writing. Don't let all of this nasty business scare you.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> So based on what I have seen from zonpage calculations for most users, 200-250 zonpages is likely a novella, not a novel.


I've seen wild variability posted all over the board (one children's book registered as 1 page), so I was assuming 250 words/page. A 200 to 250-page book would be in the 50,000 to 62,500-word range. Should we assume 200 or even 150 words per page? And how consistent is this? Also, how likely is it that the current algorithm won't change?

I can only assume that if Amazon is giving credit for less than 250 words/page, they've been too generous or made a mistake and it will be corrected in the next update.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2015)

Matthew Stott said:


> Perhaps people should look as KU less as a way to directly make bank, and more as a way (like perma-free) to raise visibility as an author to push your None-KU works? (with the advantage over free that you still make some cash-ola?)


That would be great except for the way that Amazon demands exclusivity. Any additional exposure you get from KU/Select comes at the expense of the exposure you would have had anywhere else.


----------



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

S.E. Gordon said:


> I've seen wild variability posted all over the board (one children's book registered as 1 page), so I was assuming 250 words/page. A 200 to 250-page book would be in the 50,000 to 62,500-word range. Should we assume 200 or even 150 words per page? And how consistent is this? Also, how likely is it that the current algorithm won't change?
> 
> I can only assume that if Amazon is giving credit for less than 250 words/page, they've been too generous or made a mistake and it will be corrected in the next update.


My 60,000-word pen name books are all in the 350-400 age range.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> My 60,000-word pen name books are all in the 350-400 age range.


That implies 160 words/page. It seems high to me, that's all.

If that number holds, then it's not all that bad. My 16,000-word novelette would be considered 100 pages.


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

S.E. Gordon said:


> I've done quite well self-publishing children's books, and KDP Select/KU had a lot to do with it. I can't imagine what a publisher would pay for a children's book these days, let alone a picture book, but it can't be much. I think you're better off doing it all yourself, even with the changes to the payout system.
> 
> Amazon will probably correct this. Undercutting children's book authors gives them incredibly bad publicity. Even Mr. Howey needs to admit that he may have been wrong about this, that he hadn't considered the impact to the children's book authors, and that some forms of short writing are worth more than mere pennies.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the kind words 

I had decided to not self-publish anymore children's books way before this fiasco.
Children's books are still so dominated by physical books.
Traditional publishing roughly offers writers: $5k advance For writer-illustrators: $10k which is way more than what I've made for self-published Children's books.

Not to mention that I'm a children's book illustrator, so I'm hopefully going to be linked with that world for a while, so doors would probably open easier 

KU Kids seems like such a good idea because like how Short Reads revitalized Shorter works, I'd think KU Kids would revitalize digital Children's books.
It would be the only reason for me to drop in another Children's book to test the waters.


----------



## Matthew Stott (Oct 22, 2014)

Joe Vasicek said:


> That would be great except for the way that Amazon demands exclusivity. Any additional exposure you get from KU/Select comes at the expense of the exposure you would have had anywhere else.


I suppose I'm talking about short works, made exclusively for KU, for the purpose of yes, making a little money, but also to get readers hooked and then point them to your books that aren't in KU. So they actually buy a book. If we're just talking some short works written for this specific reason, it's not too much of a loss.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

Ok, another hypothetical (just what we need):

If a serial writer decided to stay in and produce 20,000-word installments, that would be recognized as 125 pages at 160 words/page. Let's also say that Amazon continues to put more money in the pot to ensure that it's always at least 1 penny per page read. You can make a reasonably acceptable amount of $1.25 if the reader makes it all the way through.

That's a lot of risk, and all three variables are completely out of our control, but one could take advantage of the extra bump in publicity and do well...until Amazon changed things again...

For peace of mind, I'd probably just set my price at a level that I felt comfortable with and distribute wide.


----------



## edwardgtalbot (Apr 28, 2010)

S.E. Gordon said:


> I've seen wild variability posted all over the board (one children's book registered as 1 page), so I was assuming 250 words/page. A 200 to 250-page book would be in the 50,000 to 62,500-word range. Should we assume 200 or even 150 words per page? And how consistent is this? Also, how likely is it that the current algorithm won't change?
> 
> I can only assume that if Amazon is giving credit for less than 250 words/page, they've been too generous or made a mistake and it will be corrected in the next update.


I don't think Amazon made a mistake in the sense that they care about words per page. Their formula is more complicated. The median I've seen people posting for works other than shorts is somewhere under 200 words per page, but I'll be the first to admit that I didn't jot down every number and use my calculator. There's a wide variety. Some folks are seeing 150 words per page, some more like 250. That's not counting some of the real outliers, which mostly seem to be on the end of shortchanging, unfortunately. There's another thread somewhere collecting just word counts and page counts.

They certainly could change any piece of it. But I don't see any reason to automatically think Amazon will change just because a full length novel read all the way through will pay out over $3. We've been conditioned to think that somehow "Amazon wants $1.35 because that's what they always wound up with in recent months." But that was under the old scenario. There isn't a concept of "What does Amazon want to pay for a single borrow" any more. There couldn't be since every borrow pays a different price. It may very well be that paying $1.35 for a median length work is exactly where they're targeting to wind up, but we just don't know and I don't think that's a safe assumption at this point.

My main point was that most authors of novels will probably make as much or more for the same amount of reader activity as they did before. Given how many works there are shorter than novels in KU then this was almost a guarantee by going to a pay per page system unless the ratio of reader activity to funds available changes (which it could). I personally do not blame authors of shorter works for being extremely upset, for multiple reasons including the short notice. But I don't think it's irrational for authors of novel-length works to expect an increase based on what we know now.


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

S.E. Gordon said:


> I've done quite well self-publishing children's books, and KDP Select/KU had a lot to do with it. I can't imagine what a publisher would pay for a children's book these days, let alone a picture book, but it can't be much. I think you're better off doing it all yourself, even with the changes to the payout system.


Just out of curiosity, what's the print length you see on your product page and how does this compare to the KENP? From what I can see, they seem to undervalue images in books. For my older books (text formulas) the KENP is a lot higher than the print length, however, in case of my newer books (image formulas) the KENP is about the same as the print length, which, considering that the KENP is a lot higher than the print length for almost everyone, is basically an unwanted discount ... not cool.

In my opinion, the biggest mistake here was not making the payout per page genre-dependent. They could've easily set payout per page (children's book) = 5*payout per page (full length novel) or payout per page (academic) = 1.5*payout per page (full length novel) to take into account that not every page in every genre requires the same amount of work (here: illustrations, research). But I guess the ZON works in mysterious ways ...


----------



## HillOnLong (Oct 11, 2014)

S.E. Gordon said:


> An adult filter for Amazon has been brought up many times, and quite frankly, I'm surprised they haven't implemented something like this. It makes too much sense.


Amazon adult filter already exists. When you search for something on Amazon without selecting Kindle as a department for the search, books that Amazon considers to be 'mature content' don't show up in the search. However, if you select Kindle and then search, filtered books will appear. Because readers do not know about this, having a book adult filtered essentially kills your sales. When you add in the fact that erotica books are already pushed down in search results despite having better rankings than lets say romance books, it just goes to show you that Amazon is already doing a lot to hide erotica.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> Thank you for the kind words
> 
> I had decided to not self-publish anymore children's books way before this fiasco.
> Children's books are still so dominated by physical books.
> ...


I made $6,000 off my children's books from February - March of this year, and I don't have anything in print. That was with the old system, though. My approach is going to have to change to hit those numbers again.

I won't fall into the indie vs. traditional debate, though. Some people don't want to do everything themselves and would love to see their books in brick and mortar stores.

Just keep writing, that's all I'll say.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> Amazon adult filter already exists. When you search for something on Amazon without selecting Kindle as a department for the search, books that Amazon considers to be 'mature content' don't show up in the search. However, if you select Kindle and then search, filtered books will appear. Because readers do not know about this, having a book adult filtered essentially kills your sales. When you add in the fact that erotica books are already pushed down in search results despite having better rankings than lets say romance books, it just goes to show you that Amazon is already doing a lot to hide erotica.


Sorry I wasn't clear. I was implying something to the effect of what Smashwords has done. (A setting that the user could click on or off.)


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

Hey look, emotions are high, people have their own agendas, and many have a lot on the line.

It's better to just forgive Mr. Howey if they were offended by his behavior and move on.

I didn't have a great day yesterday, either.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Vicky Foxx said:


> Here's where I disagree with you. You are making the assumption that whether or not a significant portion of the book is read, is solely in control of the writer.
> 
> It's not.
> 
> ...


THIS. Squared.

Entering KU is like going into a dark room without knowing what you will encounter. It's a black box and the only thing you know going in is that you can leave if you want at the end of 90 days. (well, to be correct, right now you can leave if you ask, but how long will that last?) You know nothing about your books going in except how many borrows you _used_ to get under KU 1.0. You don't know what your average finish rate is. Amazon won't tell you. Why? What is soooo proprietary about that information that Amazon won't share? It seems like sharing that info would mean a lot of authors could improve their game because we would have better insight into where the reader closes the book. Amazon is using this info in its own calculations on KU 2.0. It's obviously important knowledge.

Amazon probably sees KU as a way to gather all the voracious readers under their dome, because it knows that they also buy cartloads of non-book items in the Amazon store. I would LOVE to know how much money each KU author makes for Amazon in addition to book borrows and sales...

That is something a lot of people don't think about. So Amazon could break even with KU and still make money because all those voracious readers in KU are buying screwdrivers and toasters in the Amazon store. Amazon gets a very nice cut on each sale...

Of course, we all have the choice to go into KU or not. I think authors need more information before making such a decision. We have even less information with KU 2.0 than we had with KU 1.0.


----------



## Robert Bidinotto (Mar 3, 2011)

Let's see if we can get past the heat to try to find the light.

I think Hugh was right in pointing out the inherent unfairness of compensating short works at the same fixed price as long ones.

He then got exercised by lots of writers of short works complaining about the "unfairness" of trying to reform that inherently unfair compensation arrangement. And he since has been attacked for getting exercised about their complaints, with his responses regarded as personal attacks.

I didn't interpret them to be personal attacks, but saw them rather as attacks on an unfair system -- and, yes, as criticism of efforts to defend it. But I don't think he was denigrating the persons of those who disagreed or the quality of the works. He was only saying that they had been beneficiaries of a lopsided compensation system that Amazon was now trying to correct.

Look, Hugh doesn't exactly have some secret personal motive to be defending the new KU system. He built his success on short fiction. Many of his shorts have been enrolled in KU, so he profited well from the KU 1.0 compensation system. Which means that those same enrolled works now stand to lose money in KU 2.0. Still, he endorses KU 2.0 as being fairer.

I call that integrity. He is defending a principle of fairer long-term compensation -- not trying to defend some system that will benefit himself in the short term.

The KU/KOLL monthly compensation pool _is_ (unfortunately) a zero-sum fund: Every payment for one author's work necessarily means less money for everyone else's. In most of the indie publishing world, one person's success does not come at the expense of anyone else: We all benefit from each other's success. It's "win-win." But in a zero-sum arrangement -- this KU funding pool, or (say) government "benefit" programs -- one person's gain necessarily causes another person's loss. It's "win-lose." Zero-sum programs thus foment conflicts of interest among the participants, establishing competing groups of "winners" and "losers."

Amazon is responsible for setting up this winners vs. losers compensation arrangement, and thus for the subsequent (surely unintended) consequence of inciting competitive hostility among authors. It is intrinsically difficult to try to establish "fairness" in a zero-sum game -- and it's understandable that altering an existing zero-sum program to become "fairer" will necessarily reshuffle categories of "winners" and "losers," and the latter will deem the changes to be "unfair."

In that context, I invite all concerned to step back and take some deep breaths. Try to look at this objectively.

Amazon has provided many of us with a wide, ever-expanding variety of new opportunities to make significant income doing what we love: writing. We have options now, as writers, that never before existed: Kindle and KDP; Createspace; ACX. The freedom to sell ebooks either non-exclusively or exclusively. If exclusively, we are given the opportunity to target millions of Select "borrowers" of ebooks, via KU subscriptions and KOLL/Prime memberships.

Zon also offers many ways for us to promote our works -- globally -- through its vast ecosystem: free periodic email blasts to targeted customers, "also bought" listings, a host of "bestseller" lists, a review system, integration with Goodreads, even paid ads. All of these programs invite _voluntary_ and _temporary_ participation, with a host of incentives.

It is hard for me to be sympathetic, then, to constant anger directed against Amazon. In the case of most indie authors, Their Writing Careers - Amazon = diddly squat.

So, after a year of experimentation and feedback, Zon has now altered its KU compensation system. The old system paid writers the same amount, whether they produced something very short or very long, rewarding equally a 10-page story read only past a single page, and a 1000-page epic read that had to be read past 100 pages. Quality issues aside, many _authors _thought that was not right. So Amazon changed things to pay writers for each of their pages actually read, which rewards them for reader _engagement_ with their works -- however short or long.

Most people without a dog in this race would probably look at that change and regard it as a move toward greater fairness and improved incentives for good, appealing writing. Hugh Howey (who writes both short and long), sees it as an issue of simple justice, and thus views those who support the old system as seeking more than they deserve. Now, it's understandable that they would get hot under the collar about his view, but he has a point. If Amazon changes the rules of its zero-sum author compensation pool to better reward writers who produce more pages that hold the interest of paying customers, then it's hard to be sympathetic toward those who prefer the status quo.

In sum, don't blame Hugh for standing on principle. If anyone, blame Amazon for its zero-sum, win-lose KU payment system, which unfortunately pits participating KU authors against each other for shares of a fixed pot of funds.

And regardless of your feelings, Amazon is a private company that can pretty much do what it wishes. Either learn to accommodate their new borrowing system with the kind of works that it now rewards, or abandon KU for the many, many other publishing options that we writers are now blessed to have.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

He didn't stand on principle, he opened with insults and recriminations, then couldn't handle being called on it.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Robert Bidinotto said:


> Let's see if we can get past the heat to try to find the light.
> 
> I think Hugh was right in pointing out the inherent unfairness of compensating short works at the same fixed price as long ones.
> 
> ...


I don't blame Hugh Howey for voicing his opinion on KU 2.0 and KU 1.0 and the changes, etc. He has as much right as the rest of us. I read Hugh Howey's blog and books and respect his opinion for he is obviously a success, worked hard for it, works hard now, and has a lot of knowledge.

However, his choice of words didn't help during a time when a lot of people saw their income tanking badly due to KU 2.0. Hugh is usually such a great poster, helpful, knowledgeable, and insightful. There's a reason I follow him on Facebook and read his blog.

I think his words could have been better chosen and his tone more empathetic yesterday.

But hey, we all make mistakes, so I'm moving on.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Didn't Hugh made his fortune from the bundle version of a serial sf story? That's not really short stories, right? It was the full volume that sold in the gazillions.


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

MichaelWallace said:


> Didn't Hugh made his fortune from the bundle version of a serial sf story? That's not really short stories, right? It was the full volume that sold in the gazillions.


The way I've heard the story: The original story started so welling (simply via word of mouth) that Hugh wrote some sequel stories and then bundled the entire thing as the first Wool volume.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Diane Patterson said:


> The way I've heard the story: The original story started so welling (simply via word of mouth) that Hugh wrote some sequel stories and then bundled the entire thing as the first Wool volume.


Okay, cool. It first came to my attention when everyone around here started evangelizing and I had to check out who this guy was and what he'd written to catch people's attention. At that point it was already the omnibus and in the middle of its rocket blast up the charts.


----------



## Ainsley (Dec 26, 2013)

Hugh didn't tell people what they want to hear. Unfortunately that is sometimes an unspoken requirement we demand from our idols.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2015)

Ainsley said:


> Hugh didn't tell people what they want to hear. Unfortunately that is sometimes an unspoken requirement we demand from our idols.


Actually, his blog post on short works made a lot of sense. I'm glad I read it.

That said, there's no "idol" worship from me. I don't care who you are or how much you've sold. I take what I can use and disregard the rest.


----------



## Kylo Ren (Mar 29, 2014)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> My 60,000-word pen name books are all in the 350-400 age range.


So your audience is made up of all dead people.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

Robert's post is probably THE most insightful, well-reasoned post I've seen yet. Without insulting anyone, he made an excellent case for Hugh's position, as well as gave voice to those of us who feel the same. Thank you!!!!


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Sela said:


> You don't know what your average finish rate is. Amazon won't tell you. Why?


How can Amazon decide if you've finished the book? It took me a year to finish one particular book because I used to dip into it whenever I had nothing better to read.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> How can Amazon decide if you've finished the book? It took me a year to finish one particular book because I used to dip into it whenever I had nothing better to read.


Amazon knows when you open a book and when you stop reading over the course of a month. Otherwise, how the heck could they even consider KU 2.0? They know when a KU subscriber returns a book they only read 2%, 20% or 100%. So, perhaps it should be what percentage of a book is read before the subscriber is FINISHED with the book, to be more accurate.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Sela said:


> Amazon knows when you open a book and when you stop reading over the course of a month. Otherwise, how the heck could they even consider KU 2.0? They know when a KU subscriber returns a book they only read 2%, 20% or 100%. So, perhaps it should be what percentage of a book is read before the subscriber is FINISHED with the book, to be more accurate.


That makes more sense. Even better - what percentage had they read when they *returned* the book.


----------



## Gone Girl (Mar 7, 2015)

We miss you, Harvey Chute.


----------



## Gone Girl (Mar 7, 2015)

We miss you, Harvey Chute.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2015)

Vaalingrade said:


> He didn't stand on principle, he opened with insults and recriminations, then couldn't handle being called on it.


Vaal, I love your guts, but you have a tendency to conflate spirited disagreement with "insult and recrimination," and to adopt the narrative that paints those who disagree with you in the most negative possible light, while ignoring anything that doesn't fit into that narrative. I enjoy your comments for the non-conventional perspective that you often bring to the table, but when it comes to Hugh's comments re: KU 2.0 I have to disagree. And even if Hugh did mean to insult and offend, well, Brigham Young had some good advice for for how to respond to that.


----------



## Joel Ansel (Oct 17, 2013)

Short stories have always been my favorite length for reading and writing. Don't get me wrong, I read tons of novels and I am working on writing a novel or two right now. I guess the need to fit a story to a finite amount of words always fascinated me. The couple of years that I was a journalist probably influenced my writing. This was in the dark ages, before the internet. The two main rules in those days were to always apply brevity and always tell the main points in the first paragraph, because your piece would likely be cut from the bottom up. The last part might not apply for shorts, but the need for brevity does. For me it's like solving a puzzle or a mathematical equation in the least possible steps.

I didn't participate in KU with any of my short stories, so I don't have any damage to report. Perhaps I should have. Apparently I missed the gold rush. I just never liked the idea of being exclusive. I'm considering putting an anthology in KU around October. It is my hope that 100,000 or more words of short stories might be viable for KU 2.0. In the mean time, I will watch and see what is working for others in this new sandbox. I could be wrong, but it looks like the only way for short story writers to get anywhere with KU 2.0 will be to either publish anthologies or just publish a ton of shorts.

I'll concede that there were a few writers out there doing some gaming. I'm talking about the ones publishing pamphlets and flyers. It just makes no sense that the writers who produced short works of good quality are being attacked for doing exactly what Amazon wanted them to do. Writing shorter stuff because it made better money was fine by me as long as it was a quality product.

KU 1.0 was regrettably unfair to novelists, but does that mean the short work crowd should have refused the better pay in protest? My day job is video production. A lot of my business is based on referrals and word of mouth from other production techs. If one of my colleagues worked a gig last year, but he can't work the gig this year, he will contact me or someone else to see if they want it. I often end up doing less actual work than he would have done. In video production the end product matters more than how you got there. I will also commonly ask for and get more money than my buddy did for the same gig. The ability to do this has a lot to do with my reputation as "Mr. Fixit." It absolutely sucks that my buddy got less money, but I'm going to get whatever they will pay me. Whatever the guy who writes the checks is willing to pay is fair game. I'm not about to refuse the extra pay because he either got an unfair deal or I'm just getting overpaid. Who among you would do any different?

The writers of quality short works were only guilty of making hay while the sun shined just like the novelists will now do. Amazon will keep changing the field on us. Some will gain advantages and some will lose them. We will all have to assimilate adapt. 

And while I want to make some real money at this like anyone else, my main goals are to give the readers good stories and always work on improving. I want what I write today to be better than what I wrote yesterday.

I always think of the line "endeavor to persevere" from The Outlaw Josey Wales in times like these. Dunno why really. I'm just odd I guess.


----------



## horrordude1973 (Sep 20, 2014)

My plan is to keep writing and putting novellas into KU knowing that they are quick and fast paced so my total pages read will keep going up. In a few months I'll see where that has landed me. Plus by then we will know exactly what the pay out is going to be or if Amazon has made any tweaks like they did with KU 1.0 the first few months.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)




----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

I prefer my pancakes bunny side up.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2015)

horrordude1973 said:


> My plan is to keep writing and putting novellas into KU knowing that they are quick and fast paced so my total pages read will keep going up. In a few months I'll see where that has landed me. Plus by then we will know exactly what the pay out is going to be or if Amazon has made any tweaks like they did with KU 1.0 the first few months.


That's my plan, too.


----------



## Robert Bidinotto (Mar 3, 2011)

anniejocoby said:


> Robert's post is probably THE most insightful, well-reasoned post I've seen yet. Without insulting anyone, he made an excellent case for Hugh's position, as well as gave voice to those of us who feel the same. Thank you!!!!


Wow. Well, thank you. I was just hoping to move the discussion from the personal to the substantive aspects of this big change.


----------



## geronl (May 7, 2015)

Does it matter how long a short story is for you to want to sell individually. I have seen some as short as 20 kindle pages, which seems way too short. I'm talking Scifi too.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2015)

Where are Hugh Howey and Jeffrey the Australian?

I've been beaten to a pulp by the changes, making 5-10 percent of what I was making. I think it's no longer about selling indie books, but about selling ads on Amazon.com to desperate indie writers. Remember how they created this AdSense type thingy for books? We tried it and told them it doesn't sell nothing. I think they are configuring their system to make it work and maybe they found out that it will work for novels but not for short stories. After all BookBub does not allow short stories to be advertised, and they are massively successful. Are they trying to force the large mass of unsuccessful indies to spend money on ads on their website? Maybe they are forcing erotica writers into advertising on their website with this change, to get more readers as their income per book goes down. I think something is going on and the reason is their predator ad system. I think they have written 90 percent of indies off as creators of books and want to use them to generate ad revenue.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 8, 2015)

drno said:


> Where are Hugh Howey and Jeffrey the Australian?


Why? Are you taking attendance now? I would imagine they're wherever they want to be.



> I've been beaten to a pulp by the changes, making 5-10 percent of what I was making. I think it's no longer about selling indie books, but about selling ads on Amazon.com to desperate indie writers. Remember how they created this AdSense type thingy for books? We tried it and told them it doesn't sell nothing. I think they are configuring their system to make it work and maybe they found out that it will work for novels but not for short stories. After all BookBub does not allow short stories to be advertised, and they are massively successful. Are they trying to force the large mass of unsuccessful indies to spend money on ads on their website? Maybe they are forcing erotica writers into advertising on their website with this change, to get more readers as their income per book goes down. I think something is going on and the reason is their predator ad system. I think they have written 90 percent of indies off as creators of books and want to use them to generate ad revenue.


Aren't you the "BOOM TIMES FOR INDIES" dude?

Have you ever considered calming down, in general?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Robert Bidinotto said:


> Wow. Well, thank you. I was just hoping to move the discussion from the personal to the substantive aspects of this big change.


Thanks, Robert.

Folks,

There have been some understandably emotional responses to Hugh's post. I came to the thread rather late in the game due to being away. At this point, let's step away from personal comments about your fellow members. Personal comments will be removed. Let's also be respectful (as most generally are) to your fellow writers who write in other genres or forms. Posts have been and will be removed that veer into the personal. Let's get back on track.

Thanks,

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

Mercia McMahon said:


> I prefer my pancakes bunny side up.


LOL


----------



## horrordude1973 (Sep 20, 2014)

I like to think....and maybe I'm overly optimistic..that amazon will find the "sweet spot" like they did with KU 1.0 and take notice of many authors leaving and tweak either the pay out or something to make it more favorable for most of us to stay in. I still think they want good books in KU regardless of length. I know some indie horror writers who also write shorts and they sell around 10,000 or more a month and have at least that many borrows. I can't imagine they want those guys pulling from KU.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

I just got off the phone with my mom, who writes historical romance as Kathleen Kirkwood, and she said that she's nearly up to 100,000 total page reads for the past three days. At .0057 per page read, she's made approximately $570 in borrows alone. When you add in conventional sales (digital and print), she's making around $200/day and she has a BookBub ad scheduled for the middle of the month. Likely, she'll be able to maintain that average through the end of July.

Although she's an award-winning, traditionally published author (recently self-pubbed), she hasn't seen this kind of money before. And because Amazon will want to save face with the bad publicity they're receiving, I suspect they'll sweeten the pot and bring it up to 1 penny per page read. It wouldn't surprise me if she cracked five figures this month.

Of course, she's not too thrilled that my income has taken a nosedive. (I've got about 3,000 page reads thus far.) There are definitely winners and losers in this new system and I'm happy for her. She could really use the money right now. If I choose to, I can finish some novels that I've been working on and hopefully join her.

But my existing children's book catalog? A complete tragedy, but moving on...

I'll continue to keep publishing them since my son loves them, but it's time to scale back production and shift gears.


----------



## Daniel Kenney (Sep 18, 2014)

S.E. Gordon said:


> I just got off the phone with my mom, who writes historical romance as Kathleen Kirkwood, and she said that she's nearly up to 100,000 total page reads for the past three days. At .0057 per page read, she's made approximately $570 in borrows alone. When you add in conventional sales (digital and print), she's making around $200/day and she has a BookBub ad scheduled for the middle of the month. Likely, she'll be able to maintain that average through the end of July.
> 
> Although she's an award-winning, traditionally published author (recently self-pubbed), she hasn't seen this kind of money before. And because Amazon will want to save face with the bad publicity they're receiving, I suspect they'll sweeten the pot and bring it up to 1 penny per page read. It wouldn't surprise me if she cracked five figures this month.
> 
> ...


Scott, I feel so good for your mother and so bad for you. You've been at this a lot longer than I and done a lot more work than I but I will say this....last month was the first month where I got a real glimpse of what I could do sales wise and revenue wise.

And borrows were a big part of that.

And now? It's less, a lot less. Maybe things will even out for me as the month goes on, I'm not sure. So, I hope we children's writers can make some noise but I'm not sure to what end. I don't know what the best path forward is in all of this. But, I really do appreciate your outspoken ness through all of this and I wish you the very best in the weeks and months ahead.


----------



## S.E. Gordon (Mar 15, 2011)

> Scott, I feel so good for your mother and so bad for you. You've been at this a lot longer than I and done a lot more work than I but I will say this....last month was the first month where I got a real glimpse of what I could do sales wise and revenue wise.
> 
> And borrows were a big part of that.
> 
> And now? It's less, a lot less. Maybe things will even out for me as the month goes on, I'm not sure. So, I hope we children's writers can make some noise but I'm not sure to what end. I don't know what the best path forward is in all of this. But, I really do appreciate your outspoken ness through all of this and I wish you the very best in the weeks and months ahead.


Thanks, Daniel, and congratulations on your success. You'll get back there, I promise you. Don't get discouraged.

Children's book authors need to stick together and share strategies to get through this.

As for my outspokenness, I'll always stand up for children's book authors, even to the Almighty one.


----------



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

I posted this earlier in the wrong thread DOH! So here it is, moved from there to somewhere people might want to read it! As you all know, I'm not in KU and won't be, but...

I was thinking about all those multi-author boxes out there for $0.99. Maybe we all should put one of those in KU?  I'm only half kidding. They are long, they are worth a LOT more than $0.99, and KU readers might like the choices on offer.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> I posted this earlier in the wrong thread DOH! So here it is, moved from there to somewhere people might want to read it! As you all know, I'm not in KU and won't be, but...
> 
> I was thinking about all those multi-author boxes out there for $0.99. Maybe we all should put one of those in KU?  I'm only half kidding. They are long, they are worth a LOT more than $0.99, and KU readers might like the choices on offer.


LOL. Some of those sets are more than a million words long.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

It would be a nightmare splitting up the royalties. Also, all the books in the set will be locked into Amazon exclusivity, which is a dealbreaker for me.


----------



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

Joe Vasicek said:


> It would be a nightmare splitting up the royalties. Also, all the books in the set will be locked into Amazon exclusivity, which is a dealbreaker for me.


The exclusivity yes, I hate it, but maybe the visibility boost would be worth the bad taste of it? As for the royalties, the only fair way would be to split the total for the box by the number of the authors in it. No way to know if 2 out of the 5 are all the readers want to read, and all the authors gain the visibility boost so... <shrug>

My only multi-box is FREE on all channels, and it works great as a funnel to my series. The one I'm talking about stopped selling years ago (it was my first Epic Fantasy) but Quest has rebooted it. Wonderful funnel.


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

Joe Vasicek said:


> It would be a nightmare splitting up the royalties. Also, all the books in the set will be locked into Amazon exclusivity, which is a dealbreaker for me.


I'd consider writing a short story or two JUST for that box set, and not upload them anywhere else.


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

Three things happened recently, which gave me pause for thought when I put them together with what is being discussed in this thread.

1. I found a book that I thought might interest me, and I used the 'Look Inside' feature to read the first few pages. I did not get anywhere near the end of the sample because the writing did not appeal to me, though I like the genre.

2. I opened my sales report and noted in particular three books which had pages read. Book 1 had 19 pages read, Book 2 had 8 pages read, and Book 3 had 6 pages read.

3. I read Hugh Howey's blog where he says, "The total share of the funds is still getting paid out. Only now, it's based on reader satisfaction, rather than people being able to game the system. If your income goes down, someone more deserving is seeing their income go up."

Now, in case 1, I'm not saying this author might not have an audience who loves the work put up under that name. Every book, I believe, will have an audience -- the problem is having them find it. Let us assume for the moment that I borrowed that book instead of using the "Look Inside" feature. Let us further assume that I stopped reading because the writing was poor and that most people would agree with me. I read maybe 5 or 6 KENPages.

In case 2, we don't know what happened. It could be that those people had just started reading my books and will finish them. It could be that one (or all) of them downloaded the book to their Kindles started reading and then decided to turn off the wireless. When they next turn it on, Amazon will award me with the total pages read since they turned off the wireless. However, let us assume that they began reading and then quit in disgust because they think that my writing is so poor that reading on would be a waste of precious time.

The 19 pages read in Book 1, equals approximately 9% of that book. The 8 & 6 pages of the others represents considerably less. The 5 or 6 pages I read before closing the book in Case 1 represents less than 5% of that book.

In all those cases, the authors (the other person and myself) would in previous months have received no payment at all, nor any notice that anyone had borrowed our books and failed to reach the 10% mark.

HOWEVER, this month, both that other author and I will be paid for someone who quit in disgust (see assumptions above). In the case of the 19 pages read, that could possibly be 19 people who opened the book, read one page and consigned the rest to the virtual trash heap.

How many hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of books have been borrowed each month since KU began and been returned with less than 10% read? How many of those returned were returned for exceptionally poor writing -- in other words, books that don't 'deserve to earn their authors money'.

Well, all those pages will now be paid.

Let's go back to Hugh Howey's post: "The total share of the funds is still getting paid out. Only now, it's based on reader satisfaction, rather than people being able to game the system. *If your income goes down, someone more deserving is seeing their income go up.*"

Every author who writes a book that can't hold onto their reader for at least 10% (but which gets borrowed and at least looked at) will now be taking a share of the pot. If I write trash, but can get people to at least read a page or two before they give up in disgust, am I someone more deserving?

Just a thought.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

drno said:


> Where are Hugh Howey and Jeffrey the Australian?


Am I Jeffrey the Australian? I must be 

I thought I was fighting a losing battle putting up my objection to Hugh's harsh remarks against short fiction authors the other day. When he actually zoned in on me and said what he said, I thought his influence would be enough to turn most people here against me.

So yeah. I was stunned by how many people agreed with my objection. I was able to step back and let them speak out, in a much better fashion than I'd be able to.

Now that I've had more time to process, I can accept the idea of remaining calm, toeing the line, being careful not to upset anyone. But then I had some further thoughts. I think it is really, really important for us writers to decide collectively how we feel about KU and the changes, and not just individually. Because we only represent our own interests, of course that determines our behavior, and Amazon uses that to it's advantage.

But if we really, really felt KU2 was unfair, and not just unfair for us (maybe it isn't) but unfair for the majority of authors, it is good to put that out there, just to see how it resonates with others, even if you risk upsetting some.

I think by being still, silent, and scared to say what you really believe, will hurt this community. I don't observe KU2 from the perspective of an novelist or short story author, but that of a writer looking to make a living. And that writer is, in my opinion, far, far worse off under this new system. The old system certainly hurt sales for everyone, but the compensation here is abysmal. And even though that my opinion, it's not set in stone. Where I read the other arguments / and opinions of others, they are read with an open mind. And they can affect my own.

I think though, there seems to be a wave of 'let's just be silent'. 'Let's calm down, keep the peace, be afraid, not upset anyone.' And I just wanted to say that I don't feel good about that. I think this is one of the few places we authors can communicate, and as long as we are civil, we shouldn't be afraid to speak our minds completely. For the betterment of all.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Am I Jeffrey the Australian? I must be
> 
> I thought I was fighting a losing battle putting up my objection to Hugh's harsh remarks against short fiction authors the other day. When he actually zoned in on me and said what he said, I thought his influence would be enough to turn most people here against me.
> 
> ...


Some people don't follow their own advice, so why should you or anyone else by silenced by them? If someone comes after me I hit the ignore button. That's what it's for.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Am I Jeffrey the Australian? I must be
> 
> I thought I was fighting a losing battle putting up my objection to Hugh's harsh remarks against short fiction authors the other day. When he actually zoned in on me and said what he said, I thought his influence would be enough to turn most people here against me.
> 
> ...


Well said, ShaneJeffery. 

I believe we should all be able to voice our opinions respectfully. And, there is nothing wrong with a good healthy debate.

A lot of us have strong opinions, and are opposed to this new KU policy--and with good reason.

NOT because we are "unworthy" or our books are subjectively bad in the eyes of some reader, but because it is of no benefit to us who write short stories/children's books/erotica.

If amazon really is this "big brother watching us" then maybe they'll see what we have to say and come up with an alternative for those of us who write shorter works, or children's books, etc.

For now, I'm going wide with my short stories, but I'll keep my novella in KU for now just to see how it goes.

Just want to add ALL of our opinions are of value. We can all learn something from each other, whether you are a bigwig best seller, a newbie author, or anywhere inbetween.


----------



## TuckerAuthor (Jan 31, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I don't observe KU2 from the perspective of an novelist or short story author, but that of a writer looking to make a living. And that writer is, in my opinion, far, far worse off under this new system. The old system certainly hurt sales for everyone, but the compensation here is abysmal. And even though that my opinion, it's not set in stone. Where I read the other arguments / and opinions of others, they are read with an open mind. And they can affect my own.


Couple of things. First, I don't think the blanket statement, "certainly hurt sales for everyone," is measurable or necessarily true. My feeling is the real results are heavily genre-based. Romance and Erotica most certainly lost "sales" in many cases, but not necessarily money, depending on how they priced their work. Others may have found new readers through the program who took a chance on something new because it was "free" to those who had the subscription. Those borrows are future sales opportunities, just like free promo downloads are. KU is a marketing tool as much or more than it is a revenue stream.

Second, we don't know what the compensation will be at this point in time. We can make an educated guess, but we really have no idea what Amazon has in mind as a target figure. They've said the pot will be _*at least*_ $11 million for the next couple of months, but they could very well increase it as they've done every month I can think of the past year over their minimum figure. Part of their goal here is to make KU more attractive to high profile authors. They need names to attract subscribers. The KENPC page counts for each book are already higher than we thought. How would the numbers look at $0.008 or $0.01 per page? Still not as good as before for the short form writers, granted, but they're pretty damned attractive to a lot of other writers.

Scribd's model of paying authors full price for a borrow isn't sustainable, as we have clear evidence of recently. Subscription models are here to stay if the popularity of Spotify and Netflix are any indication - yes, books are different, but they are still entertainment (non-fiction aside, though those are still "leisure" reads in many instances). So, unless you'd like to embrace the YouTube model and have an ad pop up every 20 pages while someone is reading your story, I think we have to accept a system structured similarly to what KU looks like now.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> The exclusivity yes, I hate it, but maybe the visibility boost would be worth the bad taste of it? As for the royalties, the only fair way would be to split the total for the box by the number of the authors in it. No way to know if 2 out of the 5 are all the readers want to read, and all the authors gain the visibility boost so... <shrug>
> 
> My only multi-box is FREE on all channels, and it works great as a funnel to my series. The one I'm talking about stopped selling years ago (it was my first Epic Fantasy) but Quest has rebooted it. Wonderful funnel.


I am continually baffled by the common "wisdom" around these parts that exclusivity = visibility, especially for a big pond like amazon. It seems to me that the exact opposite is actually the case: going exclusive in a place where you are not the biggest fish limits your visibility considerably.


----------



## Julianna (Jun 28, 2015)

Joe Vasicek said:


> I am continually baffled by the common "wisdom" around these parts that exclusivity = visibility, especially for a big pond like amazon. It seems to me that the exact opposite is actually the case: going exclusive in a place where you are not the biggest fish limits your visibility considerably.


So your books are on KDP but not KU?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

xandy3 said:


> I believe we should all be able to voice our opinions respectfully. And, there is nothing wrong with a good healthy debate.





ShaneJeffery said:


> I think though, there seems to be a wave of 'let's just be silent'. 'Let's calm down, keep the peace, be afraid, not upset anyone.' And I just wanted to say that I don't feel good about that. I think this is one of the few places we authors can communicate, and *as long as we are civil*, we shouldn't be afraid to speak our minds completely. For the betterment of all.


I don't think anyone (at least that I've read) is saying people need to keep silent. Strong opinions are fine; disagreement is fine, as long as respectfully expressed. Even if one thinks the post being responded to crosses a line, responses should not. I appreciate the relative calmness most have shown in this thread.

Betsy


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Julianna said:


> So your books are on KDP but not KU?


kDP doesn't put books in KU. You have to be in select, which is being exclusive to Amazon.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

TuckerAuthor said:


> Couple of things. First, I don't think the blanket statement, "certainly hurt sales for everyone," is measurable or necessarily true. My feeling is the real results are heavily genre-based. Romance and Erotica most certainly lost "sales" in many cases, but not necessarily money, depending on how they priced their work. Others may have found new readers through the program who took a chance on something new because it was "free" to those who had the subscription. Those borrows are future sales opportunities, just like free promo downloads are. KU is a marketing tool as much or more than it is a revenue stream.
> 
> Second, we don't know what the compensation will be at this point in time. We can make an educated guess, but we really have no idea what Amazon has in mind as a target figure. They've said the pot will be _*at least*_ $11 million for the next couple of months, but they could very well increase it as they've done every month I can think of the past year over their minimum figure. Part of their goal here is to make KU more attractive to high profile authors. They need names to attract subscribers. The KENPC page counts for each book are already higher than we thought. How would the numbers look at $0.008 or $0.01 per page? Still not as good as before for the short form writers, granted, but they're pretty damned attractive to a lot of other writers.
> 
> Scribd's model of paying authors full price for a borrow isn't sustainable, as we have clear evidence of recently. Subscription models are here to stay if the popularity of Spotify and Netflix are any indication -- yes, books are different, but they are still entertainment (non-fiction aside, though those are still "leisure" reads in many instances). So, unless you'd like to embrace the YouTube model and have an ad pop up every 20 pages while someone is reading your story, I think we have to accept a system structured similarly to what KU looks like now.


It's a really great point you make, that we don't know what the pay out per page will be. This is a problem however, Amazon has created. Most of us are assuming the .0058 cents or whatever it would have been for June, as per the statistics they provided us. You have to believe they gave us the info to work out the math from after they really messed up with their 10 cents per page example. Most of us were expecting 1 cent per page at worst, and perhaps in the optimistic, just under 2 cents. The math has made the prospect of getting much less than that look likely. Which has understandably upset a lot of people.

I could be wrong, but my feeling is that without KU permafree would still be effective and readers much more willing to pay for content. The outcry from those higher up the ladder on the best seller front, convinced me of this. Turned out KU1 was so effective for me I was able to build a platform and the start of a career out of it. But I have no illusions about my success coming at the expense of other, already successful authors. (Note they didn't lose money because I got heaps of borrows, but because KU turned their readers into borrowers instead of buyers.)


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Joe Vasicek said:


> I am continually baffled by the common "wisdom" around these parts that exclusivity = visibility, especially for a big pond like amazon. It seems to me that the exact opposite is actually the case: going exclusive in a place where you are not the biggest fish limits your visibility considerably.


The one thing I loathe about select is the exclusivity thing.

As a matter of fact, _the only thing_ I like about it is that we can run free promos from time to time.

I wish they would open up the free promos to non-select titles.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

Julianna said:


> So your books are on KDP but not KU?


Yep, and always have been.


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

I thought the best thing about KU2 was learning pages read for each book, a terrific way to discover strengths and weaknesses in one's books from real readers. That was *before* I found out reporting would only be pages read without borrow numbers. Therefore, the information was useless. What if we all, *calmly and politely*, asked Amazon to report *both* borrow numbers and pages read? I can't see where it would hurt them, and it would be valuable information to us in producing a better product. I see that kind of reporting as a win-win for everyone.

(Edit to correct typo)


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

KU 2.0 is not only a better system, it's also far more equitable.

Wasn't being an indie all about discarding the gatekeepers and letting readers decide? Well, now they do. They decide how much of your stuff they want to read and you get remunerated accordingly. Whether you present your stuff under the form of 10 short stories of 20 pages or a novel of 200 pages doesn't make any difference anymore.

The previous version was utterly unfair to novel writers.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Andrew Ashling said:


> KU 2.0 is not only a better system, it's also far more equitable.
> 
> Wasn't being an indie all about discarding the gatekeepers and letting readers decide? Well, now they do. They decide how much of your stuff they want to read and you get remunerated accordingly. Whether you present your stuff under the form of 10 short stories of 20 pages or a novel of 200 pages doesn't make any difference anymore.
> 
> The previous version was utterly unfair to novel writers.


The problem is that this is no more fair to novel writers. Most are still going to lose money by going into KU and giving Amazon exclusivity. The number of people KU now benefits has shrunk dramatically. At least KU1 made sense for short story writers, and a nice community grew out of that.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Sapphire said:


> I thought the best thing about KU2 was learning pages read for each book, a terrific way to discover strengths and weaknesses in one's books from real readers.


 In my opinion, that's what beta readers are for. 
I would much rather find out these things _before my book goes live._



> That was *before* I found out reporting would only be pages read with borrow numbers. Therefore, the information was useless.


Exactly.

Someone could borrow a book, get busy and set it down for several days before picking it up again. I am one of those readers.

It's a good think I'm not a KU reader. I'd hate to think that I'm jipping some author out of money because of my class schedule. For example, during finals week when I get very little leisure reading time.


----------



## TuckerAuthor (Jan 31, 2014)

Briteka said:


> The problem is that this is no more fair to novel writers. Most are still going to lose money by going into KU and giving Amazon exclusivity. The number of people KU now benefits has shrunk dramatically.


I'm sorry, but phrasing an opinion as fact doesn't make it true. My novel, if read through, will probably earn me at least a dollar more per borrow than before. If it's not read through, then maybe I need to step up my game, but my sales and borrows are pretty even across my two series, indicating that the people who start go on to finish. I may be an isolated example, but I'm reasonably certain I'm not the only one.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

I have yet to see more than half a dozen people that this benefits.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

Khaleesi said:


> I have yet to see more than half a dozen people that this benefits.


You may have duplications in there somewhere.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

.


----------



## TuckerAuthor (Jan 31, 2014)

Khaleesi said:


> Are you making more money than you did before?


I don't know how much money I'm going to make because we don't know what the payout is yet. If it's at least the $0.0058 that we've discussed, then yes, I'll make more money than I did before across the same number of borrows.


----------



## noob (Dec 11, 2014)

Khaleesi said:


> Are you making more money than you did before?


on the prawny end of the scale, yes. eight novels. shortest is 388 zonpages and longest is 663.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

TuckerAuthor said:


> I don't know how much money I'm going to make because we don't know what the payout is yet. If it's at least the $0.0058 that we've discussed, then yes, I'll make more money than I did before across the same number of borrows.


Is this a substantial or marginal number? I'm not asking because I'm angry or jealous. I'm curious how this change is playing out across the board.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Briteka said:


> The problem is that this is no more fair to novel writers. Most are still going to lose money by going into KU and giving Amazon exclusivity. The number of people KU now benefits has shrunk dramatically.


Maybe. All the same, I went wide years ago and I only entered some short stories in KU 1.0. They can stay and rot there as far as I am concerned, for all the good they did me.

KU was never about benefiting writers. It was about benefiting Amazon by benefiting readers. My theory is that Amazon wants to make KU into the bargain bin for addicted genre readers who need multiple fixes per month/week.

A payout of $0.0058 per page is probably still too generous to make the system sustainable in the long run. KU 1 started at about $1.80 payout per borrow, and ended nine moths or so later at $1.35. That's a decrease in payout of 25%. $0.0035 per page seem more reasonable.

I'm writing novellas now, tied in to my main series. I might, depending on the results, put them in KU 2.0 for one cycle, just to see if there is indeed a visibility bonus.



Briteka said:


> At least KU1 made sense for short story writers, and a nice community grew out of that.


I can empathize with that, but the reality is that Amazon doesn't care what makes sense to short story writers and their nice communities. I've been told (off) -- often and in no uncertain terms -- that this is a business.


----------



## TuckerAuthor (Jan 31, 2014)

Khaleesi said:


> Is this a substantial or marginal number? I'm not asking because I'm angry or jealous. I'm curious how this change is playing out across the board.


No reason to be jealous of my numbers! I make roughly enough to buy myself lunch each day for the most part. But, seriously, anyone who has works over 250 pages or so and has reasonable read through, is going to do better under this system, unless the payout drops substantially lower than the half cent area. I don't believe Amazon will do that because it won't accomplish what they've set out to do by making the change.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

TuckerAuthor said:


> No reason to be jealous of my numbers! I make roughly enough to buy myself lunch each day for the most part. But, seriously, anyone who has works over 250 pages or so and has reasonable read through, is going to do better under this system, unless the payout drops substantially lower than the half cent area. I don't believe Amazon will do that because it won't accomplish what they've set out to do by making the change.


I know a lot of authors who were making a lot of money. Now that money is halved. I'm just curious. Where is the money going? I still don't see a substantial amount of authors who are now going to get all the money all my friends, and I, lost.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

A lot of novelists who were in KU1 will do better with KU2.

My question - How many novelists who were wide, will benefit by going exclusive into KU2?


----------



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

lilywhite said:


> Whereas I have a half-dozen authors with whom I interact daily who, if the payout is indeed .005, will be doing better. (For the record, I am NOT one of them, and I'm reeling and trying to figure out how to retrench.) I think you aren't hearing from them because they would be EXCEEDINGLY unpopular if they showed up here talking about how their incomes just potentially doubled or tripled.


People are scared to come on here and be attacked for doing better. I'm a part of several private Facebook groups and several people in there were talking about doing better but said they would never say it here because they would be attacked. They also don't want to mention making more because it would come across as celebrating someone else's misfortune. I do not blame them.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> A lot of novelists who were in KU1 will do better with KU2.
> 
> My question - How many novelists who were wide, will benefit by going exclusive into KU2?


Well. Those novelists apparently don't hang out anywhere I do. I see a few people who were already successful becoming more successful. Most are having marginal benefit, if that. I don't think many authors who were wide will suddenly decide to get in on this action. What I do is is a heck of a lot of short form authors jumping ship as fast as they can.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> People are scared to come on here and be attacked for doing better. I'm a part of several private Facebook groups and several people in there were talking about doing better but said they would never say it here because they would be attacked. They also don't want to mention making more because it would come across as celebrating someone else's misfortune. I do not blame them.


It would be good to see them. I think, for me. Just to know that this change can be of benefit. I'd like to see people who were not making a lot before suddenly making much more. My worry is that the only people who really benefit were already super successful. But. What can you do? What's done is done. All that is left is to adapt.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

Khaleesi said:


> I know a lot of authors who were making a lot of money. Now that money is halved. I'm just curious. Where is the money going? I still don't see a substantial amount of authors who are now going to get all the money all my friends, and I, lost.


I wouldn't at all trust the numbers Amazon have given us. They can't be called on it.

Between KU1 and KU2, I suspect a lot of revenue is getting swept from authors into Amazon's own coffers.



Khaleesi said:


> Well. Those novelists apparently don't hang out anywhere I do. I see a few people who were already successful becoming more successful. Most are having marginal benefit, if that. I don't think many authors who were wide will suddenly decide to get in on this action. What I do is is a heck of a lot of short form authors jumping ship as fast as they can.


I agree absolutely. Readers are going to lose out big.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

ShaneJeffery said:


> A lot of novelists who were in KU1 will do better with KU2.
> 
> My question - How many novelists who were wide, will benefit by going exclusive into KU2?


That remains to be seen. It will be a while before I can experiment, because I have only the one series at this moment. And hell will freeze over multiple times or Amazon will start paying $0.02 per page, whichever comes first, before I put my series in KU.


----------



## TuckerAuthor (Jan 31, 2014)

Khaleesi said:


> I know a lot of authors who were making a lot of money. Now that money is halved. I'm just curious. Where is the money going? I still don't see a substantial amount of authors who are now going to get all the money all my friends, and I, lost.


I do sympathize with those who will lose money (at least those who weren't uploading Wikipedia articles and calling them books  ). There are two things we don't know right now that will only become apparent over time. 1) What is our read-through? As I stated above, I can be reasonably certain mine is good but that's only because my sample size is low enough that the observations easily match that conclusion. 2) What payout number is Amazon shooting for. I'm sure they have a number in mind, we just don't know what it is yet. And it may/will change based on what they see for KU enrollments - both subscribers and writers. If they aren't seeing enough longer works which the subscribers are asking for, they'll tweak the payouts up to encourage more writers to try out KU.

Until we have more information about those two things (and the first one will be individually based) we can't really make many broad conclusions about where the money is going and who is doing better or worse. Yes, anyone with all short works in the program will probably lose money. But, what if most of those novel borrows aren't ever finished and your short works are all read through? You might find your pages read line up pretty well with many of the novel writers.

The program is barely 4 days old. There will be adjustments from both Amazon and writers that will affect it as we move forward.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I wouldn't at all trust the numbers Amazon have given us. They can't be called on it.
> 
> Between KU1 and KU2, I suspect a lot of revenue is getting swept from authors into Amazon's own coffers.
> 
> I agree absolutely. Readers are going to lose out big.


The whole point of the change was to pay less, in my opinion. Shorts were making too much money, all subsidized by Amazon. The money isn't going anywhere. The pot is what it is. It gets split between number of pages read. The long novelist who doesn't get readers past the 50 page mark won't make anymore than my short erotica earns me. Some writers will do well, others won't. So far this month I've earn a little over 10 bucks for the stories I have in KU. Some longer novelist have earned more. Some not even that much. i get around 600-700 page reads a day, less the first day, but it picked up the second day, so averaging that's what I'm getting so far. Keep in mind my stories are quite short, but my catologs across three pen names has around 30 books. So I got as many pages read as the novelist who only got a couple of borrows.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

I'm making my conclusions from the information I have, as are others. It makes less sense to me to speculate. If my books get 100% read through I'll make X amount of money. That's speculation. I can see my pages read number, those are hard facts. I don't have a lot of reason to believe those numbers will suddenly go up for any other reason than the holiday weekend is over and people are going back to normal reading habits. I can also speculate that the pages read rate will be two cents and I'll make more than I used to. But what would be the point in that. I'm only drawing conclusions from factual data gathered thus far.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Joe Vasicek said:


> I am continually baffled by the common "wisdom" around these parts that exclusivity = visibility, especially for a big pond like amazon. It seems to me that the exact opposite is actually the case: going exclusive in a place where you are not the biggest fish limits your visibility considerably.


Well they did straight up weight borrow higher than sales in terms of rankings. This gave the illusion of a visibility boost even though the increase was still relative to your personal marketing power. Basically, if you were doing really well KU made you dominantly better than others doing well, but if you weren't doing well, it really didn't do much beyond the prosperity gospel thing.

Odd that no one is pointing to _that_ as unfair...


----------



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

Joe Vasicek said:


> I am continually baffled by the common "wisdom" around these parts that exclusivity = visibility, especially for a big pond like amazon. It seems to me that the exact opposite is actually the case: going exclusive in a place where you are not the biggest fish limits your visibility considerably.


No need to be baffled, just ask. There was definitely a visibility boost to KU 1.0. The only reason I know is because the moment it launched, all my titles fell out of the top 100s, and killed my audio sales stone dead. Now I have no idea if KU 2.0 will be different, but as you said yourself, the common wisdom is still that there is/will be visibility boost.

I must admit, I DO browse those ranks and lists. So I can see where it comes from.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

Vaalingrade said:


> Well they did straight up weight borrow higher than sales in terms of rankings. This gave the illusion of a visibility boost even though the increase was still relative to your personal marketing power. Basically, if you were doing really well KU made you dominantly better than others doing well, but if you weren't doing well, it really didn't do much beyond the prosperity gospel thing.
> 
> Odd that no one is pointing to _that_ as unfair...


Oh that's absolutely unfair. That's how unknowns like myself were able to get visible amongst best selling authors who weren't in KU. I'm not being sarcastic by the way.

Amazon is holding folks who don't go exclusive to ransom.


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Between KU1 and KU2, I suspect a lot of revenue is getting swept from authors into Amazon's own coffers.


Well, if you want to go down that path, you can't trust any of the numbers you've ever gotten from any market -- maybe they sold those books, maybe they didn't! (After all, all of the bookstores -- not just Amazon -- jigger with their bestseller lists. Simple books sold != spot on the list.)

I sincerely doubt Amazon is playing with KU income/payout numbers. It's not worth it to them, and if they ever got called on it, it would look terrible. They don't NEED to play with those numbers. KU is a loss leader for them: come for the array of books, stay for the lawnmowers and detergent.

While the numbers on the dashboard are messed up for the moment (it seems like many people's are), I think it's because they rolled out new software, which has its problems.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

I don't think Amazon is keeping the money. I just think they are sliding it toward people who were already making a lot of money. The successful novelist just got more successful. Someone stated on another thread, for every one author who is benefiting, there are 50 who took a massive pay cut. I believe this is the case.


----------



## D-C (Jan 13, 2014)

Andrew Ashling said:


> That remains to be seen. It will be a while before I can experiment, because I have only the one series at this moment. And hell will freeze over multiple times or Amazon will start paying $0.02 per page, whichever comes first, before I put my series in KU.


I ditched KU v1 and went wide with my novels. I have no intention of returning, unless they start offering MUCH MORE. It does, indeed, remain to be seen. I won't be able to make the business decision until I have a couple of months worth of data, at least.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

Diane Patterson said:


> Well, if you want to go down that path, you can't trust any of the numbers you've ever gotten from any market -- maybe they sold those books, maybe they didn't! (After all, all of the bookstores -- not just Amazon -- jigger with their bestseller lists. Simple books sold != spot on the list.)
> 
> I sincerely doubt Amazon is playing with KU income/payout numbers. It's not worth it to them, and if they ever got called on it, it would look terrible. They don't NEED to play with those numbers. KU is a loss leader for them: come for the array of books, stay for the lawnmowers and detergent.
> 
> While the numbers on the dashboard are messed up for the moment (it seems like many people's are), I think it's because they rolled out new software, which has its problems.


They're artificially inflating the KU Pot every month. We already know they're playing with numbers. Of course I don't think they're not reporting sales etc. But they're so tight lipped with the information they're giving us in this program that I don't think the figures hold any water.

Maybe I'm being paranoid, but we really are in total darkness here. And they know it.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

Khaleesi said:


> I don't think Amazon is keeping the money. I just think they are sliding it toward people who were already making a lot of money. The successful novelist just got more successful. Someone stated on another thread, for every one author who is benefiting, there are 50 who took a massive pay cut. I believe this is the case.


Well, I mean, if we are to learn the stat of how many borrows there are in July, and how much they'd earn per borrow, the question is how it will line up against previous months. This stat won't be seen by us. And I suspect it will be a lot less.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

lilywhite said:


> I don't understand how anyone could make a claim like this, nor why anyone would swallow it, given the almost complete lack of reliable calculable info we have and the spottiness/size of our sample group here. That's just borrowing grief.
> 
> Look to your own numbers (as best you can estimate) and make your choices based on those. When 8/15 rolls around and we have ACTUAL numbers, make new or the same choices based on those. There's nothing to be gained by looking for more than that right now.


I have no idea what you are talking about. My question is where is the money going. I have the data I have. I have the observations I have. All I can do is make decisions based on that. Maybe being curious about where the money is going makes me stupid or something. Who knows. I've already been called a hysterical chicken. I guess it's time to go make some bundles before my room gets to 90 degrees.


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Maybe I'm being paranoid, but we really are in total darkness here. And they know it.


Oh, THAT'S absolutely true. Amazon already knows what they're paying per page on August 15 -- they're not announcing it now for both psychological and financial reasons. They could tell KU members how many borrows AND how many pages read -- but they're not, for many of the same reasons.

I just don't believe for a second they're stealing any of the money that was earned by authors. I believe they have added money to inflate the pool to attach more writers to their program, in fact.


----------



## KerryT2012 (Dec 18, 2012)

lilywhite said:


> Whereas I have a half-dozen authors with whom I interact daily who, if the payout is indeed .005, will be doing better. (For the record, I am NOT one of them, and I'm reeling and trying to figure out how to retrench.) I think you aren't hearing from them because they would be EXCEEDINGLY unpopular if they showed up here talking about how their incomes just potentially doubled or tripled.


That is a shame, because I would really like to hear from those people. Could you confirm the number of words in each book? Or the number of pages per book? To date everyone is stating a 50 to 80% loss in general. To hear from others that are successful at the 0.00567 rate, shows that it is possible to still profit or even break even at this rate.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> People are scared to come on here and be attacked for doing better. I'm a part of several private Facebook groups and several people in there were talking about doing better but said they would never say it here because they would be attacked. They also don't want to mention making more because it would come across as celebrating someone else's misfortune. I do not blame them.


There was a poll attached to the very first thread about KU2.0. Almost three-quarters of respondents thought the change was a good thing, with 435 members responding. That kind of anonymous query, which doesn't ask people to personally advertise how much better they're doing, is probably the best evidence we'll get that the new KU is good for a lot of writers.

I have my work on all platforms, but the new KU would certainly would be better for me, if I were in the program. I only have one paid book, and it's about 134K words. I'd probably be looking at $3.50+/borrow instead of $1.35 ... or instead of the $2.69 I make per sale. _Borrows would be better than sales._ If I were depending on my writing for my family's income, I'd probably go back into KU now.

ETA: "Borrow" = "read-through borrow," of course. Which I'd like to think I'd get ... but might not.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

lilywhite said:


> Well, I quoted the exact thing I was talking about, so beyond that I'm not sure what I can do to help you out.


I never asked for your help. I've made the observations I've made with the information available. I stated that I suspect that a handful of people will make substantially more money for every 50 authors who have their income cut in half. That is from my actual observations of the information available. Until new information becomes available, that is what I observe. If that makes me stupid, so be it. I am quite aware that I have incomplete information. No one ever claimed otherwise. We ALL know we have incomplete information. Every dang one of us has incomplete information. That is why I am trying to find more information by asking these questions.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

Becca Mills said:


> There was a poll attached to the very first thread about KU2.0. Almost three-quarters of respondents thought the change was a good thing, with 435 members responding. That kind of anonymous query, which doesn't ask people to personally advertise how much better they're doing, is probably the best evidence we'll get that the new KU is good for a lot of writers.
> 
> I have my work on all platforms, but the new KU would certainly would be better for me, if I were in the program. I only have one paid book, and it's about 134K words. I'd probably be looking at $3.50+/borrow instead of $1.35 ... or instead of the $2.69 I make per sale. _Borrows would be better than sales._ If I were depending on my writing for my family's income, I'd probably go back into KU now.
> 
> ETA: "Borrow" = "read-through borrow," of course. Which I'd like to think I'd get ... but might not.


Says the vote started on June 15.
That thread isn't relevant now because the estimated payout per page is significantly lower than what we expected.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> There was a poll attached to the very first thread about KU2.0. Almost three-quarters of respondents thought the change was a good thing, with 435 members responding. That kind of anonymous query, which doesn't ask people to personally advertise how much better they're doing, is probably the best evidence we'll get that the new KU is good for a lot of writers.
> 
> I have my work on all platforms, but the new KU would certainly would be better for me, if I were in the program. I only have one paid book, and it's about 134K words. I'd probably be looking at $3.50+/borrow instead of $1.35 ... or instead of the $2.69 I make per sale. _Borrows would be better than sales._ If I were depending on my writing for my family's income, I'd probably go back into KU now.


Yep, Becca. I DO depend on writing for my family's income, which is why I'm back in Select with 4 (out of 13) titles. The only reason I don't have them all back in because I'd really like to get traction elsewhere, but it's KILLIN' me to know how much better I'd be doing if they were in Select.

I write long. The four books in Select are 95, 95, 105, and 115K. I would imagine that anybody who writes over 50K or so and sells reasonably well (hence is likely to have their books read through) will do better under KU 2.0. (NOTE: I'm talking "doing better" only in the sense of "doing better on Amazon," and I can certainly respect and value the opinion that it's better long-term for an author's career to go wide. However, I really, really, really want to go back to NZ in a couple months so I can write a new NZ book. So--that $$-now thing.)

The folks I know who sell well with reasonable-length novels who still have things in KU have said the same--they're doing well. Before, I made $1.35/borrow, and my books are 100K and $4.99. Made not much sense, even though the visibility hit when I left was HUGE. Now, I'm making, according to the per-page estimate we have (which may, of course, be completely off) and Amazon's estimate of my page count, somewhere between $3.00 & $3.50/borrow. In other words--pretty much the same as a sale.

For the record, I estimated in some thread somewhere that the payout per page would be .7 cents--under the "old" way of estimating pages. For a 350-page book (rather than 500 which is what Amazon says my book is)? That would have been LOWER than what it looks like it will be. I got that number by assuming that Amazon made this change to get more novels back in the program, particularly good-selling novels that would be likely to be borrowed. So I took what I thought was the highest they'd pay for a borrow, and got $2.50 or so. If it's that, I'll still be OK and making almost twice as much per book borrowed as under 1.0. If it's indeed $3.50 a borrow? Well, I'll be darned ecstatic.

So, there you go. There's me, sticking my neck out. More visibility, and (I hope) more money? I'll take it. When I see the actual payout, I'll reassess. But for now, it certainly seems worth a try.

PLEASE NOTE: I, and many others, haven't been posting "YAY!", I would imagine, because we don't want to gloat over anybody else's misfortune, and indeed it seems a little tone-deaf to post the above, but what the hell, I did anyway. I was hurt BADLY by KU 1.0, when other, savvier authors responded by putting out serial works and shorts. I couldn't do it because I don't have the talent to write short, and I do have some readership--and they also don't like short. So I decided it was my wakeup call to go wide. Perhaps KU 2.0 will be some other authors' similar wakeup call to go wide, if what they have the talent and the readership for will be better rewarded there. Adjusting on a dime SUCKS. I know. I had to do it, and I burned through a bottle of Xanax pretty fast. (I wish I were lying.) But unfortunately, it's the name of this darned game we're playing.

Please note #2: I have no "sweetheart deal" with Amazon. Nor does anybody I know, at this point. Some indies (not me) were allowed to be in KU non-exclusively at the beginning. Those deals are long over, from what I know.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

lilywhite said:


> No, but you did express that you didn't understand my post, so I would have helped if I could, that's all.
> 
> I'm not sure why you're so p*ssed at me. For the record, I'm going to do worse under the new model, at least in the short-term, than under the old model. I write VERY lean, and my stuff comes out on the shortish side as a result. So I'm not one of those people that you see as taking money out of your pocket. I'm simply saying that for you to pull a 1:50 ratio out of your butt based on self-reporting at KBoards is, as I said, borrowing grief. You can ask questions till you're blue in the face -- we all can -- and it's not going to matter, because the answers to the MOST IMPORTANT questions will have to come from Amazon, and we're not going to get them until at least the middle of next month, if we get them at all.


Yes. I pulled that number out of my butt. What does it matter. Everyone is speculating. If my book gets read 100% I'll make more money. Well, are your actually making more money? I don't care if you will or won't make more personally. My question is where is all this money going. I see a whole lot of losers and not many winners. I want to know who is making more money now at .5 cents a page over the last four days. From what I can actually gather from the different forums I go to, very few people are actually making more.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

.


----------



## lungtastic (May 23, 2011)

I guess here's the thing I'm not understanding (and my apologies if someone else has already brought it up). I have Kindle Unlimited and when I see a book that interests me, I download it. So my 10 book queue is always full of half-read books. I have ADHD and three (soon to be four) kids so usually even if I like a book I will never read it all in one sitting. I'll open the book up, read through maybe a chapter or two, then put it down. That doesn't mean I didn't like it, I do this even with my favorite books. But now with this system the author only gets paid for those initial pages I read, right? In this day and age when most people are really busy and some might only read in bite-sized sessions, doesn't that seem unfair? And again, if I have this wrong, please forgive me.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

lilywhite said:


> Honey, I don't want to fight with you. I get why you're prickly right now. Trust me, if you could have seen the spectacular meltdown I had yesterday over my ranks and income figures -- the crisis of faith I had over whether I'm writing the right things or if I can even write at all -- you'd know that you and I have a lot in common right now in terms of confusion, panic, and anger. But nobody owes you that info, and literally every person I know who is privately celebrating has outright said they will not be making their numbers public. The potential for backlash is too great. But they are there, even if you're not seeing them in the places you go.


Honey, I never said anyone owed me anything. Looking for the information doesn't make me... whatever it is you are trying to make me out to be. What I'm looking for is a silver lining. I don't see it, but I'm still looking. Sue me.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

Khaleesi said:


> Honey, I never said anyone owed me anything. Looking for the information doesn't make me... whatever it is you are trying to make me out to be. What I'm looking for is a silver lining. I don't see it, but I'm still looking. Sue me.


I think the silver lining is that we'll be pushed to work much harder and faster than before, if we have any hope of getting the same income as before. This, if we are strong and disciplined enough to do, will make us better and happier people.

Long term, we could actually earn more. Because we'll have to leave KU and figure out how to master the other platforms. We'll be less reliant on one stream of income that can be eroded as easily as it has been.

That's my silver lining anyway.


----------



## TuckerAuthor (Jan 31, 2014)

lungtastic said:


> But now with this system the author only gets paid for those initial pages I read, right?


If you never read any more in that book, that's true. If you go back and pick that book up again, they will get paid for the pages you read after you left off. Even if it's days or weeks later.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I think the silver lining is that we'll be pushed to work much harder and faster than before, if we have any hope of getting the same income as before. This, if we are strong and disciplined enough to do, will make us better and happier people.
> 
> Long term, we could actually earn more. Because we'll have to leave KU and figure out how to master the other platforms. We'll be less reliant on one stream of income that can be eroded as easily as it has been.
> 
> That's my silver lining anyway.


Believe me, I want to leave. I hate the anxiety. I know I'm going to lose about half my income already. I just don't know if i want to bale now or wait it out. I know that wide distribution is far more stable. I'm just not sure I'm done suckling the amazon teat. (Can I say that? Sorry if I can't).


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

I think that the key thing at this early stage of the changeover is that two-weeks notice is not a lot of time to adjust in this industry. This is not a case of putting an extra tray of cup cakes in the oven. Even a tanker gets turned around quicker that we can turn out our finished product. It is fine [=sarcasm] for some to complain that some went full-time without sufficient savings put away. Some have never had the non-writing income to put away and KU Mark One gave them a way to feed the family or stop the car being repossessed.

Those who took advantage of the previous business opportunity that Amazon presented are no doubt talented enough to take advantage of the new system, but the turnaround time takes longer than the notice that authors were given. Even now we were given a hint of the remuneration level on the day the changeover happened, but it will be six weeks before people know what they will be paid in August. Amazon could pull a PR coup by announcing the June rate early to give authors more chance to plan the financials and free up some time currently devoted to stress towards getting that tanker turned around. Even better if they announce that they are paying $2 a borrow to compensate for those who wrote what Amazon (previously) encouraged them to write.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

lilywhite said:


> I'm not trying to make you out to be anything, and clearly you're not interested in any kind of sympathy or solidarity, so carry on with your bad self and I'll stop addressing you. Jeez. Some people's kids.


I'm 40. But if you need to feel superior to get through this, go for it. Frankly, I don't need sympathy either. As far as solidarity goes, why did you question my post in the first place? No one made you come at me like I was an idiot for asking these questions or coming to the conclusions I came to from the available information.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Khaleesi said:


> Honey, I never said anyone owed me anything. Looking for the information doesn't make me... whatever it is you are trying to make me out to be. What I'm looking for is a silver lining. I don't see it, but I'm still looking. Sue me.


I don't know whether there is a silver lining, KU-wise.

It seems Amazon is trying to offer readers dirt-cheap content, and with ever more writers entering the fray that won't be too difficult. Expect payout per page to drop over time.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

The silver lining comes if you're writing books that clock in over 270 pages long. That's the "break even" point between the old and new system. If you're writing longer than that you'll be making more money (assuming of course that people finish your book) than you were under the old system. Some of the people writing much longer books can expect to see their KU income double and triple easily, without any more work on their part.

Considering the mood here and on other writer boards right now, if I was one of those people I wouldn't be publicly talking about it, either.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

Khaleesi said:


> Believe me, I want to leave. I hate the anxiety. I know I'm going to lose about half my income already. I just don't know if i want to bale now or wait it out. I know that wide distribution is far more stable. I'm just not sure I'm done suckling the amazon teat. (Can I say that? Sorry if I can't).


No, don't leave yet. If you're like me and mostly have borrows vs sales, you're gonna have to wean the readers off them. I don't know what length you're writing at, but if it's not 2.99 titles up the length and release a few of those in KU. Do whatever you can to climb the charts. Then cut away from KU piece by piece.

That's what I think I will do. Advise your readers of the changes as well. It doesn't hurt to let people know why you're leaving KU. I'm sure they'll be hearing it from other authors as well.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> No, don't leave yet. If you're like me and mostly have borrows vs sales, you're gonna have to wean the readers off them. I don't know what length you're writing at, but if it's not 2.99 titles up the length and release a few of those in KU. Do whatever you can to climb the charts. Then cut away from KU piece by piece.
> 
> That's what I think I will do. Advise your readers of the changes as well. It doesn't hurt to let people know why you're leaving KU. I'm sure they'll be hearing it from other authors as well.


Yeah. Still have 90 days to pull out. Waiting isn't going to hurt...much.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

lungtastic said:


> I guess here's the thing I'm not understanding (and my apologies if someone else has already brought it up). I have Kindle Unlimited and when I see a book that interests me, I download it. So my 10 book queue is always full of half-read books. I have ADHD and three (soon to be four) kids so usually even if I like a book I will never read it all in one sitting. I'll open the book up, read through maybe a chapter or two, then put it down. That doesn't mean I didn't like it, I do this even with my favorite books. But now with this system the author only gets paid for those initial pages I read, right? In this day and age when most people are really busy and some might only read in bite-sized sessions, doesn't that seem unfair? And again, if I have this wrong, please forgive me.


No, you've got it right. I said in another thread that I'd really feel for any author who had to wait for me to read their entire book to get paid. I read a few pages a day because that's how I wind down in the evening WHEN there isn't a movie or show on that I really want to watch, so really I read a few pages a few days a week. What can I say? I'm a very busy woman who loves to read, but can only spare so much time. It doesn't matter how good the book is. It gets a half hour a few times a week. It will get more when I'm retired, but that's a long time away.


----------



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

I know of at least ten people doing better on private boards. No one is willing to come here and be attacked (and it was stated multiple times that people were lurking, reading and running in the opposite direction). I am truly sorry for the people who had the rug yanked out from under them but some people here (some, not all) are attacking people and I don't blame people for running in fear either. This place is -- not fun, warm or inviting right now. I get why people are upset. The other authors didn't do this to you, though. Treating them like dirt isn't going to solve everyone's problems. Also, you do not have a right to demand financial numbers from people. That is not your business. If people want to volunteer them, fine. You are not entitled to them, though.


----------



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

katrina46 said:


> No, you've got it right. I said in another thread that I'd really feel for any author who had to wait for me to read their entire book to get paid. I read a few pages a day because that's how I wind down in the evening WHEN there isn't a movie or show on that I really want to watch, so really I read a few pages a few days a week. What can I say? I'm a very busy woman who loves to read, but can only spare so much time. It doesn't matter how good the book is. It gets a half hour a few times a week. It will get more when I'm retired, but that's a long time away.


I think that would mean a subscription service would never benefit you then. Subscription services benefit voracious readers and if you're in one it only makes sense financially that you're a relatively fast reader, for the most part anyway. I read at least two books a week -- from start to finish -- and I start another ten and abandon them in the first chapter because they're not ultimately my cup of tea.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

Khaleesi said:


> Yeah. Still have 90 days to pull out. Waiting isn't going to hurt...much.


I've pretty much given up on making a living in the next 3 months. I'm using them for promo only (and putting together a huge catalog of 2.99 pieces). Because I did so well in recent months past, I have more than enough money to take the hit.

I feel for the people who don't have that luxury and have been crushed by this.


----------



## Anjasa (Feb 4, 2012)

KelliWolfe said:


> The silver lining comes if you're writing books that clock in over 270 pages long.


See, I think this is, overall, my biggest problem with the new system. Having to write 50k words to simply break even is... crushing, isn't it? That's a lot of words to write, even for very high production people. I know some people prefer writing novels, and they write novels faster than they could logically write a short story.

But as someone who prefers writing and reading stories in the 10-30k range, it's just very demoralizing to me to have those books devalued, not just by Amazon's change, but by other authors.

In the past few days, I have been called a liar, a hack, greedy, selfish... It's been implied that I'm not a real writer, and that I should simply suck up my 70% income loss. That I was cheating, and wrong, and I deserve this, simply because I wrote short stories and enrolled them in Kindle Unlimited.

But the real reason I wrote shorts rather than long novels, is that I've never made a lot of money off my novels, though I've written many of them. My longest two are over 100k words, but they never sold particularly well. So perhaps I am greedy because I wanted to work as an author. Perhaps I'm selfish because I enrolled in Kindle Unlimited when it was made clear to me that if I didn't, my visibility, sales and income would all suffer (I didn't enroll until December, but I'd been publishing shorts since 2012).

Perhaps I am a hack because people don't buy my novels very much and I don't understand how to make people want them more. Perhaps I am a liar for thinking that this change will, eventually, hurt most authors, even novelists, a few months down the road when the summer slump is over and 1.9 billion pages read is suddenly 3 billion pages read.

But in the end, I wanted what most people here wanted -- a chance to make a living and engage people with my writing. I wanted to do something amazing, to make people feel and think. I wanted to have an impact on people in a personal way that I couldn't at my day job.

And through Kindle Unlimited's old system, I was able to do that. I could continue writing my novels that never sold well but touched the people that did buy them, while still earning a living off of writing shorts and engaging with a different group of people.

Through this system, I now have to face a choice of leaving the fans of my short stories and my novels in the cold as I try to pursue greater profits in genres I don't particularly care for, with the hopes that I will continue having my meager financial success. This will take time away from my writing of novels and short stories that I'm passionate about.

This change is what will make me greedy, and selfish, and a hack.

This change is what will make me have to give up some of my dreams in exchange for continuing to make a living.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

A reminder to keep it civil; let's leave out the personal comments, please.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I've pretty much given up on making a living in the next 3 months. I'm using them for promo only (and putting together a huge catalog of 2.99 pieces). Because I did so well in recent months past, I have more than enough money to take the hit.
> 
> I feel for the people who don't have that luxury and have been crushed by this.


Luckily, I have about three-five months living expenses. Otherwise, I'd have to find a job or seriously tighten my belt, which I might have to do anyway. Don't want to take my kid out of preschool but it's a huge expense that isn't a necessity like rent or my car payment.


----------



## geronl (May 7, 2015)

Hugh is correct I think. Shorts should probably consider going "wide".

even my book has more KENPC pages than "pages" listed on the site, it might be about the same as the old system with a full read-through.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> I know of at least ten people doing better on private boards. No one is willing to come here and be attacked (and it was stated multiple times that people were lurking, reading and running in the opposite direction). I am truly sorry for the people who had the rug yanked out from under them but some people here (some, not all) are attacking people and I don't blame people for running in fear either. This place is -- not fun, warm or inviting right now. I get why people are upset. The other authors didn't do this to you, though. Treating them like dirt isn't going to solve everyone's problems. Also, you do not have a right to demand financial numbers from people. That is not your business. If people want to volunteer them, fine. You are not entitled to them, though.


No one is demanding anything. Asking is not demanding. Not receiving answers is not receiving answers. If you see 10 authors who are making more, I see hundreds who are making less. It's pretty straightforward.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

KelliWolfe said:


> The silver lining comes if you're writing books that clock in over 270 pages long. That's the "break even" point between the old and new system. If you're writing longer than that you'll be making more money (assuming of course that people finish your book) than you were under the old system. Some of the people writing much longer books can expect to see their KU income double and triple easily, without any more work on their part.
> 
> Considering the mood here and on other writer boards right now, if I was one of those people I wouldn't be publicly talking about it, either.


I just never got any writers caring how another does. I didn't understand long writers hating shorts in KU, I don't understand why short writers (and I am one) hate long writers now. I focus on what's best for me. I didn't particularly think KU1 was so fair to the ones who didn't jump right in and saw every title flat line. I got over it and joined because it's adapt or die. Now I'll get over it, raise prices and sell wide. If my erotica does well outside of KU, what do I care how well a novelist is doing in KU? I'll be too busy counting my own money to care. We're all just writers doing what works best for us. Some people have called erotica a scam long before KU. 2.99 for 15 pages. They hate that for whatever reason, morally or because they don't like to see someone earning what their novels do so we must be scamming. That's not my problem. My concern is keeping the readers happy.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

Boyd said:


> http://www.hughhowey.com/subscription-models-literature/
> 
> "In Summary
> KU 2.0 pays per page a higher rate for an ebook borrow than major publishers pay per page for a print sale.
> ...


Point 1 - No one cares about what major publishers pay in 2015

Point 2 - Their recommendations suggest I price my 5k short at 2.99, so no, this statement is false.

Point 3 - There are holes in this argument. That being you don't know how long it took anyone to write or read anything, and why is time a factor in the first place?

Point 4 - We knew what we were getting paid per borrow (10 percent read through anyway). Short story, Novel, Article, essay, Poem, Boxset, we knew unless Amazon wanted a mutiny, it would be over 1.30. That was pretty fair. No we don't even know HOW MANY borrows we have. Unfair.

Point 5 - Okay. You got me. What is scarier than this?


----------



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

Khaleesi said:


> No one is demanding anything. Asking is not demanding. Not receiving answers is not receiving answers. If you see 10 authors who are making more, I see hundreds who are making less. It's pretty straightforward.


There have been numerous people on here demanding numbers over the past few days. A lot of people are complaining loudly right now, and I get it. However, just because people aren't coming on here and bragging that doesn't mean there aren't people out there making money. Most people do not want to come in and dance on the graves of others.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

Khaleesi said:


> Luckily, I have about three-five months living expenses. Otherwise, I'd have to find a job or seriously tighten my belt, which I might have to do anyway. Don't want to take my kid out of preschool but it's a huge expense that isn't a necessity like rent or my car payment.


This is really good. I'm happy for you.

Obviously, you don't want to be in this position. KU1 made me feel pretty invincible until this change came along.

But both of us are better placed than most to make a living with writing. We have platforms and finance behind us that so many do not. That's why I'm giving it my all come Monday. I took most of this week off just for the hell of it, to reformulate. See where I stood with it all. And I think that by going nuts in the productivity department will be what sets winners and losers apart.

We can't just be good anymore under this system.

We have to be the best we can be.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> There have been numerous people on here demanding numbers over the past few days. A lot of people are complaining loudly right now, and I get it. However, just because people aren't coming on here and bragging that doesn't mean there aren't people out there making money. Most people do not want to come in and dance on the graves of others.


I get it. I just wish I had the info. I'm actually going long now. I've wanted to for a while. I'm just getting my hand forced to do what I want to anyway. In KU 1.0, I was basically "forced" to write short. It is what it is. Personally, I'm trying to estimate pages read in a very clumsy way. I think it's the bargaining stage of grief or something.


----------



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

Khaleesi said:


> I get it. I just wish I had the info. I'm actually going long now. I've wanted to for a while. I'm just getting my hand forced to do what I want to anyway. In KU 1.0, I was basically "forced" to write short. It is what it is. Personally, I'm trying to estimate pages read in a very clumsy way. I think it's the bargaining stage of grief or something.


I understand. It's a frustrating time. Now I must make strawberry shortcake and start my writing for today.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Khaleesi said:


> I get it. I just wish I had the info. I'm actually going long now. I've wanted to for a while. I'm just getting my hand forced to do what I want to anyway. In KU 1.0, I was basically "forced" to write short. It is what it is. Personally, I'm trying to estimate pages read in a very clumsy way. I think it's the bargaining stage of grief or something.


Go wide and forget about KU. Trust me, you'll sleep better at night not having all of your livelihood stuck with Amazon's Sword of Damocles hanging over it every day. None of the distributors are perfect, but at least when you're wide you're better insulated against massive upsets like this on one channel.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

KelliWolfe said:


> Go wide and forget about KU. Trust me, you'll sleep better at night not having all of your livelihood stuck with Amazon's Sword of Damocles hanging over it every day. None of the distributors are perfect, but at least when you're wide you're better insulated against massive upsets like this on one channel.


I know. It's scary. But I don't know if it could be worse than it is now.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I think the silver lining is that we'll be pushed to work much harder and faster than before, if we have any hope of getting the same income as before. This, if we are strong and disciplined enough to do, will make us better and happier people.
> 
> Long term, we could actually earn more. Because we'll have to leave KU and figure out how to master the other platforms. We'll be less reliant on one stream of income that can be eroded as easily as it has been.
> 
> That's my silver lining anyway.


The silver lining might be that if the book is borrowed but only a few pages are read then at least your cover and blurb are working


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Mercia McMahon said:


> I think that the key thing at this early change of the changeover is that two-weeks notice is not a lot of time to adjust in this industry. This is not a case of putting an extra tray of cup cakes in the oven. Even a tanker gets turned around quicker that we can turn out our finished product. It is fine [=sarcasm] for some to complain that some went full-time without sufficient savings put away. Some have never had the non-writing income to put away and KU Mark One gave them a way to feed the family or stop the car being repossessed.
> 
> Those who took advantage of the previous business opportunity that Amazon presented are no doubt talented enough to take advantage of the new system, but the turnaround time takes longer than the notice that authors were given. Even now we were given a hint of the remuneration level on the day the changeover happened, but it will be six weeks before people know what they will be paid in August. Amazon could pull a PR coup by announcing the June rate early to give authors more chance to plan the financials and free up some time currently devoted to stress towards getting that tanker turned around. Even better if they announce that they are paying $2 a borrow to compensate for those who wrote what Amazon (previously) encouraged them to write.


^^ Amen to that. I lost my day job 2 years ago, and my writing is my only source of income. I don't have the luxury to "wait and see what happens." I need to make a quick decision NOW. And, yes it is hard for some of us to change course midstream.



Amanda M. Lee said:


> I know of at least ten people doing better on private boards. No one is willing to come here and be attacked (and it was stated multiple times that people were lurking, reading and running in the opposite direction). I am truly sorry for the people who had the rug yanked out from under them but some people here (some, not all) are attacking people and I don't blame people for running in fear either. This place is -- not fun, warm or inviting right now. I get why people are upset. The other authors didn't do this to you, though. Treating them like dirt isn't going to solve everyone's problems. Also, you do not have a right to demand financial numbers from people. That is not your business. If people want to volunteer them, fine. You are not entitled to them, though.


The haves and the have-nots will always be feuding no matter what. Not just here at this board. Everywhere, in RL, and over everything too. 

It's just the way of the world.



katrina46 said:


> I just never got any writers caring how another does. I didn't understand long writers hating shorts in KU, I don't understand why short writers (and I am one) hate long writers now. I focus on what's best for me. I didn't particularly think KU1 was so fair to the ones who didn't jump right in and saw every title flat line. I got over it and joined because it's adapt or die. Now I'll get over it, raise prices and sell wide. If my erotica does well outside of KU, what do I care how well a novelist is doing in KU? I'll be too busy counting my own money to care. We're all just writers doing what works best for us. Some people have called erotica a scam long before KU. 2.99 for 15 pages. They hate that for whatever reason, morally or because they don't like to see someone earning what their novels do so we must be scamming. That's not my problem. My concern is keeping the readers happy.


Yeah, I don't understand all this Novelist vs. short story writers infighting either. Can't we all get along?

*breaks out into my West Side Story Dance!**

Seriously though, I agree. I am just going to focus on the best decision for me, career-wise and for my readers. Heck, I've had some complaints about a few of my books being "amazon exclusive" from Nook readers. It's probably bad business (for some of us) to be exclusive to amazon. I know it's definitely better for me to go wide.


----------



## Ros_Jackson (Jan 11, 2014)

For those of you wanting more detailed reports, a reminder of this thread: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,216309.msg3015331.html

Amazon hired someone to improve KDP's dashboard, and we've already seen changes. Maybe we'll see more data in the near future? There's a #releasetherate hashtag going round for authors who want Amazon to provide more information about downloads.


----------



## KerryT2012 (Dec 18, 2012)

lilywhite said:


> They are all writers of medium to long novels, which I'm sure will surprise no one, coming in at a range of 350ish and above for KENPC. This is, of course, assuming that the read-through is 100% or at least pretty high, and that their borrow numbers remain consistent.... which is another reason, I think, that we're not seeing a lot of those people here at KBoards. They still don't KNOW that they'll do better, so why come over and talk about it and risk the animosity and the drive-bys?


True, we are all in the same boat. Thank you for answering the question


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Says the vote started on June 15.
> That thread isn't relevant now because the estimated payout per page is significantly lower than what we expected.


It's lower than some folks expected. It might be higher than others expected. I was dubious that Amazon would be offering $4.65 for read-throughs of books like mine (that's what it'd be at $.01/page, based on the book-page count).

Also, books' page counts have tended to be way higher than expected. I think most of us assumed the page counts on the product pages already represented Amazon's best counting effort ... but apparently not. 

All in all, I think it's hard to say whether people would vote very differently, now.

Anyway, my larger point was just that an anonymous poll is probably the only real way to gauge the community's position.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

Becca Mills said:


> It's lower than some folks expected. It might be higher than others expected. I was dubious that Amazon would be offering $4.65 for read-throughs of books like mine (that's what it'd be at $.01/page, based on the book-page count).
> 
> Also, books' page counts have tended to be way higher than expected. I think most of us assumed the page counts on the product pages already represented Amazon's best counting effort ... but apparently not.
> 
> ...


Probably time for a new poll then


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Probably time for a new poll then


LOL ... polls galore! Maybe wait until we know the July pay-out? We're all assuming it will be $.0057, but that too is a guess.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Khaleesi said:


> I know. It's scary. But I don't know if it could be worse than it is now.


I pulled all of my KU titles on the 1st and I'm already seeing good sales on them on B&N and Kobo. Just take deep breaths and stay calm. I quit my day job the first week of June to do this full time, so I completely understand the anxiety. The important thing is to remember that Amazon is not the whole world. There are a lot of erotica writers making more money on the other channels than with Amazon, even under KU 1.0.


----------



## Gone Girl (Mar 7, 2015)

We miss you, Harvey Chute.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres (Mar 16, 2013)

anniejocoby said:


> Robert's post is probably THE most insightful, well-reasoned post I've seen yet. Without insulting anyone, he made an excellent case for Hugh's position, as well as gave voice to those of us who feel the same. Thank you!!!!


Not a real surprise, huh, Annie? I +1 your +1 and raise you +!
(Howya doin' btw?)


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2015)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> However, just because people aren't coming on here and bragging that doesn't mean there aren't people out there making money. Most people do not want to come in and dance on the graves of others.


Most of us short story writers have to adjust to the new reality. I and others in my category have been open, with numbers, what the changes have meant to us. The reason I want to see actual numbers from novelists is to see if writing novels is the way to survive or not. We need real numbers, 4 days worth of numbers we have now, so we can make decisions. The writers who do not wanna say whether they make more money under the new regime to spare our feelings are as useless as a doctor telling a fat person over forty that he's perfectly ok and won't get a stoke.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

drno said:


> The writers who do not wanna say whether they make more money under the new regime to spare our feelings are as useless as a doctor telling a fat person over forty that he's perfectly ok and won't get a stoke.


The doctor is afraid he'll get punched in the face, or worse, if he tells the fat person that he's fat.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

drno said:


> Most of us short story writers have to adjust to the new reality. I and others in my category have been open, with numbers, what the changes have meant to us. The reason I want to see actual numbers from novelists is to see if writing novels is the way to survive or not. We need real numbers, 4 days worth of numbers we have now, so we can make decisions. The writers who do not wanna say whether they make more money under the new regime to spare our feelings are as useless as a doctor telling a fat person over forty that he's perfectly ok and won't get a stoke.


I'm almost entirely novels in terms of borrows and about 50% committed to KU vs. going wide. I'm up 20% maybe? That's based on .057. Hard to tell for sure because loss of visibility of some projects was causing a gradual decline.


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

drno said:


> Most of us short story writers have to adjust to the new reality. I and others in my category have been open, with numbers, what the changes have meant to us. The reason I want to see actual numbers from novelists is to see if writing novels is the way to survive or not. We need real numbers, 4 days worth of numbers we have now, so we can make decisions. The writers who do not wanna say whether they make more money under the new regime to spare our feelings are as useless as a doctor telling a fat person over forty that he's perfectly ok and won't get a stoke.


Writing to the market-place will work short term. I prefer to just tell stories in a way that makes people want to keep reading and then to read the next one. Be they short or long. KU isn't a market-place, so I've pretty much ignored the income from it from the get go and write stories people want to buy. So far, that's worked pretty good. I'm only in KU by default of being in Select for the marketing tools they provide. Borrows from KU are just icing on the cake and have never numbered even half of sales over days, weeks, months, or this whole past year.

If it's numbers you need, any numbers for this week would be extremely skewed to the negative. July has historically been a lower month for book sales and the holiday weekend puts a lot more people outside grilling, water skiing, or any number of other activities not conducive with reading or finding a book to read. Taking into account all these things, my own income from pages read each day in July is slightly lower than the June average per day for borrows. But then so are sales. If I matched the percentage of decrease in sales for this week to what I'd expect of pages turned, my borrow revenue is up.

If you like, I'd gladly share nmubers after two months. You just can't rely on data for four days.


----------



## Victoria J (Jul 5, 2011)

I was one of the authors whose sales were killed  last summer because of KU 1.0. I had book one of a brand new series I had just published which was gaining in sales and then - poof! Gone. One of the things I learned from it (after I stopped moping and being angry) was that it's good to have a mix of things you're working on, novels and short stories. I started writing specific shorter stories just for KU and that plan hasn't changed even with the changes now. I have books that will remain wide and others that will go into this new iteration of KU. I also learned how to advertise my books on other platforms so that when stuff like this happens it won't be much of a disruption for my own plans. I think this is the issue with relying too much on one retailer for your income. When Amazon makes a change, it feels like sea change and everyone flips out. I'm not judging anyone because I was in this same position last year as a novelist.

I agree with Wayne. just write stories people want to read, short or long, and people will buy them no matter what Amazon is doing.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2015)

Guys thank you for posting real numbers! A lot of us have a lot of work to do to make KU 2.0 work for us. Good luck to all.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

***********


----------



## mica (Jun 19, 2015)

lilywhite said:


> Honey, I don't want to fight with you. I get why you're prickly right now. Trust me, if you could have seen the spectacular meltdown I had yesterday over my ranks and income figures -- the crisis of faith I had over whether I'm writing the right things or if I can even write at all -- you'd know that you and I have a lot in common right now in terms of confusion, panic, and anger. But nobody owes you that info, and literally every person I know who is privately celebrating has outright said they will not be making their numbers public. The potential for backlash is too great. But they are there, even if you're not seeing them in the places you go.


Agree. i have one romance series (full length novels 90k) in KU and my numbers are good. I mentioned this somewhere else and I got some unpleasant replies from some authors who have seen a decline in their income. I won't be saying anymore.

It's a shame to see authors arguing and attacking each other. Sorry to those who have been hit by this.


----------



## pwtucker (Feb 12, 2011)

mica said:


> Agree. i have one romance series (full length novels 90k) in KU and my numbers are good. I mentioned this somewhere else and I got some unpleasant replies from some authors who have seen a decline in their income. I won't be saying anymore.


Congrats mica - it's great to see somebody doing well under the new system


----------



## GoneToWriterSanctum (Sep 13, 2014)

I don't consent


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Khaleesi said:


> Believe me, I want to leave [KU]. I hate the anxiety. I know I'm going to lose about half my income already. I just don't know if i want to bale now or wait it out. I know that wide distribution is far more stable. I'm just not sure I'm done suckling the amazon teat. (Can I say that? Sorry if I can't).


It was brave of you to admit this. I think this is how many of us are feeling, and I think it's how Mama Zon wants us to feel. I'm slowly going for wide distribution with all the books in my signature, and it feels great! Like when I left home at 18.


----------



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

> I know, right? You post a positive observation, and everyone goes nuts.
> 
> The way my KBoards participation has gone lately, this thread will be locked and fall into oblivion, rather than people being reprimanded as they should be for attacking a fellow member.


I think it is a shame so many people have left this Board or at least have gone incognito so they wouldn't be attacked. I hope he stays with us and doesn't give up like others have done.


----------

