# the UF (among other genres) author who shall not be named



## Guest (Jul 15, 2018)

No, Voldemoort hasn't taken up writing. 
The giant scammer thread alluded to a UF author that was suspended. I'm aware of one who also wrote a bit in scifi, superhero, litrpg, & harem lit who is suspended currently; and, according to a posting elsewhere will likely be 404d in the near future. I'm trying to be circumspect to not break board rules but hopefully those who know a bit about it can gather the author I'm referring to.
Anyway, the point of mentioning is to ask if anyone has any info on what the Zon cause was? Google has been woefully lacking in info. Having read some of his books, I'm pretty sure stuffing can be ruled out. I certainly never encountered any.
Any info?


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

This thread will be locked and deleted, but before it is, lemme tell you that Amazon NEVER divulges its reasons, not even those those affected.

Anyone who tells you they know is farting unicorns.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2018)

Patty Jansen said:


> This thread will be locked and deleted, but before it is, lemme tell you that Amazon NEVER divulges its reasons, not even those those affected.
> 
> Anyone who tells you they know is farting unicorns.


That's a shame. I thought maybe David Gaughran or Phoenix S or somebody in an FB group the author in question was in might have info. Partly because I've read his books and partly just to learn more about what's going on in the industry (and what shouldn't be) since I'm a noob author myself.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Stuffing is only one thing. Doesn’t mean that’s the only thing Amazon is banning accounts for.  From what I’ve heard they’re citing the somewhat nebulous yet pretty wide cause of “KU Manipulation”. 

What’s that mean? Your guess is as good as mine, but i would wager that it means different things for different accounts.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Also, again from what I’ve seen, *everyone* affected is currently proclaiming their innocence, making it difficult for anyone else to separate the tuna from the dolphins


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Luke Everhart said:


> That's a shame. I thought maybe David Gaughran or Phoenix S or somebody in an FB group the author in question was in might have info. Partly because I've read his books and partly just to learn more about what's going on in the industry (and what shouldn't be) since I'm a noob author myself.


I spoke to the author in question. He doesn't have a fucking clue.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2018)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Also, again from what I've seen, *everyone* affected is currently proclaiming their innocence, making it difficult for anyone else to separate the tuna from the dolphins


Yeah, figures. 
BTW, I had a blast &#128077;  reading The Tome of Bill through book 7 in a binge back a couple years ago before I even knew about indie publishing or had any aspirations to try writing myself.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Ugh.  "If you know you already know (wink wink nudge nudge) and if you don't you'll never find out."  

This is so helpful.


----------



## Starry_Knights (Sep 15, 2016)

HSh said:


> Ugh. "If you know you already know (wink wink nudge nudge) and if you don't you'll never find out."
> 
> This is so helpful.


Yes, but unlike most of the rest, he didn't engage in obvious shenanigans that would lead any of us to expect it, so it isn't really fair to speculate in public. It could be nothing more than an unfortunate association.


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow (Jun 10, 2018)

Lilly_Frost said:


> Yes, but unlike most of the rest, he didn't engage in obvious shenanigans that would lead any of us to expect it, so it isn't really fair to speculate in public. It could be nothing more than an unfortunate association.


Props for using 'shenanigans' that's what's up.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

No one really knows why, apparently not even the author in question. There's a lot of rumors flying around, some of which suggest he may have been using some suspect sites for reviews or promos, but that's all just hearsay.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

I find that there is a horrible "guilty until proven innocent" undercurrent to a lot of discussions.

And of course it's all fuelled by the fact that some people use ghostwriters/box set promos/extreme WTM/trend chasing/popular genres and other stuff some people get bent out of shape about, none of which is illegal and some of which are unpopular. And while it appears that shenanigans do concentrate in certain subgenres, many of the shenanigans are not against the rules and it's just that people don't *like* the shenanigans and therefore the people who engage in them or are associated with people who engage in them, or are Facebook friends with people who engage in them, or... anyway *those* people deserve what they get.

Seriously, what a destructive attitude.

How about we entertain a more positive "innocent until proven guilty" attitude. Not only that, how about we all stop speculating and dishing dirt based on rumours. Or we simply stop worrying about what other people are doing unless it clearly and provably hurts others an breaks rules. You know, not my circus, not my monkeys.


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow (Jun 10, 2018)

Patty Jansen said:


> I find that there is a horrible "guilty until proven innocent" undercurrent to a lot of discussions.
> 
> And of course it's all fuelled by the fact that some people use ghostwriters/box set promos/extreme WTM/trend chasing/popular genres and other stuff some people get bent out of shape about, none of which is illegal and some of which are unpopular. And while it appears that shenanigans do concentrate in certain subgenres, many of the shenanigans are not against the rules and it's just that people don't *like* the shenanigans and therefore the people who engage in them or are associated with people who engage in them, or are Facebook friends with people who engage in them, or... anyway *those* people deserve what they get.
> 
> ...


If I wasn't already all but wed I'd send you a marriage proposal ... @[email protected]


----------



## 101569 (Apr 11, 2018)

Patty Jansen said:


> I find that there is a horrible "guilty until proven innocent" undercurrent to a lot of discussions.
> 
> And of course it's all fuelled by the fact that some people use ghostwriters/box set promos/extreme WTM/trend chasing/popular genres and other stuff some people get bent out of shape about, none of which is illegal and some of which are unpopular. And while it appears that shenanigans do concentrate in certain subgenres, many of the shenanigans are not against the rules and it's just that people don't *like* the shenanigans and therefore the people who engage in them or are associated with people who engage in them, or are Facebook friends with people who engage in them, or... anyway *those* people deserve what they get.
> 
> ...


Where's the fun in that? 

"kill the witch"
"I'm not a witch I'm your wife."


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Build a bridge out of her.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Patty Jansen said:


> entertain a more positive "innocent until proven guilty" attitude. Not only that, how about we all stop speculating and dishing dirt based on rumours. Or we simply stop worrying about what other people are doing unless it clearly and provably hurts others an breaks rules. You know, not my circus, not my monkeys.


I'm not a fan of witch hunts.

However, I am a fan of being cautious and/or questioning things that don't smell right.

By your logic the whole cocky trademark issue (unrelated to this post) would have passed muster. It wasn't illegal and technically didn't affect those of us who don't write romance. Yet it potentially set a horribly dangerous precedent. Sometimes not my circus / not my monkeys is exactly the wrong attitude to take.

As for kboards itself, we've both been here long enough to have seen our fair share of "Amazon did this to me! Help!" posts which started out super positive yet quickly turned fishy because some posters began to see flaws in the story being told and asked questions.

Thats all that's happening here. We're asking questions and speculating because that's all any of us have to go on. We could assume everyone caught up in this mess is unquestionably innocent - which is probably naive. We could conversely assume they're all guilty - which is likely far too cynical. So we're left with an in between space where we hope the guilty and innocent eventually sort themselves out.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I'm not a fan of witch hunts.
> 
> However, I am a fan of being cautious and/or questioning things that don't smell right.
> 
> ...


I completely disagree.

The trademark thing was very different, because the author came after other authors (illegally, because while a series title can be trademarked, a title cannot). Therefore, she was hurting other people.

With all the will in the world, I can't see how in this case anyone is hurt by this except the author, and will not say otherwise until proven with clear evidence. In the trademark case, the nasty evidence was all over the internet.

All I'm saying is this: until you see evidence, stop it with the innuendo and gossip and rumours. When there is evidence, it's fair game.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Shelley K said:


> I don't know, Patty. I think in this particular case, people are wondering about it because there's no real reason on the surface to doubt the innocence of the person in question. There's certainly nothing a casual observer could point to and say "ah ha!"
> 
> That's going to get people talking, not necessarily because they're looking for dirt, but because we _know_ Amazon catches some innocent people in its net sometimes, and when that doesn't get corrected expediently, it's frankly frightening.


It is frightening, but what this innuendo does is make the author guilty by association (with the gossip), and without evidence, too. This sort of association is impossible to erase and frankly no one deserves this. Go hunt for evidence for all you like, but until you find it, stop trying to speculate publicly what the author has supposedly done because "he/she associated with XYZ or wrote in XYZ genre and we all know rubbish happens there."

Because both of those things are frightening:
1. Amazon banning accounts without giving a reason
2. Writers turning on those within their community based on unproven rumours.


----------



## A Fading Street (Sep 25, 2016)

Jeff Tanyard said:


> But only if she weighs as much as a duck.


I really hope there are others getting these references besides me  One of my favourite films.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

If it's the person I'm thinking of (and I can't remember his name, so I can't PM anyone), he was a known associate of folks using scammy methods to sell books, including newsletters. Guilt by association? Perhaps just guilt. He used promotional things that caused KU page reads that he normally wouldn't have gotten. That's vague, I know. There might have been other things. Y'all do know there's no guilty people in prison, right?


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

she-la-ti-da said:


> If it's the person I'm thinking of (and I can't remember his name, so I can't PM anyone), he was a known associate of folks using scammy methods to sell books, including newsletters. Guilt by association? Perhaps just guilt. He used promotional things that caused KU page reads that he normally wouldn't have gotten. That's vague, I know. There might have been other things. Y'all do know there's no guilty people in prison, right?


Point = made.

People in prison got a police investigation and a trial by our best efforts at a fair judge and our best efforts at a fair jury.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Reading through this entire thread, and never having ever looked at an Urban Fantasy book, much less purchased or read one, much less known anything about any such authors (aside from perhaps the ones here who post things), I don't get the idea that anyone is accusing the author in question of anything nefarious or attempting to taint anyone's reputation necessarily.

The tone I'm getting is that some people are curious, because if the hammer drops on persons like the author in question, it could possibly drop on anyone in KU for reasons that aren't obvious (stuffing, schemes to pay for reviews, etc.).


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

A Fading Street said:


> I really hope there are others getting these references besides me  One of my favourite films.


Mine, too. (Is that an African swallow or European?)


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

POST REDACTED DUE TO UNACCEPTABLE NEW TERMS OF SERVICE


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Evenstar said:


> I posted a few hours back, pointing out the person in question is linked to an awful lot of 'shady' authors that we know of. However, I went back and deleted it again a minute later. I have views about his associates, but I don't want to carry a pitch fork. And it's probably worth remembering that he's a member of kboards and has been helpful to plenty of people in the past.


'Guilt by association' has been popular for a long time, sadly.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

In this case, we know the author who shall not be named (AWSNBN) used services that we have evidence engaged in TOS-violating behavior.

We also know that a cowriter's books cowritten with the AWSNBN, _along with their single-author titles under that name,_ have all disappeared off Amazon (other cowritten books are still on sale, but those books are pubbed under a non-KDP account).

Amazon makes mistakes, of course. Courts make mistakes too, but once a sentence is handed down in the US, one is allowed to stop using "alleged" when discussing the crime. In general, dolphin books that have been pulled or rank-stripped do get restored, and dolphin accounts that are suspended while being investigated get reinstated. Actual termination of accounts is pretty rare. In fact, it's frustrating that Amazon doesn't wield the total ban hammer faster and more often when there's plenty of evidence.

In this case, ACX even pulled the AWSNBN's audiobooks from sale. That doesn't always happen with KDP account terminations.

So while no one knows exactly for which behavior or behaviors the 90+ book account was terminated, the sentence here was stiffer than most.

Do we assume that all of the "stuffer" accounts were dolphins and not terminated for cause? All we might be able to see from the outside is close association and use of similar TOS-violating tactics when Amazon can also see into account trends. What if some folk shared evidence only with Amazon -- does lack of publicly available evidence negate that evidence exists? I certainly don't share the majority of the evidence I collect publicly.

When, Patty, would you say we're allowed to assume guilt, if 404'ing -- not simply suspending -- an account isn't enough?



Evenstar said:


> And it's probably worth remembering that he's a member of kboards and has been helpful to plenty of people in the past.


And we've seen more than one member here who was "plenty helpful" who've subsequently had their accounts terminated for cause.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Evenstar said:


> I posted a few hours back, pointing out the person in question is linked to an awful lot of 'shady' authors that we know of. However, I went back and deleted it again a minute later. I have views about his associates, but I don't want to carry a pitch fork. And it's probably worth remembering that he's a member of kboards and has been helpful to plenty of people in the past.


The thing is there's different levels of association. Hypothetically speaking, on one level someone might happen to be in a large FB group with a few people they'd sooner not do business with. On the other, they might have, in the past, been both an active promoter and/or customer of, say, marketers suspected of dodgy business practices. In that latter case, I think the association carries far more weight and others might not be blamed for speculation on that part.

As for being a kboards persona, well, I think there are definitely those who come into this business already wearing black hats - i.e. looking to see how much blood they can get from this stone. Others are more Anakin Skywalker. They come into this with the best intentions. They didn't set out to become Darth Vader, but through a series of events - be they desperation, bad decisions, etc etc - they end up far from the person they started out as. I'm not saying that's the case, but I think those of us who've been here long enough can think of a few examples of people who've slowly slid to the dark side.


----------



## GrahamCrackers (Jun 2, 2018)

PhoenixS said:


> Do we assume that all of the "stuffer" accounts were _dolphins_ and not terminated for cause?


I'm so confused... and intrigued. I'm going to prevaricate on my daily writing to run to Google and figure out what that means now. Dammit!


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

GrahamCrackers said:


> I'm so confused... and intrigued. I'm going to prevaricate on my daily writing to run to Google and figure out what that means now. Dammit!


Dolphins and tuna. Fishermen (i.e Amazon) set out to catch the latter, but sometimes accidentally hook the former.


----------



## GrahamCrackers (Jun 2, 2018)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Dolphins and tuna. Fishermen (i.e Amazon) set out to catch the latter, but sometimes accidentally hook the former.


Ohhhh. Gotcha. Mystery solved. Makes sense now you've explained it. Clearly I need more coffee in me.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Everything Patty said.

It's been said multiple times in multiple ways in multiple threads. Sadly, it'll never take root here.

As for the notion that "_Hey, we're just asking questions. There's no guilt by association_."


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Well, as Phoenix said, the guy's account is gone AND his Audible books have been removed from sale, so that's a whole lot more than an accusation. Amazon has acted. Sentence has been passed.

The takeaway to me doesn't have to do with this particular person, whom I don't know from Adam, but rather that if you use sketchy services and work with people who do black-hat stuff as far as content, reader behavior, and reviews, you're putting yourself in dicey territory. At the least, your account may get "tainted" by having incentivized readers reading and reviewing your stuff, because that's how those services work. I urge authors to be really, really careful with whom you cross-promote, and which services you pay for.

And, yeah, people who cheat generally lie about it. Kinda goes with the territory.


----------



## GrahamCrackers (Jun 2, 2018)

Usedtoposthere said:


> I urge authors to be really, really careful with whom you cross-promote, and which services you pay for.


This is the scary part. Let's say you collaborate with Author X, and unbeknownst to you, said author has a pen name that you are unaware of that is mired in bad behavior. How do you even begin to do your due diligence?

Just think about how much extra work it would take to vet absolutely everyone you came into contact with on a professional basis. Tired just thinking about it.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

GrahamCrackers said:


> This is the scary part. Let's say you collaborate with Author X, and unbeknownst to you, said author has a pen name that you are unaware of that is mired in bad behavior. How do you even begin to do your due diligence?
> 
> Just think about how much extra work it would take to vet absolutely everyone you came into contact with on a professional basis. Tired just thinking about it.


Personally, I stick with the traditional newsletters if I have a price promo--Freebooksy, BookBub when I can get it, Robin Reads, etc. I occasionally use one of the big-name blog tour sites for a release blitz. I don't do newsletter swaps, and I don't do boxed sets. I have featured a few authors in my newsletter, but they are long-term romance authors with pristine reputations.

Usually there are clues. The person will be in a hot genre and selling services. There will likely be accusations and smoke swirling around them. There was a lot of smoke about this particular author a few years ago because he was associating with a person who has a really, really bad reputation, and then he entered a new genre by writing a book that was a bit too much of an "homage" to a popular indie author's work. It's not like there are no smoke signals out there. If you're going to cross promo and buy services from individuals, you probably do need to do a LOT of vetting.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Anarchist said:


> Everything Patty said.
> 
> It's been said multiple times in multiple ways in multiple threads. Sadly, it'll never take root here.


Respectfully, what is your definition of "proven guilty," if it isn't account termination (not just temporary account suspension or temporary rankstripping)? Amazon does not enter into actual termination lightly or without human intervention. Or do we forever assume innocence? Do you personally have to see and judge the evidence for yourself because you're a better judge? Do you require a confession from the party involved? When, in your opinion, can guilt be presumed?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

GrahamCrackers said:


> This is the scary part. Let's say you collaborate with Author X, and unbeknownst to you, said author has a pen name that you are unaware of that is mired in bad behavior. How do you even begin to do your due diligence?
> 
> Just think about how much extra work it would take to vet absolutely everyone you came into contact with on a professional basis. Tired just thinking about it.


You're right in that it is both scary and daunting. Personally I've been turning down newsletter swaps lately with anyone I don't have a long term association with.

The only thing I can say is be careful, pay attention, and do your research. If your gut is telling you something is wrong, then back away.


----------



## GrahamCrackers (Jun 2, 2018)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Personally, I stick with the traditional newsletters if I have a price promo--Freebooksy, BookBub when I can get it, Robin Reads, etc. I occasionally use one of the big-name blog tour sites for a release blitz. I don't do newsletter swaps, and I don't do boxed sets. I have featured a few authors in my newsletter, but they are long-term romance authors with pristine reputations.
> 
> Usually there are clues. The person will be in a hot genre and selling services. There will likely be accusations and smoke swirling around them. There was a lot of smoke about this particular author a few years ago because he was associating with a person who has a really, really bad reputation, and then he entered a new genre by writing a book that was a bit too much of an "homage" to a popular indie author's work. It's not like there are no smoke signals out there. If you're going to cross promo and buy services from individuals, you probably do need to do a LOT of vetting.


I agree that are likely to be some signs, but there also could be zero. Another scenario: who's to say that they're not going to, in the future, misbehave and jeopardize any collaborative works?

People do weird stuff, especially if they think they can make more money by doing it. Someone has a slump of sales and decides to start playing on the margins, you worked with them the year before, you're kind of screwed on the work you did jointly and then on top of that scrutiny is on you too.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

GrahamCrackers said:


> I agree that are likely to be some signs, but there also could be zero. Another scenario: who's to say that they're not going to, in the future, misbehave and jeopardize any collaborative works?
> 
> People do weird stuff, especially if they think they can make more money by doing it. Someone has a slump of sales and decides to start playing on the margins, you worked with them the year before, you're kind of screwed on the work you did jointly and then on top of that scrutiny is on you too.


Usually folks who do this stuff are more focused on money than writing. They will be putting out a LOT of stuff, doing co-writing projects, hiring ghostwriters, jumping into the hot genres, putting together boxed sets. Any one of those things is obviously not a red flag, but if somebody's doing a bunch of them, I'd back away.

There are also certain groups online that are pretty notorious for harboring a lot of people who've ended up banned, etc. Anything that smacks of getting rich quick is probably a little smoky.

If you do something with a person before they get shady, I don't know how that could bite you unless you share a lot of readers. For ex I did a boxed set (to my eternal regret) early on with somebody who went on to become notorious. It hasn't affected me, because she didn't do anything shady at the time. (It was years ago.) Since then, she joined a particular group, embraced their methods, and eventually sold a lot of books, but ended up making her name a hashtag. She's not banned, but I sure as heck wouldn't have worked with her if I'd seen her associations in the past couple years.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

PhoenixS said:


> Respectfully, what is your definition of "proven guilty," if it isn't account termination (not just temporary account suspension or temporary rankstripping)? Amazon does not enter into actual termination lightly or without human intervention. Or do we forever assume innocence? Do you personally have to see and judge the evidence for yourself because you're a better judge? Do you require a confession from the party involved? When, in your opinion, can guilt be presumed?


This. We're not just talking about "guilt by association." Others who were associated with the mastermind group were investigated and allowed to go on their merry ways because they didn't engage in the TOS violation activities Amazon finally decided to crack down on (or at least not to the degree that warranted termination in Amazon's view). Yes, the ones who have been terminated are proclaiming their innocence. So does everyone in prison. That doesn't make them innocent, and it doesn't mean they deserve the benefit of the doubt. When Amazon starts terminating very high ranking author/pen accounts, it isn't on a whim. If they were innocent, they'd have gotten their accounts reinstated after suspension. We see it happen quite often here. But they were terminated, and Amazon did it _quickly_.


----------



## The one with all the big dresses on the covers (Jan 25, 2016)

I think anyone paying attention on kboards at this point should be aware to be extremely careful out there. But I think it's easy to forget that this wasn't necessarily the case a year ago. I've been paying close attention to kboards for the last two years, and I feel like a lot of stuff has come out into the open here in the past year that seems to have been known about in private circles for longer. Stuff that has truly shocked me. Maybe I'm remembering timelines wrong, but I certainly know about stuff now that I never would have dreamed of previously, and that I certainly wouldn't have known to look out for or to investigate. (And I wouldn't have known where to begin investigating, either. It's a lot easier to see the accusations and smoke when you're well plugged into author circles. And once you are well plugged in, I think it's easy to forget that so many authors aren't plugged in.)

Having said that, in my time here on kboards, I haven't noticed any particularly rabid culture of guilt by association. In fact I can think of instances where I saw more understanding and sympathy toward this than I would probably have expected given the controversial circumstances.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

MelanieCellier said:


> I think anyone paying attention on kboards at this point should be aware to be extremely careful out there. But I think it's easy to forget that this wasn't necessarily the case a year ago. I've been paying close attention to kboards for the last two years, and I feel like a lot of stuff has come out into the open here in the past year that seems to have been known about in private circles for longer. Stuff that has truly shocked me. Maybe I'm remembering timelines wrong, but I certainly know about stuff now that I never would have dreamed of previously, and that I certainly wouldn't have known to look out for or to investigate. (And I wouldn't have known where to begin investigating, either. It's a lot easier to see the accusations and smoke when you're well plugged into author circles. And once you are well plugged in, I think it's easy to forget that so many authors aren't plugged in.)


This. A few years back there was a thread on here where people were raving about this promo service that had done so well for them. And the person running it offered a special deal for anyone who wanted to pay for the promo now and use it later because prices were going up. A lot of members on here chimed in to say how worth it the service was. I didn't have any books ready to go then but went ahead and pre-paid for that promo service to the tune of $300. And then I started to see a few things that made me personally uncomfortable and decided maybe I wasn't going to use that service for my two launches where I could've used it. Lo and behold, about four months later it all blew up huge and people were like, "Oh yeah, that person was horrible. For years. And everyone knew it." Well, no. People in private groups knew it. But publicly that person had a lot of support even here until things blew up. A lot of this stuff gets discussed in private and never makes it to the public discussions so those of us who are primarily learning about things through the public discussions have to be very, very careful who we associate with and what advice we take.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

PhoenixS said:


> Respectfully, what is your definition of "proven guilty," if it isn't account termination (not just temporary account suspension or temporary rankstripping)? Amazon does not enter into actual termination lightly or without human intervention. Or do we forever assume innocence? Do you personally have to see and judge the evidence for yourself because you're a better judge? Do you require a confession from the party involved? When, in your opinion, can guilt be presumed?


Speaking only for myself...

First, I never _presume_ guilt. I wait for judgment by an impartial third party (as opposed to action taken by the aggrieved party (e.g. Amazon)). When such judgment is absent, I remain dubious of the particulars of the case. Sometimes, I remain dubious _following_ such judgment. After all, many convicts are exonerated years after a judge examines evidence and declares guilt.

If I presume anything, it's innocence.

Second, guilt stems from specific action. In my opinion, it's not enough to say, "_Author X is guilty of *something*._" If I opine in a public forum about an author's illegitimate actions, I feel compelled to point out the _specific_ actions and prove they're illegitimate according to the details codified in Amazon's TOS and validated by Amazon's response *and* explanation.

Many people on Kboards believe their interpretation of Amazon's TOS is the correct one, and any interpretation that differs from their own is faulty. This is the reason Amazon's explanation for account suspensions/terminations is important. Without it, we can never know for certain what prompted Amazon's response.

In cases we've seen this year regarding account suspensions and/or terminations, impartial third-party judgment has largely been absent. Moreover, Amazon has not explained its reasons for the suspensions and/or terminations.

We can speculate about these details, but that's all. And in my opinion, that's not enough to risk tarnishing reputations undeservedly on a public forum.


----------



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

PhoenixS said:


> In this case, we know the author who shall not be named (AWSNBN) used services that we have evidence engaged in TOS-violating behavior.
> 
> We also know that a cowriter's books cowritten with the AWSNBN, _along with their single-author titles under that name,_ have all disappeared off Amazon (other cowritten books are still on sale, but those books are pubbed under a non-KDP account).
> 
> ...


TY. Saved me a lot of pecking on my phone. 
This, &#128175;

I will add that Amazon can take months to gather evidence before they ban an account, & they make sure they legally have their ducks in a row before that hammer comes down. Account termination is something they do not do without a significant amount of evidence. I'm no unicorn; I know this for a fact. If Amazon has gone to the extraordinary step of terminating an account, they did not do it without a boatload of evidence on their end.


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

Cassie Leigh said:


> Lo and behold, about four months later it all blew up huge and people were like, "Oh yeah, that person was horrible. For years. And everyone knew it." Well, no. People in private groups knew it. But publicly that person had a lot of support even here until things blew up. A lot of this stuff gets discussed in private and never makes it to the public discussions so those of us who are primarily learning about things through the public discussions have to be very, very careful who we associate with and what advice we take.


A lot of those people who inhabit the private groups also hang about here. So anyone who's wondering whether a service is safe or not, ask about it here. If there are serious concerns, people will say so (as has happened in a thread just recently). If there are vague rumours and uneasiness, then someone will pm you. But to be honest, I think the case you mention was a salutary example of a service that looked absolutely fine until it wasn't, and the wasn't-ness happened right here on Kboards.


----------



## traineroflegend (Jul 4, 2018)

There’s now an ongoing petition on one FB group to get him reinstated. Rest assured that while other writers may be curious to know why he was kicked out of Amazon, his fans are not.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Patty Jansen said:


> I completely disagree.
> 
> The trademark thing was very different, because the author came after other authors (illegally, because while a series title can be trademarked, a title cannot). Therefore, she was hurting other people.
> 
> With all the will in the world, I can't see how in this case anyone is hurt by this except the author, and will not say otherwise until proven with clear evidence. In the trademark case, the nasty evidence was all over the internet.


Patty, didn't this guy do something really tacky and gross to a member of this forum for the sake of SEO juice?

I don't know why Amazon banned him, but his name was the first that popped into my head when I heard about a big indie UF author getting the boot.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

traineroflegend said:


> There's now an ongoing petition on one FB group to get him reinstated. Rest assured that while other writers may be curious to know why he was kicked out of Amazon, his fans are not.


No doubt a lot of Lance Armstrong's fans felt the same way. I doubt this guy is going to have any better luck.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> People in prison got a police investigation and a trial by our best efforts at a fair judge and our best efforts at a fair jury.


Oh, we wish. Maybe your courts are perfect, but those here in America sure aren't. It's easy enough to find this out, with a search.

One is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and in this case, Amazon is the law. This person was tried and convicted, and sentenced justly, according to Amazon's rules. Do I think Amazon is infallible? Heck no. But if they've gone to the trouble of pulling every book, print book and audio, I'd bet they've got a lot more evidence of wrongdoing than those with the lily-white consciousness here will believe.

Stuff like this has been going on for years. YEARS. People have watched and talked about it and warned others not to associate with certain other people. Some listened. Some didn't. Not everyone finds places where they can learn the truth about what goes on with the scammers and cheaters, but all one has to do is ask.

One thing to look out for? The hype. Best way ever to get sales, borrows, reviews, whatever. Guaranteed results. The secret no one wants you to know, which you can get for the low, low price, along with membership in our ultra-secret winning private group.

Remember: nothing is easy in this business. It's not passive income, like drop-shipping cheap junk all your friends will shove money in your face to get. You aren't going to hire ghostwriters for $5 and then sit back and watch your Kindle millions come in. You aren't going to find the super hot niche no one else is writing in, where you don't even have to write good books and put good covers and blurbs on them. You aren't going to legally get thousands of page reads a day without real readers and real books. You might be one of those lucky ones who can actually write a story people will fall in love with, but you might be struck by lightning quicker and cheaper.


----------



## Elizabeth S. (Oct 20, 2016)

The author in question has done shady things before. Maybe not things that broke TOS, but obvious things that you could see and say, "Welp. Not cool." I don't find it difficult to believe that someone willing to use questionable tactics like that would eventually use full-blown ToS-breaking ones.


----------



## Starry_Knights (Sep 15, 2016)

Elizabeth S. said:


> The author in question has done shady things before. Maybe not things that broke TOS, but obvious things that you could see and say, "Welp. Not cool." I don't find it difficult to believe that someone willing to use questionable tactics like that would eventually use full-blown ToS-breaking ones.


See, I didn't know about any of those other things, and probably a lot of other authors here didn't either, so it took me completely by surprise.


----------



## traineroflegend (Jul 4, 2018)

Elizabeth S. said:


> The author in question has done shady things before. Maybe not things that broke TOS, but obvious things that you could see and say, "Welp. Not cool." I don't find it difficult to believe that someone willing to use questionable tactics like that would eventually use full-blown ToS-breaking ones.


Like what? What shady things have they done?


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

she-la-ti-da said:


> Oh, we wish. Maybe your courts are perfect, but those here in America sure aren't. It's easy enough to find this out, with a search.
> 
> One is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and in this case, Amazon is the law. This person was tried and convicted, and sentenced justly, according to Amazon's rules. Do I think Amazon is infallible? Heck no. But if they've gone to the trouble of pulling every book, print book and audio, I'd bet they've got a lot more evidence of wrongdoing than those with the lily-white consciousness here will believe.
> 
> ...


kboards seriously needs a freakin' LIKE button.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

traineroflegend said:


> Like what? What shady things have they done?


If the author is who I think they are then there was a point in time when someone tried to discuss one of those shady things here on the boards and the thread was almost immediately removed or shut down. You literally would have had to be on here during a two hour period to know about it because no discussion of the situation was permitted even though it was done by one board member, negatively impacted another, and had broader implications that were worth discussing. So people's hands are a bit tied when it comes to discussing some of this.


----------



## Wunder (Sep 2, 2017)

she-la-ti-da said:


> Oh, we wish. Maybe your courts are perfect, but those here in America sure aren't. It's easy enough to find this out, with a search.
> 
> One is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and in this case, Amazon is the law. This person was tried and convicted, and sentenced justly, according to Amazon's rules. Do I think Amazon is infallible? Heck no. But if they've gone to the trouble of pulling every book, print book and audio, I'd bet they've got a lot more evidence of wrongdoing than those with the lily-white consciousness here will believe.


The difference, of course, is that in a court of law a person has the right to defend themselves as well as see the evidence against them. I'm not saying whoever this is was not deserving of what happened to them, but the idea that Amazon can wield a banhammer against someone and not even have to explain why they did so is more than a little scary to me.

Also, the idea that people have to interpret Amazon's TOS is insane to me. I get that it's a huge business, but they're a huge company. Why can't we get clearer rules to follow and more transparency. It didn't seem like too much to ask given the hold they have on the market


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Cassie Leigh said:


> If the author is who I think they are then there was a point in time when someone tried to discuss one of those shady things here on the boards and the thread was almost immediately removed or shut down. You literally would have had to be on here during a two hour period to know about it because no discussion of the situation was permitted even though it was done by one board member, negatively impacted another, and had broader implications that were worth discussing. So people's hands are a bit tied when it comes to discussing some of this.


I know what I referred to upthread was discussed on Twitter, FWIW.


----------



## DonovanJeremiah (Oct 14, 2017)

Personally, I watched in a big thread many months back, as an author came in with an innocent question of her rank being pulled. She asked, naively enough, why that would happen.

The resulting handful of pages afterward were of many members of this board, including some of the 'big names' going after her telling her that if she hadn't done anything wrong, her ranks wouldn't have disappeared. They continued to imply, some comments crossing right into outright accusations, that she had purposely done something and why was she whining about it now?

A few pages in to roasting this poor author alive, more people were coming up with their ranks disappearing, presumably also a good friend of one of the people who had lead the group in grilling the first author until she was a burnt lump.

Then it came out that it was a thing and it was wide ranging and now these poor innocent dolphins were just caught in the net.

I almost turned my car around and went home from this forum if that was the alleged close community this board was rumored to have.

Someone did mumble half an apology to her and indicted that maybe she really was just the poor innocent victim caught up in bigger Amazon behavior of trying to excise a tumor using a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel. After that, some of the more accusatory comments and the quoted comments started to disappear or get edited.

So, yeah, I've seen this sort of thing on kboards. 

Whether this writer in question is guilty or not, I don't know. Amazon will take care of it and if he gets his account back, maybe Amazon will decide that his infraction, if there was one, wasn't egregious enough to not warrant bringing him back.

But please don't act like everyone here with their righteous indignation is always in the right when they rise up and get vocal. The above mentioned incident is not the first time I've witnessed it here. There are a few names that are easily recognizable as people who are able to spy these things out. Even they can get vindictive and cutting when there's blood in the water, even if they are also right.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

WasAnn said:


> And the moment that particular author created a book meant to mirror a popular Indie author's work to the point of naming characters after the author so that SEO would make him pop on her searches, I knew that it would be unwise to do any sort of promo or other stuff with him.


And mirror the opening scene too. Ugh.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Ava Glass said:


> And mirror the opening scene too. Ugh.


And the blurb.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

OMG. _Seriously_? I didn't know about that part. And people are still defending him and giving him the benefit of the doubt after that? Sorry, no way. If you're willing to do that in this business right out in the open, then I simply can't believe that you're not willing to do even more shady things behind the scenes. A person with that degree of disregard for honesty and ethics is liable to justify doing practically anything.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

You probably think I'm nuts.

I still think we should not accuse anyone of a particular thing without evidence that points to *that* thing, never mind what other things they have done. No, I'm not defending this person's actions at all, merely his right to be presumed innocent of a particular thing until proven guilty of that particular thing. Yes, where there's smoke, there is usually a fire, but show me actual proof, and I'll believe it. I have reason not to trust Amazon's version of proof (i.e banning accounts) very much, but that may just be me.

That's the last I'll say. Any PMs about this will be deleted. I'm done. I have writing to do.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Ava Glass said:


> Patty, didn't this guy do something really tacky and gross to a member of this forum for the sake of SEO juice?


Yes, he did. Given past behavior of not only him but many of the services he frequently used (one of which is currently involved in a legal matter and was also shut down by Amazon), I'm not sure where all the shock and awe is coming from. None of this is surprising in the least and though Amazon has made mistakes in the past, I'm 100% convinced this isn't one of those times.


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow (Jun 10, 2018)

This is an interesting topic more so for the moral quandary of guilty or innocent that has been shot back and forth. Given this is a private contract between two entities guilt has nothing to do with it. Contracts can, and do, get terminated just on a whim. It's part of the boiler plate that at any time either party can terminate, usually you need to give notice but no one that I know of has ever litigated that. Amazon is well within it's rights to terminate just because they don't like his name. As is the author in question. It's why they don't try very hard to keep you in KU when you want out. Make enough of a stink and they let you out.

As an aside he went into the contract with full knowledge that he was putting his delicate bits under a hammer that could fall at any time. When the devil lays a contract on your table, you don't expect to get fair terms. 

Socrates was the only man to be sentenced to death in Athens. When his friends offered to get him out of the city he told them no. He'd lived his life in Athens, fought for her, bled for her, lived in her flesh, and loved her people. What kind of man would he be to run now that she'd judged him guilty? He hadn't wanted to run when he was on the receiving end of her kindness, when she'd taken care of him, when she'd provided health care and the right to vote. If he wasn't willing to turn from her when it was too his benefit then it was beneath him to avoid her now that she'd turned against him.

Taking the above into account the moral question is moot but still a fun thing to play with. Guilt and innocence have been decided differently through history, divine right, proof, the assumption of innocence, it's been handled differently depending on the culture. These are laws, not morality. The question of morality is Justice. No one would say they want a guilty man to go free based on a technicality of law, and no one would want an innocent man to suffer. The law of the land is just how we think we can get there.

How does that pertain to this? Justice isn't about the punishment of the state, its about what's right. I don't agree with the practices of this author, not that matters. But I do have a vested interest in the the good of the world. In this I hope that he gets what he deserves. He might be guilty. He might be innocent. We will probably never know the actual facts of the case. With that realization all I can do is watch and hope his angel is paying attention.


----------



## Hope (Nov 28, 2014)

Ok, I figured it out. This is one of the major reasons I visit kboards. I'm pretty naive and I really depend on others talking about these kinds of things so I'm aware of what's going on. Otherwise, I would probably be easy prey to some of bad people in publishing.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Others are more Anakin Skywalker. They come into this with the best intentions. They didn't set out to become Darth Vader, but through a series of events - be they desperation, bad decisions, etc etc - they end up far from the person they started out as. I'm not saying that's the case, but I think those of us who've been here long enough can think of a few examples of people who've slowly slid to the dark side.


I was thinking of Walter White of Breaking Bad...


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

It really doesn't matter what any of us think about someone being guilty or innocent.  All that matters is what Amazon thinks and if they want to terminate someone's account they can.  However, I doubt they are going to randomly shut down a successful author's account without investigation, if nothing else to cover themselves legally. 

I think what people are concerned about is what they need to do to protect their accounts, not passing judgment on anyone.  We don't know why anyone's account ever gets terminated but I do think in this case that it is hardly random given the person's past.  

To me the message is to be careful what promo services you use or other authors you participate in with box sets or co-writing. That might not even be what the issue was but it is just smart business practice either way. 

And if you want fellow indie authors to give you the benefit of the doubt, well, treat them as you would like to be treated and don't rip off their work. Given the circumstances, I find the discussion to be remarkably restrained, which is commendable so that information can get out.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Bit of breaking news. But it sounds like there was another purge tonight, and another huge fantasy author has been shown the door. Hard to 100% say for certain as Amazon has been a little friggy today, but a search revealed only their audio remaining. 

The Zon isn’t fooling around this time.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

I have to say I'm a bit stunned by all this...

The first author under discussion would have been the last person I would have suspected of wrongdoing. Maybe I'm naive. I'm also prepared to keep an open mind and see if he gets his account back.

The second one (huge fantasy author) was no surprise at all. That author got lucky a few years back but has only been kept alive by Bookbub the last year or so. Plummeting profits = greater temptation, I suppose.


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow (Jun 10, 2018)

All sarcasm aside. I want to give a shout out to the people who are keeping us updated. I for one, and I know I'm not the only one, appreciate you guys like crazy. Granted my appreciation doesn't come with hard green but it does come with a genuine love only slightly tarnished by being used to get the cat hair off my clothes. That's got to be worth ... a dime. Yeah, let's go with that.

You guys are awesome. Like ninja scouts, but with lasers and horns. Because, come on, horns are cool.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Are there "public" sources to find this kind of thing out? FB groups or Twitter feeds to follow?


----------



## Starry_Knights (Sep 15, 2016)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Bit of breaking news. But it sounds like there was another purge tonight, and another huge fantasy author has been shown the door. Hard to 100% say for certain as Amazon has been a little friggy today, but a search revealed only their audio remaining.
> 
> The Zon isn't fooling around this time.


OMG. And I hadn't finished reading all his books in KU yet.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2018)

Jack Krenneck said:


> The first author under discussion would have been the last person I would have suspected of wrongdoing.


There are those of us for whom this was no big surprise given that person's history and associations.

What I find interesting is that ACX are involved and pulled audio as well.


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow (Jun 10, 2018)

Lilly_Frost said:


> OMG. And I hadn't finished reading all his books in KU yet.


Kind of freaky how much my recommends has changed in a week.


----------



## John Van Stry (May 25, 2011)

A friend of mine got hit today. Completely out of the blue. This guy is hard working, writes like a maniac, and has a huge following. I've read several of his books and I've never seen him engage in anything questionable. And then Amazon pulled him. No warning, nothing, just gone. With nothing beyond a 'we think you're manipulating KU'

So I wrote Amazon and have asked to have all of my stuff pulled from the KU program. Yeah, half my income is KU and I make well over 6 figures now from my pen name. But there's an obvious witch hunt going on now. I can survive losing half of my income. I can not survive losing all of it.


----------



## Elizabeth S. (Oct 20, 2016)

John Van Stry said:


> A friend of mine got hit today. Completely out of the blue. This guy is hard working, writes like a maniac, and has a huge following. I've read several of his books and I've never seen him engage in anything questionable. And then Amazon pulled him. No warning, nothing, just gone. With nothing beyond a 'we think you're manipulating KU'


When Amazon first started stripping page reads, my account was terminated. It took about two weeks, but it got reinstated. If he has gotten caught up incorrectly, tell him to be persistent and escalate the issue right away.

ETA #2: Are you sure their accounts were actually yanked? The Amazon website has been wonky all day because of Prime Day. It could be they're just experiencing a glitch.


_edited, PM if you have questions -- Ann_


----------



## Book Cat (Jan 3, 2016)

Jack Krenneck said:


> I have to say I'm a bit stunned by all this...
> 
> The first author under discussion would have been the last person I would have suspected of wrongdoing. Maybe I'm naive. I'm also prepared to keep an open mind and see if he gets his account back.
> 
> The second one (huge fantasy author) was no surprise at all. That author got lucky a few years back but has only been kept alive by Bookbub the last year or so. Plummeting profits = greater temptation, I suppose.


I'm not sure what fantasy author you're talking about, but the one who was taken down was huge. He released 3-4 ghost written books a month into KU and all of them would get into the top 100.


----------



## Desert Rose (Jun 2, 2015)

Book Cat said:


> I'm not sure what fantasy author you're talking about, but the one who was taken down was huge. He released 3-4 ghost written books a month into KU and all of them would get into the top 100.


Okay, and? Even assuming the books were ghostwritten, that's hardly nefarious, unless we've decided that the ability to launch an established author into the top 100 is nefarious in and of itself.


----------



## Elizabeth S. (Oct 20, 2016)

Dragovian said:


> Okay, and? Even assuming the books were ghostwritten, that's hardly nefarious, unless we've decided that the ability to launch an established author into the top 100 is nefarious in and of itself.


There's already been some discussion in this thread about the observable shady techniques said author used. It's not a big leap, especially given his various associations, that he was also engaging in other things that did indeed violate the ToS.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

There are shortcuts and there are shortcuts. My theory is, once someone starts taking shortcuts, they'd better write themselves a hard and fast set of ethics and stick to them, because it's no doubt tempting to take even more shortcuts--some of which will push close to, then cross, then obliterate the "line."

Self-pubbing (not writing, the pubbing) is a business. People who take legit shortcuts in business, I believe, are more likely to get tempted to take non-legit shortcuts. I've seen this is other businesses--as soon as someone takes a shortcut, they tend to start casting about for others--and sometimes they find ones that cross the line and can't seem to stop themselves, especially when that shortcut pays off big for them right away. They're like gamblers who win big and can't put the dice down until they crap out.


----------



## Goulburn (May 21, 2014)

Patty Jansen said:


> I find that there is a horrible "guilty until proven innocent" undercurrent to a lot of discussions.
> 
> And of course it's all fuelled by the fact that some people use ghostwriters/box set promos/extreme WTM/trend chasing/popular genres and other stuff some people get bent out of shape about, none of which is illegal and some of which are unpopular. And while it appears that shenanigans do concentrate in certain subgenres, many of the shenanigans are not against the rules and it's just that people don't *like* the shenanigans and therefore the people who engage in them or are associated with people who engage in them, or are Facebook friends with people who engage in them, or... anyway *those* people deserve what they get.
> 
> ...


I agree.

If we want an ethical industry, let's encourage it to be so by assisting other ethical authors, as Patty Jansen has set an excellent example and done through her cross-promotions. Turn our desire for a clean industry around and direct it to lifting authors up, not speculating about, or relishing in another author's downfall, as that's not the KBoards that helps anyone.


----------



## Book Cat (Jan 3, 2016)

Dragovian said:


> Okay, and? Even assuming the books were ghostwritten, that's hardly nefarious, unless we've decided that the ability to launch an established author into the top 100 is nefarious in and of itself.


I wasn't saying ghostwritten books were nerfeious. I was pointing out that the author that commentor was thinking of wasn't the one who had his account banned today.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

I doubt the true black hats are anything more than mildly inconvenienced by this. That’s what they do: milk something until it’s no longer milkable then move on. 

It’s the grey hatters who should be shaking in their boots right now. If you’re here because you love writing but have ever done something that at least initially felt wrong - adding extra spacing in your books, incentivizing buys or reads, purposely used sketchy marketing services, etc - for whatever reason: desperation, greed, because everyone else was doing it - and you’re not scrambling to fix things, I’d be scratching my head. This should be a wake up call. 

You are not above the rules. None of us are. This is not a storm to hunker down and wait for it to pass. Compete with your stories and legit marketing tactics. That’s the one true path to win this game in the long term, even if there are zero guarantees.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

A lot of people aren't aware of the controversial past of some of their author friends. But I'll be honest, at least one those removed didn't shock me. I'm small potatoes. I publish mostly as a fun hobby, sometimes it makes me money, oftentimes it doesn't. But I've been around for a long time and I've seen a lot. I also remember quite a bit of the controversial happenings. Most of what has gone down shouldn't be a surprise. Amazon always cracks down eventually. Doing gray hat stuff might seem harmless, but it's endangers your account. I'm no angel. I wrote some pretty racy stuff back in erotica goldmine days. And I learned my lesson from that. Follow the rules and don't try to find loopholes. Because a loophole can be quickly transformed into a noose.


----------



## Elizabeth S. (Oct 20, 2016)

Annie B said:


> Here are some things that could, potentially, get you banned:
> 
> Manipulating your formatting to artificially increase your KENP...


At least one person who's been banned used some creative formatting for their books. There's also a lot of crossover in associations and in some marketing techniques used. Also trademark trolling. I'm *not* saying this particular person's ban is just, because I don't know. But after some reflection, it doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks:

Speculation as to things that could get you banned is fine.

But we ask that names not be named here. _N.B. This policy could change, but right now that's what it is. We're discussing the issue but all us mods have real lives and it's not always easy to be available at the same time to discuss something this important._

Any in-thread requests for PMs to spread the gossip have been removed. Please do not do this.


----------



## Lori Devoti (Oct 26, 2010)

Another possibility is that this person has multiple pen names and while some are/were legit, others weren't. If Amazon connected this, they would most likely shut the whole thing down.


----------



## Wunder (Sep 2, 2017)

Thoralene said:


> Went and looked at the Sci-Fi/Fantasy charts and nearly fell out of my chair to see a certain big name gone. I'm ecstatic, but I don't know how long the suspension will last. I hope Amazon sticks to their guns.
> 
> Frustrating to see so many readers and other writers defending this guy on social media and threatening to cancel their KU subscription over his banning. They all seem to see it as an unjustified act that Amazon has undertaken for no apparent reason.


I'm guessing most readers are probably completely unaware of Amazons TOS. They probably only know the narrative as it's told from the author's POV. It doesn't surprise me that they're on his/her side in this.


----------



## 3rotic (Mar 28, 2013)

Thoralene said:


> Went and looked at the Sci-Fi/Fantasy charts and nearly fell out of my chair to see a certain big name gone. I'm ecstatic
> 
> They all seem to see it as an unjustified act that Amazon has undertaken for no apparent reason.


Do you have some insight into the reasons for his ban? If you're "ecstatic" at his ban, I reckon you know something about what he did to deserve the ax?


----------



## MmmmmPie (Jun 23, 2015)

Thoralene said:


> Frustrating to see so many readers and other writers defending this guy on social media and threatening to cancel their KU subscription over his banning.


If these readers are the kind who consume (or click through) several 2,000-page books monthly and buy very little else at Amazon, Amazon might be quite glad to see them go.


----------



## Hope (Nov 28, 2014)

David VanDyke said:


> There are shortcuts and there are shortcuts. My theory is, once someone starts taking shortcuts, they'd better write themselves a hard and fast set of ethics and stick to them, because it's no doubt tempting to take even more shortcuts--some of which will push close to, then cross, then obliterate the "line."
> 
> Self-pubbing (not writing, the pubbing) is a business. People who take legit shortcuts in business, I believe, are more likely to get tempted to take non-legit shortcuts. I've seen this is other businesses--as soon as someone takes a shortcut, they tend to start casting about for others--and sometimes they find ones that cross the line and can't seem to stop themselves, especially when that shortcut pays off big for them right away. They're like gamblers who win big and can't put the dice down until they crap out.


This. I agree completely with this. It's human nature, more so for some than others, to want things easy. It takes time and sweat to build a work ethic in oneself and there are a lot of people that never bother.


----------



## Starry_Knights (Sep 15, 2016)

The fantasy author who got banned yesterday, I don't know what he did. I've read several of his books. Nothing was stuffed. Nothing seemed off about the formatting. There was no linking to the back, or anything else that seemed dodgy. So if there was weirdness with the books, I was too clueless to see it. I have several on my Kindle even now; maybe I will go back through and look closer, to see what I missed. If he behaved unethically, I'm sad; his books were fairly fun little reads. If that was actually his own writing, he had enough talent that he shouldn't have needed to do anything against TOS.


----------



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

Annie B said:


> Here are some things that could, potentially, get you banned:
> 
> Running contests where the reader has to show proof of purchase or proof of a review
> Stuffing/"bonus" content that is just repeated things with the goal of making people click to the back (usually through TOC links etc)
> ...


this^^^

No, I'm not surprised at the recent bans after seeing all the nefarious tactics the cockygate issue brought to light. Exposure of trademark trolling for cockygate and dragonslayergate revealed there is a wide web of questionable tactics beings used by some groups. I suppose everyone has FH to thank for that, since it seems her actions have spearheaded a wave of linked repercussions throughout that sector of the community.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2018)

What exactly is the purpose of the rule that you can't name a person whose books were removed from Amazon? That's not a libelous statement. It's a fact, the books aren't there anymore.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Riddick said:


> What exactly is the purpose of the rule that you can't name a person whose books were removed from Amazon? That's not a libelous statement. It's a fact, the books aren't there anymore.


I suspect the issue is that it then becomes very hard for there not to be personal comments about that individual. If Kboards maybe had a locked admin-only thread that listed just that information, then that might work. But if it's in a live thread like this one the minute a name comes up then others chime in with what they know about that person and it can quickly get personal or libelous.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2018)

Cassie Leigh said:


> I suspect the issue is that it then becomes very hard for there not to be personal comments about that individual. If Kboards maybe had a locked admin-only thread that listed just that information, then that might work. But if it's in a live thread like this one the minute a name comes up then others chime in with what they know about that person and it can quickly get personal or libelous.


Then the thread itself should be removed. People are still already doing what you said only they're not mentioning exact names and then you have half the replies asking "who are you talking about?" If the mods are going to take such a hard stance on this subject then they should just start a thread on what types of things can get you banned from Amazon and then disallow all new threads on the subject.


----------



## Joshua Dalzelle (Jun 12, 2013)

It looks like the guy I was originally thinking of from yesterday got collected today... only his audio books are showing on Amazon and his author rank is gone (unless the Prime Day issues are really that far reaching.)


----------



## Ryan W. Mueller (Jul 14, 2017)

If it's the person I think it is, then it wouldn't surprise me if he used shady tactics. The person I'm thinking of decided to trademark all his series titles, many of which are quite generic. It's not a huge jump to think he'd use other shady tactics. It's a shame because this guy appears to have a lot of readers who love his work.


----------



## Starry_Knights (Sep 15, 2016)

Ryan W. Mueller said:


> If it's the person I think it is, then it wouldn't surprise me if he used shady tactics. The person I'm thinking of decided to trademark all his series titles, many of which are quite generic. It's not a huge jump to think he'd use other shady tactics. It's a shame because this guy appears to have a lot of readers who love his work.


I forgot all about that.


----------



## RedFoxUF (Nov 14, 2016)

UF has a ton of authors who shall not be named these days. After romance, imo it's the second most scammed genre anymore.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

TwistedTales said:


> There were real problems with this board when some authors were being named and targeted by others based on assumptions about what they were or weren't doing. As it turned out, a lot of those authors were reinstated on Amazon, and we'll never be 100% sure of what happened because for the most part they've never said a word since.
> 
> Authors being removed 100% by Amazon (not just having part or all of their catalogs suspended) is unusual, but that's not to say it hasn't happened many times before because it has. Although kboards catches the top end players, it's fair to say there have been a lot more than any of us know about. Do we need to know the names? Probably not. There's a rubbernecking car crash quality to our curiosity. It's not as if knowing their names is going to make any clearer why they were removed or if they'll stay gone. We all know how fickle Amazon can be.
> 
> ...


If you're removed by Amazon, of COURSE people will question your integrity. That's what publishers get removed for--for breaking a contract in a significant way, actions which in my book show a significant lack of integrity. What would integrity look like if it weren't defined as "Don't lie or cheat"? The mind boggles.

Should other authors and the general public pretend that the publishers whose accounts have been removed are just unfortunate souls who got unlucky with Amazon? We're supposed to believe their denials of wrongdoing, even though it's been pointed out for years now and we could SEE a lot of the tactics for ourselves? That would be pretty credulous.

Just because Amazon took a long time to crack down on publishers using skeevy tactics, it doesn't mean that those publishers weren't doing anything wrong.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Should other authors and the general public pretend that the publishers whose accounts have been removed are just unfortunate souls who got unlucky with Amazon? We're supposed to believe their denials of wrongdoing, even though it's been pointed out for years now and we could SEE a lot of the tactics for ourselves? That would be pretty credulous.


I do know that last year (I think) two authors had their accounts pulled down probably because they used a promoter who has been widely discussed here who used shady tactics. They didn't know though, they volunteered the promoter's name and even said, "I didn't use anything strange or dodgy just { promoter's name }."

I do think that dolphins get caught up in the net. The promoter was later banned from Kboards, but up until that point I think you'd really have had to dig to realize they weren't on the up and up. Lots of people looked up to and respected the person. I saw the promoter's box sets and noticed they were in Kindle Unlimited AND wide and dropped my promos with them because it scared the heck out of me. I can't even remember what made me look though, I think it was something completely random.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## GrahamCrackers (Jun 2, 2018)

Couple of thoughts, take whatever you would like from them, even if that's nothing:

Stating facts should be perfectly okay.

1. Author X has been banned by their own admission.
2. All their books, audio-books and peripheries have disappeared from the Kindle Store.

None of the above are libelous as statements. They are simply factual points.

Now we get to the (light) gray area:

3. Having personally read their books, in my opinion the formatting was clearly incorrect and in violation of the rules.

Kind of still okay to say, as you can point to the evidence of your own eyes. You're not stating that they did it deliberately to scam the system, or were aware of their misstep.

Not okay to really say unless you have absolute proof:

4. Clearly they were out to screw every other author in the KU universe by artificially bloating their page count.

However, the conversation should be allowed and a statement of facts shouldn't even be an issue on the board. Especially given that it's a board for professionals who should be aware of what is happening around them lest they too get caught up in the same issues/traps. Why that's even a point of debate right now, I don't know.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

I'm against naming names on an open forum. The reason is lawsuits. Kboards is public forum and there's already been some serious issues. Remember when a number of people were dragged into a lawsuit simply because they responded in a controversial thread? The moderators have set up rules to prevent that from happening again. We need to follow them.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Gentleman Zombie said:


> A lot of people aren't aware of the controversial past of some of their author friends. But I'll be honest, at least one those removed didn't shock me. I'm small potatoes. I publish mostly as a fun hobby, sometimes it makes me money, oftentimes it doesn't. But I've been around for a long time and I've seen a lot. I also remember quite a bit of the controversial happenings. Most of what has gone down shouldn't be a surprise. Amazon always cracks down eventually. Doing gray hat stuff might seem harmless, but it's endangers your account. I'm no angel. I wrote some pretty racy stuff back in erotica goldmine days. And I learned my lesson from that. Follow the rules and don't try to find loopholes. Because a loophole can be quickly transformed into a noose.


+1 to this. Just because they're your friend or were nice to you on Facebook or something doesn't mean they've never done anything shady. Unless you've installed some spying malware on their computer, you don't know what they've done. Just because you don't believe they used a shady service doesn't mean they didn't. And just because their books weren't stuffed or formatted incorrectly doesn't mean there wasn't something else they did. And just because they deny any wrongdoing doesn't mean they're telling the truth.


----------



## MClayton (Nov 10, 2010)

Gentleman Zombie said:


> I'm against naming names on an open forum. The reason is lawsuits. Kboards is public forum and there's already been some serious issues. Remember when a number of people were dragged into a lawsuit simply because they responded in a controversial thread? The moderators have set up rules to prevent that from happening again. We need to follow them.


My thoughts, exactly.


----------



## BGArcher (Jun 14, 2014)

Perry Constantine said:


> +1 to this. Just because they're your friend or were nice to you on Facebook or something doesn't mean they've never done anything shady. Unless you've installed some spying malware on their computer, you don't know what they've done. Just because you don't believe they used a shady service doesn't mean they didn't. And just because their books weren't stuffed or formatted incorrectly doesn't mean there wasn't something else they did. And just because they deny any wrongdoing doesn't mean they're telling the truth.


My only issue with this line of thought was that up until June Bonus content was not against the terms of services. Implying it was only shady people doing it is not correct. Plenty of good author's were doing it, _until_ the rules changed. The ones everyone in this thread is not talking about pushed boundaries on multiple fronts, and were not doing what the spirt of bonus books were there for, and instead just trying to get a high pay out for their read throughs.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

BGArcher said:


> My only issue with this line of thought was that up until June Bonus content was not against the terms of services. Implying it was only shady people doing it is not correct. Plenty of good author's were doing it, _until_ the rules changed.


I don't have the previous TOS in front of me, but as I recall, there were people who pointed out that it was against the TOS. You can find those threads discussing it by using the search feature where they quoted directly from the TOS.

But whether or not it was explicitly against the TOS doesn't really make a difference. Just because something is permitted doesn't make it right. And in my mind, artificially inflating your page reads by getting your readers to click past all the bonus content they'd already read and thus taking a larger share from the communal KU pot that all authors are paid from is the very definition of a shady business practice.


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

Lilly_Frost said:


> I'll be honest, almost all of you seem nice, even the ones I disagree with.  But what if the person we ask isn't one of the good guys and steers us wrong? I mean, most women thought Ted Bundy seemed pretty darn nice right up until he wasn't. I just wish there was a better way to let newcomers know who isn't playing in the sunlight without worrying about stupid lawsuits.


What you do is you come here to Kboards and ask publicly, then you'll get a range of answers. If the service you're asking about is reputable, people will say so. If there are clear warning signs, people will say that too. And if it's one of those cases where people don't know for sure but have suspicions, they won't voice them publicly but they'll pm you. There are lots of threads like that here. And once you've been here long enough, you'll get to recognise which posters are giving you unbiased information.


----------



## Lilpenguin1972 (Aug 9, 2012)

BGArcher said:


> My only issue with this line of thought was that up until June Bonus content was not against the terms of services. Implying it was only shady people doing it is not correct. Plenty of good author's were doing it, _until_ the rules changed. The ones everyone in this thread is not talking about pushed boundaries on multiple fronts, and were not doing what the spirt of bonus books were there for, and instead just trying to get a high pay out for their read throughs.


I believe it was. Amazon just made their TOS more clear.

I don't really care, to be honest. I read a lot of romance and I stopped using Amazon for recommendations a long time ago. I have never heard of the authors who were stuffing, and I read about 5 books a week. I am active on social media and various romance blogs. What does that tell you? In the romance community, these "bestselling" authors aren't a blip on the radar. It is obvious they were shady, and they knew they were being shady. So, spare me the protestations about the TOS.

What do I know? I am just a consumer.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

One group of people I would avoid are those who love to argue the endless shades of gray - it's okay if you are hopping on one foot while you do it, Amazon is fine with it, you are just as bad as those who cheat, violate the TOS, etc. for even mentioning it, no customers are being harmed - no one was assaulted or some other heinous crime, you just are not entrepreneurial enough, you don't have enough business sense, you are jealous of others shady success, etc.  It's pretty obvious some of the people who dwell in the gray. 

Services that spring up overnight and are supposedly amazing - hmmm how did they do that?  Maybe, but highly doubtful.  I would wait awhile before I took advantage of the amazing opportunity to see how it went.  Actually, I probably wouldn't even then.  Still true that you can't always tell.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

oakwood said:


> A tell tale marker of supernatural activity is reviews. Here's a couple of example. No names or titles, just the stats...


Eh. There is no "right" pattern of reviews or "wrong" pattern of reviews. I remember looking a couple years back at two very popular trade-published fantasy novels with thousands of reviews. One had something like 95% 5-star reviews. The other had 80%. Both were legit books.

For example, I just looked up a Brandon Sanderson book, Oathbringer. 78% 5-star, 9% 4-star, 6% 3-star, 3% 2-star, 4% 1-star.


----------



## Mark Dawson (Mar 24, 2012)

Perry Constantine said:


> But whether or not it was explicitly against the TOS doesn't really make a difference. Just because something is permitted doesn't make it right. And in my mind, artificially inflating your page reads by getting your readers to click past all the bonus content they'd already read and thus taking a larger share from the communal KU pot that all authors are paid from is the very definition of a shady business practice.


That is exactly what I think. Something might have been acceptable within the terms, but everyone who was inflating KENPC was doing that to get extra reads and more money from the communal pot. It just feels skeevy.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Lilly_Frost said:


> Exactly. I work a full-time job and write when I have quiet time. I don't do a lot of social networking or facebooking, and so I'm not really "plugged in" to all the intel. All I see is authors' forward-facing reputations, until something like this turns over the rock and exposes all the worms. Everybody says to ask if you don't know if someone is reputable, but how are newish authors like me supposed to know who is trustworthy to ask? I'll be honest, almost all of you seem nice, even the ones I disagree with.  But what if the person we ask isn't one of the good guys and steers us wrong? I mean, most women thought Ted Bundy seemed pretty darn nice right up until he wasn't. I just wish there was a better way to let newcomers know who isn't playing in the sunlight without worrying about stupid lawsuits.


On kboards, at least, it's relatively easy to research. All posts from users are visible, so if you read something from someone and you want to get a better sense of them, look at some of their post history. Not just the number of posts they have, but the posts they made a month, 6 months, a year ago, or more. Esp when a lot of users change their user names and user icons over and over--it's hard to tell sometimes who you're talking to, but looking at the post history sometimes reveals posts and post replies that quote their earlier user name.

Read enough post history of someone here and you get a better sense of them and whether their contributions are consistent. Or they'r expert writer/liars and are selling the same lies over and over.

But that's just for back and forth discussion. If you're moving toward a place where you're going to exchange $$$ for services, it's definitely worth it to post specific questions here and on other writer forums and Facebook groups. And bookmark Writer Beware if you haven't yet. That's a good starting point short of posting here.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

WasAnn said:


> Exactly! How many people that came looking for advice wound up working that that person and are now worried sick? Probably a lot. And naming names and discussing tactics would have spared all that worry.


One reminder: we should always be talking about pen names, DBA names and corporate names, not just "names." That's why we have no problem outing Author Solutions as a predatory publisher--it's a corporation.

Pen names and DBA are corporate names. That's why we should be allowed to out pen names for bad behavior here IMO--but only with facts.

"Penny T. Author's [not a real name] books have apparently been removed from Amazon" is fact.

"Penny T. Author is a lying, scamming b-witch" is not factual, it's subjective, and probably only hearsay, and might be inviting a lawsuit for defamation.


----------



## MichFisher (Apr 25, 2018)

Perry Constantine said:


> But whether or not it was explicitly against the TOS doesn't really make a difference. Just because something is permitted doesn't make it right. And in my mind, artificially inflating your page reads by getting your readers to click past all the bonus content they'd already read and thus taking a larger share from the communal KU pot that all authors are paid from is the very definition of a shady business practice.





Mark Dawson said:


> That is exactly what I think. Something might have been acceptable within the terms, but everyone who was inflating KENPC was doing that to get extra reads and more money from the communal pot. It just feels skeevy.


All of the above. While I love me some grey area in characters and plots, I'm no fan of them in business practices. They do nothing but muddy the waters and spoil a market for people who are doing the right thing. Maybe it makes me a crusty fuddy-duddy to reject grey-hat promotional tactics, but marketing for a solid product shouldn't need dirty tricks to succeed.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Thoralene said:


> It was obvious what some folks were up to. Their crocodile tears are pretty rich now.
> 
> I'm ecstatic for me and for every other ethical author in KU. The strategies and tactics employed by the gray and black hatters harms us all and it makes me really happy to see Amazon actually doing something about it. I hope they persevere and keep their foot on the gas. I'm still worried this could be too good to be true.


This. I've got no sympathy for people who were exploiting loopholes or outright violating the rules in order to inflate ranks and pages read. And I don't see why I should feel sympathy for them. I don't really care if their livelihood is now ruined. When your livelihood is dependent on shady business practices, I'm not shedding any tears if you get busted.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

Mark Dawson said:


> That is exactly what I think. Something might have been acceptable within the terms, but everyone who was inflating KENPC was doing that to get extra reads and more money from the communal pot. It just feels skeevy.


Isn't the fact that the June page rate barely changed, after the vast majority of stuffers got hit, persuasive evidence that in fact this was doing little or nothing to depreciate the page rate? The July rate will be more telling (as it will be the first 'clean' month), but in all honesty there were only 1-3 'compilations' in the #100 last month as opposed to 15-20, and the same was the case lower down the charts.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

badtothebone said:


> Isn't the fact that the June page rate barely changed, after the vast majority of stuffers got hit, persuasive evidence that in fact this was doing little or nothing to depreciate the page rate? The July rate will be more telling (as it will be the first 'clean' month), but in all honesty there were only 1-3 'compilations' in the #100 last month as opposed to 15-20, and the same was the case lower down the charts.


So because they potentially didn't make that much money on shady business practices, that means there's nothing wrong with being unethical?

By this logic, I should be allowed to steal from anyone I want, provided I only steal say $5.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> Everybody says to ask if you don't know if someone is reputable, but how are newish authors like me supposed to know who is trustworthy to ask?


Ask in general, not to specific persons. Author A might very well be one of the dishonest ones, but members of Board B will in the majority be upstanding folks. Stay away from places like Warrior Forum, or any other site that has that get rick quick atmosphere. Passive income, easy money with no work, guaranteed results and so on are things that should trigger anyone, no matter how new or inexperienced they are.

People ask about service providers here all the time, and they always get answers that will steer them in the right direction. You have to learn to filter. No one can do that for you. Watch, question, filter everything through your own ethical leanings. It's possible to make mistakes, but you can reduce your exposure by learning, asking, watching. If someone says S/he Who Shall Not Be Named isn't playing by the rules, stay away, you can PM that person and ask who they mean. Then you know who to research.


----------



## Ros_Jackson (Jan 11, 2014)

oakwood said:


> This one has Publication Date: June 26, 2018 with a bland torso cover and tricky formatting . ..less than 10% lines are far left, everything else is indented, pushed right a couple of spaces... forcing new line before natural carriage return, like - (no this is not a quote, I'm just making up an example text here to show what it looks like):
> 
> "Hi my name is Huffy Howard."
> "Oh hello. What can I do for you?"
> ...


That's not a formatting issue, it's an excessive paragraph issue. You're supposed to indent the first line of a new para, including speech, unless it's the first line of a new para in a new chapter. Amazon recommends an indent of 0.5" at the start of a paragraph and doing it through Word's paragraph setting rather than manually putting in an indent. What you're not meant to do is stick every single sentence on a new line like someone who has never read a book before.

Is this really what people are doing to fluff up their KENPCs?


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

badtothebone said:


> Isn't the fact that the June page rate barely changed, after the vast majority of stuffers got hit, persuasive evidence that in fact this was doing little or nothing to depreciate the page rate?


I don't think so. I strongly suspect that Amazon has a target page rate that they want to pay out that hovers somewhere between .0045 and .005 per page. They set the KU pool with a goal of hitting that amount. But for a while there they were having to top up the pool every single month so that the payout rate didn't take a dive. Just because the rate we receive hasn't changed doesn't mean that their actions didn't save them having to pay out a substantial amount of additional funds to hit that rate.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

badtothebone said:


> Isn't the fact that the June page rate barely changed, after the vast majority of stuffers got hit, persuasive evidence that in fact this was doing little or nothing to depreciate the page rate? The July rate will be more telling (as it will be the first 'clean' month), but in all honesty there were only 1-3 'compilations' in the #100 last month as opposed to 15-20, and the same was the case lower down the charts.


It isn't the payout rate, it's the pages read that needs to be looked at. People don't pay nearly enough attention to that. Now, Amazon _paid_ those authors for the page reads they'd already gotten when they terminated the accounts last month. Said so in the termination letters. So I wouldn't expect to see any changes at all in June.

In July, after having a couple of hundred very high ranking accounts terminated in June, I would expect to see a noticeable drop in the number of pages read. While the _readers_ might have moved on to other books, we have reason to believe that there was a substantial amount of bot activity associated with those books, especially since Amazon mentioned page read manipulation in a number of instances. That should have dried up. We should see another drop in August due to the July account closures. Should, not will. I fully expect the July and August reports to be very close to May and June's.

If you want to be illuminated as to what is going on in KU, look at the monthly page read data from 2015 on. Take a hard look at what happens in January 2017. That should give anyone a WTF moment and have them seriously questioning just how much of anything in the program is legit right now.


----------



## Patrick-Stew (Jun 10, 2018)

oakwood said:


> A tell tale marker of supernatural activity is reviews. Here's a couple of example. No names or titles, just the stats
> 
> These are cookie cutter books by pretty new authors with narrow readership group (YA/teens) or very narrow readership (specific romance sub niche)
> 
> ...


Thank you for this!! I just couldn't understand how some books got so many reviews whilst being so much lower in the ranks than mine!!


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Review manipulation has been here from the start, and will continue to be here so long as reviews are allowed.  Thing is, at this point, I'm not sure how anyone believes any reviews anymore. 

Oh, it's a new book from a new author nobody's ever heard of.  Came out last week and has 600 reviews, all five star. Looks legit to me ... not. 

I swear - much as my ego doesn't like the sting - it's reached the point where I don't mind being dinged by an early low star review because it gives greater credence that maybe there isn't any game playing going on.


----------



## Patrick-Stew (Jun 10, 2018)

I know authors are obsessed about things like that (well, I am at least), but do casual readers notice things like the release date, the ranking of the book and the improbably high number of reviews?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Patrick-Stew said:


> I know authors are obsessed about things like that (well, I am at least), but do casual readers notice things like the release date, the ranking of the book and the improbably high number of reviews?


I'm not sure about the former 2, but I think they do notice when a book has a lot of reviews but they're kind of ridiculously skewed toward 5 stars.

But, I think time is the great equalizer here. Because that book that launches with tons of 5 stars will likely not continue to have that wonderful average over time if it indeed doesn't live up to its own launch hype.

I've seen it happen many times. Out of the gate, a book gets tons of reviews proclaiming it to be the best thing since sliced bread. But, eventually real readers come along, and you start to see a trend of later reviews that are pretty much the equivalent of "I don't know what those other guys were smoking, but...."


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Out of the gate, a book gets tons of reviews proclaiming it to be the best thing since sliced bread. But, eventually real readers come along, and you start to see a trend of later reviews that are pretty much the equivalent of "I don't know what those other guys were smoking, but...."


Out of the gate a lot of authors with followings get great reviews. That isn't manipulation, necessarily; it's just the first people to read the work are likely to be fans who already like the author's voice. But overtime the review average should come down.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

C. Gockel said:


> Out of the gate a lot of authors with followings get great reviews. That isn't manipulation necessarily, it's just the first people to read the work are likely to be fans who already like the author's voice. But overtime the review average should come down.


Exactly. The difference there being not all established authors are cut from the same cloth. The review average for some comes down A LOT more than for others. For an established author with a following who is also a decent writer, I'd expect to go in and see mostly good reviews even after some time has passed. But for others, you see those new reviews painting a picture that perhaps some shenanigans were played out of the starting gate.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

ParkerAvrile said:


> In what universe. People are being cleared by DNA after decades in prison all the time.


However, apples and oranges. Prison is punishment. Taking away ill-gotten gains and the ability to make more may feel like punishment, but it's not.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

badtothebone said:


> Isn't the fact that the June page rate barely changed, after the vast majority of stuffers got hit, persuasive evidence that in fact this was doing little or nothing to depreciate the page rate? The July rate will be more telling (as it will be the first 'clean' month), but in all honesty there were only 1-3 'compilations' in the #100 last month as opposed to 15-20, and the same was the case lower down the charts.


As has been said hundreds of time before on KBoards (I'm not exaggerating) - this is not about the page rate.

Scammers hurt indies in at least two demonstrable and objective ways:

1. They steal visibility in the bestseller and pop lists

2. They get bonuses they're not entitled to

Subjectively, 3) they also make us all look bad, and those who put out crap make readers and others in the biz tend to think all indies are crap


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Plus they use bots and click farms that target innocent authors in order to disguise their borrowing activity on their own books, which gets people who didn't do anything into trouble.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

David VanDyke said:


> Subjectively, 3) they also make us all look bad, and those who put out crap make readers and others in the biz tend to think all indies are crap


And this is the club trad people beat us over the head with.


----------



## Kathy Dee (Aug 27, 2016)

Patty Jansen said:


> The trademark thing was very different, because the author came after other authors (illegally, because while a series title can be trademarked, a title cannot).


Normally, you are spot-on Patty. But, with respect, this is not true! A title CAN be trademarked. An example is the title _Think and Grow Rich_ which the Napoleon Hill Foundation have successfully defended on numerous occasions.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

TimothyEllis said:


> And this is the club trad people beat us over the head with.


True, but this might be one instance in which they're not wrong. I've long held that one of the prime tenets of thriving long term here is to strive to out-trad the trad pubs from a quality standpoint.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

RBN said:


> This is glorious. Christopher Walken read it in my head.


Thank god, it wasn't just me.


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

Kathy Dee said:


> Normally, you are spot-on Patty. But, with respect, this is not true! A title CAN be trademarked. An example is the title _Think and Grow Rich_ which the Napoleon Hill Foundation have successfully defended on numerous occasions.


Are you sure? I'm no expert, but a quick search shows the typical type of series trademark on this:

"Series of non-fiction books in the fields of self-development, self-improvement, and personal achievement"

Not the title. So a romance novel, for example, with the same title should be fine.

(They also have another trademark on the brand, which they've self-reported using to defend against domain squatting.)


----------



## andrea2070 (Apr 15, 2018)

The first person I believe this thread referenced has now applied for a trademark on his cover design. Basically, any cover that has the title at the top, author name at the bottom, and the image of one or more people in the center with at least one holding a weapon would be off limits (assuming his TM is approved, which I doubt it will be). http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88026770&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

andrea2070 said:


> The first person I believe this thread referenced has now applied for a trademark on his cover design. Basically, any cover that has the title at the top, author name at the bottom, and the image of one or more people in the center with at least one holding a weapon would be off limits (assuming his TM is approved, which I doubt it will be). http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88026770&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch


Second person actually.


----------



## GrahamCrackers (Jun 2, 2018)

andrea2070 said:


> The first person I believe this thread referenced has now applied for a trademark on his cover design. Basically, any cover that has the title at the top, author name at the bottom, and the image of one or more people in the center with at least one holding a weapon would be off limits (assuming his TM is approved, which I doubt it will be). http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88026770&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch


This cracked me up so much. Good luck with that one. If you want to get the Big 5 (let alone Indies) suing you, that's probably the way to go about it.

There's no way that TM passes muster, it's too widely accepted and used of a format.

There's no possible distinction I could think of that you could make on your version of covers like that to justify a TM, unless you were to specify that the weapons are always "holographic" (i.e. printed that way with holographic foil on physical copies) in nature or some such. But, that would obviously change the TM application to something other than what is presented here.

Yeah...


----------



## andrea2070 (Apr 15, 2018)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Second person actually.


Shows how much I know.


----------



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

andrea2070 said:


> The first person I believe this thread referenced has now applied for a trademark on his cover design. Basically, any cover that has the title at the top, author name at the bottom, and the image of one or more people in the center with at least one holding a weapon would be off limits (assuming his TM is approved, which I doubt it will be). http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88026770&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch


Holy moly, just saw that discussion.
This is the book cover format he is trying to own:


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

andrea2070 said:


> The first person I believe this thread referenced has now applied for a trademark on his cover design. Basically, any cover that has the title at the top, author name at the bottom, and the image of one or more people in the center with at least one holding a weapon would be off limits (assuming his TM is approved, which I doubt it will be). http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88026770&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch


Oh jeez. That's pretty much every fantasy book ever written. Not to mention the original Star Wars poster. I swear.


----------



## boba1823 (Aug 13, 2017)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> . . . but I think they do notice when a book has a lot of reviews but they're kind of ridiculously skewed toward 5 stars.


Yeah, I bet readers do notice... and then think "Oh wowza, this book must be _super_ good!"

 Okay, so I don't have a super high opinion of the average reader.

Since I'm sort of 'in the know' nowadays, my first thought upon seeing tons of reviews skewing high is just "nice big ARC group." Which is.. well, pretty much accepted practice, so I don't see it as being overly shady. No more shady than having a book in KU. (So.. only a little shady, but pretty common.)

Of course, having reviews ridiculously skewed toward 5 stars can also just mean ridiculously good targeting of readers.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

GrahamCrackers said:


> This cracked me up so much. Good luck with that one. If you want to get the Big 5 (let alone Indies) suing you, that's probably the way to go about it.
> 
> There's no way that TM passes muster, it's too widely accepted and used of a format.
> 
> ...


If quality letters of protest aren't submitted, it may very well pass muster. I mean, is that cover design really less generic/descriptive/totally ordinary than the word "cocky"?


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Does the weapon have to be held in the same angle. I wonder if American Gothic is safe, lol.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Or an author could have a high percentage of 5-Star reviews because most readers loved the book. It could also be that the author sells well because his audience enjoys his stuff. 

My fourth book, published 3 months into my publishing career and with zero marketing, had a 4.9-Star average for a long time. I had never heard of an arc group and would not have a newsletter for another couple years. 

Book has been out 5.5 years now. It currently has about 375 reviews, of which 73% are 5 stars. It has sold about 75k copies. 

I have a similar book in my series for Montlake. The other books in the series don’t have review averages as high. I do think that it is probably the best book I have written. It did not sell as well as others, because the topic was disturbing, but most people who reviewed it really liked it 

Another point for romance: reviews may well sound gushing, because romance is about emotion. I review a thriller differently than a romance. And romance readers, at least of my type of feel-good book, are much less likely to review if they do not like a book. By any author. They think it is mean.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2018)

Becca Mills said:


> If quality letters of protest aren't submitted, it may very well pass muster. I mean, is that cover design really less generic/descriptive/totally ordinary than the word "cocky"?


A lot of people are on this already.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## John Van Stry (May 25, 2011)

EB said:


> Holy moly, just saw that discussion.
> This is the book cover format he is trying to own:


Read the whole trademark submission. Look at the attached samples. He's not trying to trademark that format. Really folks, READ the whole thing, look at the attachments. The title portion on each of the samples is a custom design.


----------



## Desert Rose (Jun 2, 2015)

John Van Stry said:


> Read the whole trademark submission. Look at the attached samples. He's not trying to trademark that format. Really folks, READ the whole thing, look at the attachments. The title portion on each of the samples is a custom design.


But the trademark appears to be for the cover layout itself; I don't see anything in the description of the mark specifying that the custom design of his Dragon Slayer books is included.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Dragovian said:


> But the trademark appears to be for the cover layout itself; I don't see anything in the description of the mark specifying that the custom design of his Dragon Slayer books is included.


Exactly. He submits as examples all of his main series. He's not aiming for specific marks for just his font layouts. This is much broader than that.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

This suggests is broader to describe the general design rather than specific covers.

"The mark consists of a title and/or series name at the top of the trade dress; one or more human or partially human figures underneath, at least one of the figures holding a weapon; and an author's name underneath the figures; wherein the title/series and author's name are depicted in the same or similar coloring. The dotted lines represent the product, and are used to show the location of the trade dress on the product, and do not constitute part of the trade dress."

ETA: Oops. I guess we posted at the same time.

For the record, this is ridiculous. WTELF?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

John Van Stry said:


> Read the whole trademark submission. Look at the attached samples. He's not trying to trademark that format. Really folks, READ the whole thing, look at the attachments. The title portion on each of the samples is a custom design.


This is the description of the mark:










I take the reference to "dotted lines" to indicate the set of dotted lines that show the outline of the book, not the dashed lines that show the position and posture of the figure and weapon. I take the figure and weapon to be part of the mark. So, the mark = the position of the book and series titles and of the author's name, the presence of a figure in that general stance, and the presence of a weapon held in about that position.

Am I not understanding this correctly?


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2018)

WasAnn said:


> I think most of us did...and the examples don't even match the mark verbiage. Here it is in case you missed that part.
> 
> 3 - AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WHICH INCLUDES WORD(S)/ LETTER(S)/NUMBER(S)
> Description of Mark:	The mark consists of a title and/or series name at the top of the trade dress; one or more human or partially human figures underneath, at least one of the figures holding a weapon; and an author's name underneath the figures; wherein the title/series and author's name are depicted in the same or similar coloring. The dotted lines represent the product, and are used to show the location of the trade dress on the product, and do not constitute part of the trade dress.
> Color(s) Claimed:	Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.


And there is also this:
02.01.02 - Men depicted as shadows or silhouettes of men
02.01.02 - Silhouettes of men
14.05.05 - Axes
14.05.05 - Hatchets
14.05.05 - Tomahawks


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Wow, that is some crazy sauce. And yes I do think it is a whole level up from Cocky. Most authors in romance are not using that word. (I hasten to add that I still think that trademark is so wrong!) But, heavens, how many books are out there with that layout?

Add in that this is also the author who is trying to trademark words like “Destroyer” (seriously?), and I think he just lost the benefit of the doubt and the sympathy card for most people as far as his Amazon ban. 

Whew. Crazy times.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

John Van Stry said:


> Read the whole trademark submission. Look at the attached samples. He's not trying to trademark that format. Really folks, READ the whole thing, look at the attachments. The title portion on each of the samples is a custom design.


Looking at the submitted example covers, which are available as part of the application and thus a matter of public record, it seems the posture of the figure is intended to be flexible, as is the number of figures -- some show just a central male figure, others also have one or more female figures, and one shows only a female figure (I think). Some show a static figure, others show action. Some include creatures while others don't. Also, despite the mention of men and axes in the application, some of the sample covers show an anthropomorphic feline figure holding a gun; in another, the man has a spear. So it's not just about a particular kind of weapon, not just about showing a human male. It's very hard to see what's consistently similar about these covers other than 1) the series title and book title/episode number is centered towards the top, 2) the series title is above the book title, 3) the author name is centered toward the bottom, and 4) at least one living being on the cover is holding a weapon of some kind. Fonts are different from series to series. I'm just not getting what could make all these covers a single mark. The only real similarity among them is illustration style, IMO. And the fact that the author's name is the same, of course, but he's not trying to TM his author name.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

The basic requirement to be able to read a book is the ability to read. That includes reading titles and author names.

A reader can't see the name on the cover and realize it isn't by MSE? 

This is patently ridiculous.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

If someone is worried about people ripping off their series names or people not being able to distinguish their books from copy cats then they need to have more unique series names, not generic ones.  They need to stand out, not try to lay claim to something generic or that is widely used.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

John Van Stry, regarding the post of yours I just deleted: where was that material quoted from? If it was a private communication from the TMing author to you, we can't have it. He can come and explain his reasoning here himself -- that's absolutely fine, and it would be great to get his input. We will all be civil to him <looks around and hefts yellow snowball menacingly>. But attributing words to him that we can't all see proof he actually said would be hearsay.


----------



## 91831 (Jul 18, 2016)

Okay, I'm a bit confuddled by these TM's because I thought that if you had a TM you HAD to enforce it every single time in order for you to ever enforce it when you really needed it? But a lot of these guys who are going on a TM spree seem to be saying they won't actually enforce anything unless they want to?

Ha - I just went to quote, but the quote got stolen!  There was a comment that said that one book looked very similar to another so people got confuddled... so okay, they look similar, but what if the guy (gender neut) decides to just flip the title and author around?  Not gonna stop anyone else 'copying' ya.


----------



## John Van Stry (May 25, 2011)

Okay, just looked it up. 'Specimens' are a part of the filing. 
https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/laws-regulations/specimen-refusal-and-how-overcome-refusal


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

John Van Stry said:


> Okay, just looked it up. 'Specimens' are a part of the filing.
> https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/laws-regulations/specimen-refusal-and-how-overcome-refusal


Right, yes. But it's hard for me to tell from the specimens exactly what the mark is supposed to encompass. I mean, the features they have in common show up in so many covers. Yours for instance -- series title above book title, both centered near the top; author name, centered near the bottom; central figure(s) with weapon(s). If the author is granted this mark, it seems to me he would have to defend it against covers like your _Loose Ends_, which shares the same characteristics. If he doesn't defend the mark against all transgressors, it won't be there for him when he decides he does want to defend it. That's my understanding, anyway.


----------



## Mike_Kraus (May 16, 2017)

Becca Mills said:


> If the author is granted this mark, it seems to me he would have to defend it against covers like your _Loose Ends_, which shares the same characteristics. If he doesn't defend the mark against all transgressors, it won't be there for him when he decides he does want to defend it. That's my understanding, anyway.


That's exactly why this is alarming; if a trademark holder doesn't defend it vigorously, they risk losing it. And it's so generic, so the defense would entail going after a wide swath of authors across many genres.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

There's currently parallel and duplicating discussion of this TM effort here and in the Cockygate megathread. I'm going to try to transfer the TM-focused posts from this thread over to that one, as keeping track of both threads in a timely way is proving difficult ... and why invent the wheel in two places? Not sure I'll be able to, but I'll give it a try.

ETA: I'm getting a database error. Going to lock this thread for a few minutes and try again. If that doesn't work ... oh well. Guess I need a bigger snowball.

EagainTA: Annnnnd, nope. So I'll just *suggest* we move discussion of the trademark issue over to the Cockygate thread, which is where all the info on trademark law, filing letters of protest, etc., has been collected.


----------



## andrea2070 (Apr 15, 2018)

Sorry, Becca. This turn from the original topic is entirely my doing. Although I'm not all that experienced posting here, even I should have easily seen that my TM post wasn't a good idea. I'll now return to my usual place of lurking where I can do no damage.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

KelliWolfe said:


> Thank god, it wasn't just me.


Seriously, I thought I'd had a stroke.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

andrea2070 said:


> Sorry, Becca. This turn from the original topic is entirely my doing. Although I'm not all that experienced posting here, even I should have easily seen that my TM post wasn't a good idea. I'll now return to my usual place of lurking where I can do no damage.


No need for apologies, andrea! As you can see, I was posting on it here as well. It was a natural choice, I think. Only when I noticed the Cockygate thread becoming active with the same focus did it occur to me that it might be better to group it all together there.

And as it turns out, the thread-splitting feature of the forum software is actually broken. Now we know and can get it fixed ... happy outcome.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Kathy Dee (Aug 27, 2016)

J. Tanner said:


> Are you sure? I'm no expert, but a quick search shows the typical type of series trademark on this:
> 
> "Series of non-fiction books in the fields of self-development, self-improvement, and personal achievement"
> 
> ...


Yes! 100% Sure!

Was unable to find the court judgement that I specifically recall. It was posted online and you may find it if you persist with your research. However, The Napoleon Hill Foundation's site is clear enough that the title _Think and Grow Rich_ is indeed a *trademark*. ...

http://www.naphill.org/about/trademarks-copyrights/


----------



## D-C (Jan 13, 2014)

WasAnn said:


> Looks like your King Ensnared book cover would also fall under this TM based on the verbiage and example.


This generic cover layout encompasses pretty much every urban fantasy book in the market today.


----------



## Glis Moriarty (Jun 20, 2018)

Dragovian said:


> his Dragon Slayer books


Thank you for this. 
It led me, inter alia, to the wonderful Jasper Fforde website.

Then looked up MSE reviews on Goodreads. 4.22 average. 2,048 reviews, 35,561 ratings. Goodreads member since March 2016 and has 65 distinct works. 
Nothing in the reviews to entice me to open one of his books - I'm not part of his target audience - but they all seemed different. 
I then looked at 5 of the reviewers leaving him 5 star reviews. Their review averages were 5.0, 4.96, 4.95, 4.80 and 4.05. Very small sample, so does not mean much statistically. But still ...

As a reader, methinks I will have to check out all the reviewers in future.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

D-C said:


> This generic cover layout encompasses pretty much every urban fantasy book in the market today.


And pretty much every thriller, spy novels, a lot of mystery books, probably quite a number of epic fantasy books, and who knows what else? It's too broad. As to protesting it? A web search should bring up the place where protests can be sent. Best to do it now, while it only costs time.


----------



## boba1823 (Aug 13, 2017)

Is there still time to trademark the cover design where it's the _author name_ on top, title / series on bottom, and.. err, various stuffs in between?

Maybe we can all go in together on it


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

she-la-ti-da said:


> As to protesting it? A web search should bring up the place where protests can be sent. Best to do it now, while it only costs time.


Directions and advice from Kevin Kneupper appear in this thread as well. I'll track it down.

Edit: forgot to add the link
Edit again: specifically, see here


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Thanks for putting the link in. I didn't have time to look it up.

As to protesting the cover design TM, I read on another thread that the person in question is dropping that? Seems his attorney filed "too broad" of an application. This should be a lesson in not letting an attorney file anything you haven't vetted, I guess.


----------



## Cebelius (Jun 27, 2018)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Or an author could have a high percentage of 5-Star reviews because most readers loved the book. It could also be that the author sells well because his audience enjoys his stuff.


Quite frankly, this.

I have one book, and with the exception of a single facebook group advert posting, a signal boost on tumblr, and a HAY I PUT A BUK OWT GUYS!1 on a forum of which I'm a long time resident, I did no marketing for it. Quite frankly I expected it to tank because it is - say it with me now - my first book. I just crossed the 30 day mark and with 157 reviews I'm at 84% five star with an overall 4.8 rating. People who aren't into the genre would hate the book I'm sure, but those who are into it are REALLY into it, they know exactly what they like, and that's what I gave them. There's no crime there, and no funny business.

The genre is extremely tight, and I made sure to REALLY HAMMER HOME what that genre was in my title and elsewhere to avoid casual passerby picking up my book and going WTF!?? (Incidentally, my number one critical review came from just such a person, and he readily admits in the body of the review that he should have paid more attention  )

One of the two authors being discussed to open this thread has similarly high reviews, and having read the vast majority of his work and been a fan of it personally, I can say that - at least in terms of his reviews - I rather suspect he was completely on the level. He just wrote books that his target audience wanted to read, and they really liked them.


----------



## boba1823 (Aug 13, 2017)

Cebelius said:


> . . . and a HAY I PUT A BUK OWT GUYS!1 on a forum of which I'm a long time resident


See, now that's what I'm talking about when I say fantastic reader targeting


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Or an author could have a high percentage of 5-Star reviews because most readers loved the book. It could also be that the author sells well because his audience enjoys his stuff.





Cebelius said:


> Quite frankly, this.


Exactly. Count me as another one who gets irritated at the assumption that a book can't have high reviews organically. A couple of mine do, and they've had little to no advertising. They didn't break any sales records but sold well when first out and are still sticking pretty well. I don't have ARC teams and for the early ones didn't have even a newsletter or blog.

Some of my others don't have that pattern. They didn't hit readers as hard and positively. That's the way it goes.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

ellenoc said:


> I don't have ARC teams


It's the ARC teams which could be part of the problem. If the team contains a group of reviewers who are on Amazon's radar for manipulation, the author using them becomes suspect too. As pointed out above, when the reviewers only give 5 or 4 stars, Amazon is going to consider them suspect.

And an ARC team which only consists of fans, and therefore only generates 4 and 5 star reviews, is going to attract Amazon's bots, and thus unwanted attention.

For some authors, it could be the accumulation of strikes, from little things they don't consider a problem, which then prompts Amazon to crawl up their author arse with a microscope.


----------



## 91831 (Jul 18, 2016)

So in the shared post on the TM thread, the second author in question said something about hopefully being back in about a week (this part wasn't written in the TM thread, but it IS in the same post that has been verified as being in the 20books group).  If I am wrong to share this, please feel free to delete.

He says:

"I have a fan that works in Amazon Corporate and he's asked around- apparently my latest book was flagged for copyright infringement, and they apparently have a new system that is scanning books and making all sorts of false positives. He thinks my account might be up in a week, but that might not be true, he might not be talking to the right people, and I'm not trying to get my hopes up."


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Disclaimer: I have never worked for Amazon. 

But I have worked for several large corporations.  Sharing inside information like this, especially stuff that likely touched the hands of several lawyers is a BIG no no. That is walked straight to the front door by security stuff right there. 

Not saying it doesn’t happen. But if it did, then he just seriously put his friend(s) job(s) at risk by disclosing that. 

Assuming it’s true and not just your generic “I have an inside at Amazon” boasting.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

evdarcy said:


> ...apparently my latest book was flagged for copyright infringement, and they apparently have a new system that is scanning books and making all sorts of false positives...


But that doesn't ring true. Amazon already have a copyright procedure, and it starts with an email asking for verification you hold the copyright. So if infringement was the issue, he should have had an email about it.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

TimothyEllis said:


> But that doesn't ring true. Amazon already have a copyright procedure, and it starts with an email asking for verification you hold the copyright. So if infringement was the issue, he should have had an email about it.


This is true. When I released short stories from an anthology I'd put together I had to write emails to Amazon on behalf of some of the authors when they tried to upload their stories individually. The files had been flagged for copyright infringement, but Amazon didn't cancel their accounts.

I doubt it was extra spaces that got his account pulled either. They would have sent him a quality notice.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Lilly_Frost said:


> So many things about it don't ring true that it sounds like "Carol of the Bells" in my head.


This comment wins the internet today.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Still waiting for all of these amazing bestselling authors with hordes of adoring fans to publish wide.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

KelliWolfe said:


> Still waiting for all of these amazing bestselling authors with hordes of adoring fans to publish wide.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Let's keep things civil, folks -- we're a no-snark zone around here. Well, a minimal-snark zone, at any rate.  

I hear word the thread-splitting function may have been fixed, so I'm going to try again to excise the trademark-related material. There may be a brief thread-lock involved ...

ETA: It ain't fixed.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

KelliWolfe said:


> Still waiting for all of these amazing bestselling authors with hordes of adoring fans to publish wide.


Speaking only for myself, if I was trying (hoping?) to get my KDP account reinstated, I wouldn't pull that trigger yet. I'd wait until my chances dropped near zero.


----------



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

Becca Mills said:


> Let's keep things civil, folks -- we're a no-snark zone around here. Well, a minimal-snark zone, at any rate.


But ... but ... we're so good at it.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

KelliWolfe said:


> Still waiting for all of these amazing bestselling authors with hordes of adoring fans to publish wide.


Isn't that the defining feature? If these guys (generic) are so amazing, why can't they make it wide?

Because somehow their success is related to KU, of course. For some, their stuff fits the KU readership to a T. For others, of course, they're abusing the system somehow.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Anarchist said:


> Speaking only for myself, if I was trying (hoping?) to get my KDP account reinstated, I wouldn't pull that trigger yet. I'd wait until my chances dropped near zero.


I agree that some might be waiting to see if they are reinstated or need a bit of time to make their plans. However, if it was me there would be no way I would go back into KU if I felt I was pulled unfairly. I would definitely go wide, and especially if I had a huge pool of readers. And I would sell direct on my website too and fire up an email to my list with all the links showing them where they could get my books.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

JWright said:


> I agree that some might be waiting to see if they are reinstated or need a bit of time to make their plans. However, if it was me there would be no way I would go back into KU if I felt I was pulled unfairly. I would definitely go wide, and especially if I had a huge pool of readers. And I would sell direct on my website too and fire up an email to my list with all the links showing them where they could get my books.


That would all make sense, wouldn't it? Interestingly enough, most of them haven't updated their websites or anything even with a "Sorry for the inconvenience but the books aren't available at the moment" notice. There's just the sound of crickets, and a lone wolf howling mournfully in the distance.



Becca Mills said:


> Let's keep things civil, folks -- we're a no-snark zone around here. Well, a minimal-snark zone, at any rate.


OK, I was a little snarky. But I think it's still a valid point. You would think that given the number of high ranking pen names involved that at least some of them would be making a concerted effort to go wide and possibly republish their (non-stuffed) books to Amazon through D2D or Streetlib. The fact that they aren't is... Interesting? As JWright said, after having something like that happen, even if you got your Amazon account reinstated would you really want to risk going back into KU? People are nervous enough about their accounts over this and the page read stripping issues already. If you had your account terminated and you knew that Amazon was going to be examining everything you did from now on under a microscope, why take the risk? It would make far more sense to stay out of KU and go wide, in which case why not start getting your books out there?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

KelliWolfe said:


> OK, I was a little snarky. But I think it's still a valid point. You would think that given the number of high ranking pen names involved that at least some of them would be making a concerted effort to go wide and possibly republish their (non-stuffed) books to Amazon through D2D or Streetlib. The fact that they aren't is... Interesting? As JWright said, after having something like that happen, even if you got your Amazon account reinstated would you really want to risk going back into KU? People are nervous enough about their accounts over this and the page read stripping issues already. If you had your account terminated and you knew that Amazon was going to be examining everything you did from now on under a microscope, why take the risk? It would make far more sense to stay out of KU and go wide, in which case why not start getting your books out there?


Well, I have no idea what's up with these two fantasy authors, and my general outlook about my own books is like David's -- I don't like the idea of exclusivity. I'm thinking about a short spell in KU for a new series I'm working on, but honestly, even considering it sort of gives me hives. I wouldn't be if Amazon hadn't apparently decided to stop terminating accounts in connection with the page-stripping issue. That was scary stuff.

That said, I can see reasons why these authors might be hesitant to go wide immediately, even if they're innocent of wrongdoing. Like David suggested, some genres seem to have the bulk of their readership in KU. Certain types of UF seem to, definitely. LitRPG might as well -- I don't read that one, so I'm not sure. Harem and RH books might too? So there might be a sense of utter defeat, like 95% of your audience has been taken away, and it's all hopeless if you can't get back into KU. It'd take me a while to get my self together, if I were feeling that way. There also might be a desire not to do anything that might send an oh-yeah-who-needs-you-anyway message to Amazon at a delicate juncture. Trying to get the removed books back on Amazon through a backdoor seems _very _risky to me. I wouldn't want to try that until I'd exhausted all possibilities with Amazon because it might really tick them off.

Not defending these guys, because I really have zero idea what's happened. But as someone who's been on the wrong end of an undeserved (though understandable) draconian Amazon reaction, I don't think we should jump to conclusions based on this or that little thing, because little things might look other than they really are when you're viewing them as part of an incomplete picture.


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow (Jun 10, 2018)

Becca nailed it. The readership outside KU for LitRpg and Harem is a wasteland. You can do searches on Barnes and Noble to see for yourself. It's not that KU is the bulk... it's the only way.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

I've seen readers flat out state that they won't read books that are not in KU. So in tiny sub-genres where writers have carved out a niche, this is a huge factor. These readers have been trained to expect cheap nearly free content. If they lost a favorite author, they'll just happily move on to another one. Like it or not, KU has opened opportunities to reach sub-groups that traditional publishing isn't interested in. So I don't think it's fair to attack those fantasy authors on that front. Both were hugely popular and both have rabid fans begging Amazon to reinstate them. I've read both authors. Their writing was pretty damned good. Which is why this entire situation has me so puzzled.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Gentleman Zombie said:


> I've seen readers flat out state that they won't read books that are not in KU. So in tiny sub-genres where writers have carved out a niche, this is a huge factor. These readers have been trained to expect cheap nearly free content. If they lost a favorite author, they'll just happily move on to another one. Like it or not, KU has opened opportunities to reach sub-groups that traditional publishing isn't interested in. So I don't think it's fair to attack those fantasy authors on that front. Both were hugely popular and both have rabid fans begging Amazon to reinstate them. I've read both authors. Their writing was pretty damned good. Which is why this entire situation has me so puzzled.


I'm not seeing anyone being attacked. On the one hand you say that readers of certain sub-genres will only read in KU and then say they have rabid fans? I don't know how rabid I would call that if they won't shell out a few dollars for your books on another platform.

I personally would never rely solely on KU for genre and/or readers. Then again, some of them may have made enough short-term cash to allow them to venture into something else - whether that's in writing/self-publishing or something else. So it might work out fine.

Anyway, everyone does get to decide how to run their own writing career and self-publishing business. I admire those who got their page reads stripped and threatening letters and then dusted themselves off and got their books out wide. It's totally unfair and it shouldn't have happened to them, but they didn't give up.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow said:


> Becca nailed it. The readership outside KU for LitRpg and Harem is a wasteland. You can do searches on Barnes and Noble to see for yourself. It's not that KU is the bulk... it's the only way.


Has anyone tried?

Serious question. Sometimes it's a chicken and egg scenario. If all LitRPG and harem authors pretty much insta-enroll in KU then of course it won't exist elsewhere. But maybe therein lies opportunity


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow (Jun 10, 2018)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Has anyone tried?
> 
> Serious question. Sometimes it's a chicken and egg scenario. If all LitRPG and harem authors pretty much insta-enroll in KU then of course it won't exist elsewhere. But maybe therein lies opportunity


I searched a few site's just to see if my hunch was right and while you can find a handful they might have one review. Some of them have like 7 books in their series and that seems like a damn good try but I don't know how much traction they are getting. KU has allowed a number of niche places to flourish but outside that ecosphere it's still dominated by people who are willing to put down green on a book. And that doesn't seem to be the LitRpg/Harem crowd at least outside Manga.

But hey I could be wrong. I'd like to see someone give it a try and share their numbers.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Gentleman Zombie said:


> So I don't think it's fair to attack those fantasy authors on that front. Both were hugely popular and both have rabid fans begging Amazon to reinstate them. I've read both authors. Their writing was pretty damned good. Which is why this entire situation has me so puzzled.


Yet how many times have we seen in other areas, such as the music or sports biz, that HUGE people with HUGE followings making HUGE money STILL take illegal or unauthorized (by, say league rules) shortcuts and get themselves in HUGE trouble. They get big heads and think they're untouchable, or they get greedy, or they overcommit to an unsustainable lifestyle and they get desperate and cheat.


----------



## RinG (Mar 12, 2013)

Can they publish wide at this point? I know when you unpublish a KU book, you still have to wait out the KU term before you can publish it elsewhere. No idea if the same applies on a suspended/cancelled account.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Rinelle Grey said:


> Can they publish wide at this point? I know when you unpublish a KU book, you still have to wait out the KU term before you can publish it elsewhere. No idea if the same applies on a suspended/cancelled account.


I would think that if Amazon cancels your account, you're no longer beholden to anything they say. At least I would not feel particularly charitable towards Amazon.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Rinelle Grey said:


> Can they publish wide at this point? I know when you unpublish a KU book, you still have to wait out the KU term before you can publish it elsewhere.


Where did you get that from?

If the book is unpublished, it's no longer in KU. Period. I've seen nothing to indicate KU terms have any lingering effects once the book is out. You sign up for a 90 day term. But if the book is pulled, unpublished, thrown out, or the author banned from Amazon, the KU term would simply cease.


----------



## RinG (Mar 12, 2013)

TimothyEllis said:


> Where did you get that from?


Because I personally unpublished some serial episodes just this morning, and the confirm page quite clearly said that unpublishing does not remove the book from serving out its KU term.

Normally I would assume that the account being cancelled would cancel the Select enrolment, but I have heard that the audio contract is not being released, so I wouldn't assume anything at this point.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Rinelle Grey said:


> Because I personally unpublished some serial episodes just this morning, and the confirm page quite clearly said that unpublishing does not remove the book from serving out its KU term.


That's new. I've not heard that one before. I unpublished a book last month, which was in KU, and didn't get that message.

Maybe the bleed of books from KU is starting to bother Amazon and they are trying to get authors to think again when they unpublish.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

TimothyEllis said:


> That's new. I've not heard that one before. I unpublished a book last month, which was in KU, and didn't get that message.
> 
> Maybe the bleed of books from KU is starting to bother Amazon and they are trying to get authors to think again when they unpublish.


No. It's standard terms of the agreement and has been around since KU began. It's why it was a big deal when the shift from KU1 to KU2 happened and Amazon allowed you to remove your books without penalty. If you unpublish them, you can't publish them until the term of the agreement ends.

If you request for removal from the program, you are terminating the contract and if Amazon grants your removal you can then publish elsewhere. However, if you unpublish or if Amazon terminates your account (which isn't the same as terminating the KDP-Select agreement), that agreement continues until it runs its course. You could probably petition to get the right to publish it elsewhere, but depending how Amazon feels, they could answer yes or no.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

RPatton said:


> No. It's standard terms of the agreement and has been around since KU began.


Ok, but my point was the message is new. They are actually telling you now, before you press the button, when they didn't a month ago.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Rinelle Grey said:


> Can they publish wide at this point? I know when you unpublish a KU book, you still have to wait out the KU term before you can publish it elsewhere. No idea if the same applies on a suspended/cancelled account.


Even in that case, it depends. I recently pulled a few of my books out of KU to try going wide since they hadn't gotten reads in a very long time. I emailed KDP Support and asked them to remove my books from KU. They took them out of KU right away and I was able to go wide without waiting until the current enrollment period was over.


----------



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

There seems an obvious connection that has possibly been lost in the mix of so much stuff going on...

I can see a bright clear line going back to boxsets that were using illegitimate methods to authors being banned today.

I remember that Amazon took a long time to send warning letters to those people who tried that free book promotion service that turned out to be bots.

Amazon has all the time in the world. If bots or incentivized buys or whatever was used two years ago... they still have that data floating around.

I think more bans are on the way because Amazon has nothing but time when it comes to wiping out bad actors.

_Edited, pursuant to the site owner's decision here. Further posts along these lines will be removed. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

This is...fascinating. 

In the same morbid way that a car crash is.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

........ said:


> There seems an obvious connection that has possibly been lost in the mix of so much stuff going on...


I charted it out with arrows and connections and histories... Jaw dropping connections.

I feel confident saying that the accounts that have been terminated will not be reinstated and there will be quite a few more might be rolling in later. If you stop focusing on the trees and instead look at the forest, it becomes very clear. But to see the forest, you have to put aside the notion that book stuffing caused or created all this. You have to contort your understanding of botfarms. And consider that all the shady stuff is a smoke screen for some alleged tactics that would probably be considered illegal.


----------



## 3rotic (Mar 28, 2013)

RPatton said:


> I charted it out with arrows and connections and histories... Jaw dropping connections.
> 
> I feel confident saying that the accounts that have been terminated will not be reinstated and there will be quite a few more might be rolling in later. If you stop focusing on the trees and instead look at the forest, it becomes very clear. But to see the forest, you have to put aside the notion that book stuffing caused or created all this. You have to contort your understanding of botfarms. And consider that all the shady stuff is a smoke screen for some alleged tactics that would probably be considered illegal.


Please elaborate!


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Please post the chart somewhere everyone can get to.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Stepping in with the standard caution not to name names or request name-naming PMs here in the thread. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Aw, Mom! You never let us do _anything_.


----------



## Lefevre (Feb 1, 2014)

3rotic said:


> Please elaborate!


No doubt! Maybe this is somewhere on this post already? If not, can someone who knows about the mysterious villian(s) list the black hat marketing things they were doing? This would probably help others in the forum not use those same practices (accidentally or intentionally).


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Becca Mills said:


> Stepping in with the standard caution not to name names or request name-naming PMs here in the thread.


We get all that.

But its becoming clear we need to know who to avoid in the future. The risk of being contaminated by these people is immense, and it appears even being in an anthology with them is toxic. And since I have one coming up later in the year, I want to be able to ask the organizer if any of those people are submitting.

We also need to know so we dont do newsletter swaps with these people.

Seriously, these people are a cancer, and even those touched by the cancer might transfer the cancer to us. We have to know who they are, in order to quarantine them. The only alternative is to quarantine all authors and never ever take a chance on working with one.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

KelliWolfe said:


> Aw, Mom! You never let us do _anything_.


Snort. 



Lefevre said:


> If not, can someone who knows about the mysterious villian(s) list the black hat marketing things they were doing? This would probably help others in the forum not use those same practices (accidentally or intentionally).


Speaking cautiously, here ... it's fine to talk about black-/gray-hat tactics, loopholes, and other problematic practices, but it should be done in a way that doesn't implicate identifiable people. An excellent model to follow (IMO) is PhoenixS's post explaining incentivized reading, from an older thread. I don't doubt that Phoenix had individuals in mind, but they are not identifiable from what she wrote.

Please also keep in mind the note I added in editing ........'s post. That is a restricted subject here, so if that particular promoter is key to RPatton's findings, there will need to be some careful treading indeed.


----------



## Elizabeth S. (Oct 20, 2016)

TimothyEllis said:


> We get all that.
> 
> But its becoming clear we need to know who to avoid in the future. The risk of being contaminated by these people is immense, and it appears even being in an anthology with them is toxic. And since I have one coming up later in the year, I want to be able to ask the organizer if any of those people are submitting.
> 
> ...


This is true, but in some cases, the mods have to protect the posters here as well as the community as a whole. No one wants to be slapped with a frivolous lawsuit--even if it's a junk lawsuit, people will still need to spend money on lawyers and filings to defend themselves.

It's frustrating to have to be vague, but as we've seen in the past, if the wrong person gets upset, a whole lot of people can suffer.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Elizabeth S. said:


> if the wrong person gets upset, a whole lot of people can suffer.


So its alright that people suffer, because they dont know who to avoid.

But its not alright to name someone and maybe upset them, resulting in people suffering?

Seriously? 

This fear of being sued appears to be a bigger problem than actual real problems.


----------



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

TimothyEllis said:


> We get all that.
> 
> But its becoming clear we need to know who to avoid in the future. The risk of being contaminated by these people is immense, and it appears even being in an anthology with them is toxic. And since I have one coming up later in the year, I want to be able to ask the organizer if any of those people are submitting.
> 
> ...


In terms of keeping yourself safe in regard to participating in boxsets (and keeping in mind I'm not naming anyone or implying anything about anyone), I'd start with a simple google search for "book boxset scam".

You'll find plenty of links to sites describing the problematic behavior, the consequences and in some cases who was involved.

Beyond that, if you're working with a specific promoter, google them and add words like scam, fraud, and so on to your search. Google the people in the boxset and see if they've appeared in any other boxsets.

I'd especially look for any boxsets that are listed on Goodreads but no longer are for sales on Amazon. Removing a boxset isn't a sign of a problem... however it was one of the tactics used in the past - a quick hard push and then removal before the bad reviews came in.

My personal opinion... I'm never doing a boxset with anyone. It's simply not worth it. Enter into a boxset with twenty other people and now you have twenty future problems to worry about. Any one of them in the future may do someone bad and then Amazon goes crawling back over the data to find your boxset.

I know people say there are benefits to cross-promo boxsets, the most obvious being gaining new readers but in the face of complete Amazon account banning, the risk to reward ratio just doesn't work.

If you're banned, then it's ALL FUTURE AMAZON MONEY vs. whatever small benefit you gained from cross promo.

Co-writing - sure, good idea. Getting together a small group of established authors to each write one book in a series set in a certain location - fine, sounds interesting.

But entering a boxset with twenty people, many of whom you don't know and can't verify anything about?

I just don't think it's worth it anymore.

Hopefully this is useful in protecting yourself. There are multiple sources of information out in the world that can help.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

TimothyEllis said:


> We get all that.
> 
> But its becoming clear we need to know who to avoid in the future. The risk of being contaminated by these people is immense, and it appears even being in an anthology with them is toxic. And since I have one coming up later in the year, I want to be able to ask the organizer if any of those people are submitting.
> 
> ...


Tim, I understand the concern and the frustration, but I'm pretty sure KBoards will never be the place where people can be called out based on analysis, rumor, unauthorized screenshots, or anything besides direct personal experience.

I've been in several boxed sets. They were all published some time ago, and I went into them with no thought as to the ethics of my fellow participants. I didn't just choose to assume they were all cool; the possibility that someone might not be cool never occurred to me. Now, some years later, it would occur to me. I'd definitely think about it and would look into the folks I was planning to work to the degree I reasonably could.

That said, I find the possibility of wrongly identifying someone as a metaphorical cancer just as frightening. I'd rather suffer the consequences of unknowingly associating with an unethical person than ruin someone who turned out to be innocent, mostly innocent, or guilty but, in retrospect, not guilty enough to deserve ruin. I find that possibility frightening, and I think it could happen. People can have the best of intentions and be absolutely, totally, 100% sure they're right while being very, very wrong. It happens every day.

So, yeah. We're very careful about this stuff.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

........ said:


> I'd start with a simple google search for "book boxset scam".


Nothing coming up. It appears the question isn't being asked in Australia, so it generates nothing relevant. Everything coming up is either about box sets in general, or scams in general.


----------



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

TimothyEllis said:


> Nothing coming up. It appears the question isn't being asked in Australia, so it generates nothing relevant. Everything coming up is either about box sets in general, or scams in general.


Take away the quote marks to do the broad search.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

TimothyEllis said:


> So its alright that people suffer, because they dont know who to avoid.
> 
> But its not alright to name someone and maybe upset them, resulting in people suffering?
> 
> ...


I have no knowledge of the forum's legal risk in such matters (beyond being aware of the basic fact that anyone can be sued by anyone for anything anytime ... that's just life). That sort of thing is above my pay grade. So far as I know, those issues were not the primary driver for the development of KBoards's forum decorum. It was more about the kind of culture and conversation Harvey wanted here.

I think it's important to keep in mind that we don't try to be all things to all people. This is a place to have certain kinds of conversations, so long as those conversations are seen as having value; other kinds of conversations will have to be pursued elsewhere, and naming names is generally going to fall into that latter category.

Once our staff has a chance to reconvene following absences for life events, we'll talk about the more limited question of naming those who've been publicly sanctioned by Amazon. But that's always likely to be a relatively limited group of people compared to those who are rumored to be shady.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

........ said:


> Take away the quote marks to do the broad search.


I didn't use quote marks.


----------



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

TimothyEllis said:


> I didn't use quote marks.


Not sure what else to tell you... the google search brings up multiple pages commenting on book boxset scams.

You're on kboards right now - go to the search function and type in boxset scam. Lots of useful info on how to avoid issues.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

I tried using that search term on Yahoo and didn't see much. Might be driven by what you normally search for. Although there was an interesting post by someone participating in that 24-author book discussed in another thread where they laid out their approach for doing a boxset that had multiple TOS violations described. (Without any indication they thought they were problematic. Only reason it came up was because they had a section on how people might consider it scammy to use letters when they were earned through a set.)


----------



## Desert Rose (Jun 2, 2015)

Becca Mills said:


> There also might be a desire not to do anything that might send an oh-yeah-who-needs-you-anyway message to Amazon at a delicate juncture. Trying to get the removed books back on Amazon through a backdoor seems _very _risky to me. I wouldn't want to try that until I'd exhausted all possibilities with Amazon because it might really tick them off.


I think it says a lot about Amazon that people feel the need to tiptoe around them like a jealous boyfriend...or ex-boyfriend, in this case.


----------



## Hope (Nov 28, 2014)

I added 'Amazon' to the search term 'book boxset scam' and got a lot of links. I haven't actually read any yet, so I don't know how relevant they are, but they do look relevant.


----------



## Elizabeth S. (Oct 20, 2016)

TimothyEllis said:


> This fear of being sued appears to be a bigger problem than actual real problems.


Several people on these forums got sued not long ago. I'd call that an "actual real problem." I'm not sure what else I can say that won't get edited, but if you look for lawsuits, you'll find the info.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

There's a thread on the litrpg subreddit that might be enlightening to some.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

There is a very real concern about being sued, as it's happened already for people just making comments here and elsewhere on the Internet.

As to where to find information, it takes some digging, to be sure. A lot of the links turn back here, mainly to the huge locked thread, which can be helpful to read but has been pruned to some extent (I haven't looked at the thread in a while, but it was huge).

David Gaughran has some great posts on his blog. Victoria Strauss (I believe) did some posts about the promoter connected to some/all of the terminated accounts. There used to be a great site that had screen caps of stuff related to the mega thread, but it returns a 404 error now.

If someone wants a safe place to discuss these matters, the new forum that's been posted about (in another thread, I believe) has a member's only place, but also a thread in the public area. Wild accusations shouldn't be spread anywhere, but discussion is allowed there.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Try using this search string:  book box set scams amazon and see what you get. Without the "book", I got a lot of stuff about people sending empty boxes to buyers rather than the product purchased, which is not the same thing.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Becca Mills said:


> Tim, I understand the concern and the frustration, but I'm pretty sure KBoards will never be the place where people can be called out based on analysis, rumor, unauthorized screenshots, or anything besides direct personal experience.
> 
> I've been in several boxed sets. They were all published some time ago, and I went into them with no thought as to the ethics of my fellow participants. I didn't just choose to assume they were all cool; the possibility that someone might not be cool never occurred to me. Now, some years later, it would occur to me. I'd definitely think about it and would look into the folks I was planning to work to the degree I reasonably could.
> 
> ...


I think I love you.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

The lawsuit thing may not be a primary concern, but it's not something to be dismissed either. I was horrified when several kboarders were hit with expensive frivolous lawsuits for simply commenting in a heated thread. And considering many of the authors involved in recent scandals seemed to be part of the same circle, being cautious makes a helluva lot of sense. This is a public, and easily searchable forum. Always remember that.


----------



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

TimothyEllis said:


> So its alright that people suffer, because they dont know who to avoid.
> 
> But its not alright to name someone and maybe upset them, resulting in people suffering?
> 
> ...


In some ways, I share your frustration. At the same time, I understand the moderator's desire to stick to the vision of the founder in terms of what is allowed and not allowed.

Being able to name names is a double-edged sword. A lot of times, the people named have been guilty. Occasionally, they haven't been. If we become a community whose self-appointed job is to shun people, that can get very dangerous very quickly. Aside from the danger of litigation, the danger of accidentally catching an innocent person in the net is significant. We always rightly criticize Amazon when it strikes the innocent with the ban hammer. We don't want to put ourselves in the same position. Some people, like David Gaughran, do extensive research before drawing conclusions, but I have seen people on this forum draw conclusions based on far less. There is also a tendency to pile on. I could easily see an innocent person get wrecked that way.

I do hope the moderators leave some discretion to discuss direct experience. That's important.

As far as safety, I'm just not getting into any box sets. I'm not doing any newsletter swaps. in general, I'm staying away from anything that associates me too closely with an author I don't know personally. Now that Amazon is more serious about cleaning up its own store, I think it will be easier to relax in the future. Right now, there are still many dubious actors in play.

(Keep in mind that in some cases, the dubious actors were highly respected at some points. Even if Kboards allowed naming of names, that's no guarantee that everyone who was a potential risk would be identified.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Anarchist said:


> I think I love you.


I, too, love Becca.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

C. Gockel said:


> I, too, love Becca.


And she ain't the only one I have a professional crush on.


----------



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

https://www.reddit.com/r/litrpg/comments/925suq/amazon_has_terminated_mses_account/

Summary: he appealed his ban, Amazon ended up terminating his account.

He made the following public statement:

Hey guys,

Getting a bunch of PMs and emails with words of encouragement and support.

I'm going to do Pateron and I'll just publish my books on iBooks, Kobo, and B&N. I'm going to keep writing with hopes that I can make a livable income on the other platforms, I'll at least finish my series. I'll try to get everything set up in the next few days. Thanks for the love.

-----
He was a massive bestseller on Amazon. There was speculation that his ban was from a misbehaving algorithm but it appears not. His author page is still visible in search results but goes to a dead link page now. Audiobooks are still up.

[Redacted] was another high profile Litrpg author who was banned around the same time. Will be interesting to see if Amazon upgrades to a full termination.

_This new thread has been merged in and edited. After all the trademark attention, I think Earle is thoroughly out of the bag, but we are still discussing (well, just beginning to discuss, given numerous issues at the moment) the name-naming issue, so I've redacted the other for now. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow (Jun 10, 2018)

I think I know but I'd like verification. What is the difference between a banned account and a terminated account? And does this affect their regular account or only their author one?


----------



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

OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow said:


> I think I know but I'd like verification. What is the difference between a banned account and a terminated account? And does this affect their regular account or only their author one?


I wondered about that too. When he was banned his author page was still live. A search for his name brought up results.

Now it's terminated I'm getting a dead page for his author page. Also when I searched his name without the hyphen it didn't give me results. Narrow exact match only.


----------



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

Gotta add that this is a massive financial loss for Michael-Scott Earle. Five figures to six figures a month and then terminated.

I think he might now be the highest profile (as in highest author rank) author Amazon has banned.

He has a lot of litrpg fans but they're heavily focused on KU so who knows if they'll follow him to other platforms.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

........ said:


> Gotta add that this is a massive financial loss for Michael-Scott Earle. Five figures to six figures a month and then terminated.
> 
> I think he might now be the highest profile (as in highest author rank) author Amazon has banned.
> 
> He has a lot of litrpg fans but they're heavily focused on KU so who knows if they'll follow him to other platforms.


If he was behaving badly, then even if they follow him to other platforms, he won't be able to make the same income because, well, other platforms don't have the same avenues for misbehavior.


----------



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

Maybe others with more knowledge to the TOS can answer: in MSE's case can he just start a new company and resume publishing?


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

........ said:


> Maybe others with more knowledge to the TOS can answer: in MSE's case can he just start a new company and resume publishing?


He wouldn't be the first person to do it, but I hope not.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

People are getting in through the back door via D2D. Eventually, one of two things will happen: 1. Amazon will crack down on D2D/D2D's listings, 2. Amazon will stop allowing D2D to publish on their platform.

Take your pick. I pick option 2. They've done it before.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

Patty Jansen said:


> People are getting in through the back door via D2D. Eventually, one of two things will happen: 1. Amazon will crack down on D2D/D2D's listings, 2. Amazon will stop allowing D2D to publish on their platform.


I didn't know it was possible to publish to Amazon via D2D? I thought they stopped it a few years ago.

ETA: I just looked and it's there. Well I never.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Lydniz said:


> I didn't know it was possible to publish to Amazon via D2D? I thought they stopped it a few years ago.
> 
> ETA: I just looked and it's there. Well I never.


What's that rock you were living under? LOL


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

One of the romance authors who was suspended/terminated a couple of weeks ago is now back on Amazon*, presumably after their case has been reviewed. Which is perhaps why a name and shame approach is not a wise idea. 

*As in, with the original KDP account, as all the publication dates for the Kindle books are the same.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

D2D is likely going to lose the ability to distribute to Amazon again, once Amazon finds out how people can get their books selling. The only thing that I can see why it hasn't happened already is that they can't get into KU that way, and KU is where they made their money. The whole point of all these black hat tactics is to game KU, which was easy and very profitable. If they have to rely on selling, those "compilations" with ten or twenty books won't be worth a dime. The click farms won't turn a profit, either.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

she-la-ti-da said:


> D2D is likely going to lose the ability to distribute to Amazon again, once Amazon finds out how people can get their books selling.


The question here is if Amazon can recognize the back door, and simply refuse to pay D2D the royalties on either a banned author, or banned books. This in itself could cause D2D to arrange to get notifications of banned author details, so they cant distribute to Amazon even if they try.

If I read the Amazon email correctly, I suspect Amazon is prepared for backdoor listing of both banned authors and banned books, and has already in place the mechanism to refuse to pay royalties.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Annie B said:


> A very high profile banned author/publisher is back on Amazon via setting up a special publishing account through a proxy and even got a Kindle Daily Deal I believe recently. So they aren't exactly savvy yet on keeping people from just going around them with proxies, but it might be that they'll start cracking down on that, too, eventually.


This is what I don't get. If a publicly-owned, under-funded university can run a plagiarism filter to check for copied text in essays, then the richest company in the world can't set up certain checks that the same books aren't being uploaded?


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Patty Jansen said:


> This is what I don't get. If a publicly-owned, under-funded university can run a plagiarism filter to check for copied text in essays, then the richest company in the world can't set up certain checks that the same books aren't being uploaded?


Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Amazon have a copy of every version of every book. While the logistics would turn your hair white, all it needs is raw processing power and a half decent programmer.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

WasAnn said:


> The answer to the question as to how so many of the banned ones wind up on Amazon is pretty easy: Not KDP account.
> 
> There's a "publishing company" that now holds a few of those accounts. It's been created under a shell which was created under a lawyer with a CV filled with weird supplements and hokey vitamins and stuff. It looks real from their web presence and is open to submissions. Let that sink in.
> 
> That fact that one of them got KDD and KMD really irritates me, because that's just wrong on every level, but the further fact that via this "publishing" company, many of the books are BACK IN KU. Since Publishers aren't treated the same as a regular KDP account, they can now go back to gaming the system to their heart's content...and be rewarded for it with a KDD.


My understanding is that books enrolled in KU through a publishing company are not paid by page-read. If that's correct, maybe these books will now be forced to compete on a more level playing field, with borrows paid a flat fee, like buys. No benefit to stuffing or botted/incentivized reads. The only way to cheat would be to hire click-farms to borrow the books, and I'm getting the sense Amazon is onto a lot of the click-farms out there. Seems very risky.

Am I misunderstanding the situation?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## boba1823 (Aug 13, 2017)

Becca Mills said:


> My understanding is that books enrolled in KU through a publishing company are not paid by page-read.


Apologies for the tangent, but is this something that is only available to e.g. larger trad pub types? Or is there a way for small (tiny!) publishers to get in on it through some route other than the usual KDP account signup?


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

badtothebone said:


> One of the romance authors who was suspended/terminated a couple of weeks ago is now back on Amazon*, presumably after their case has been reviewed. Which is perhaps why a name and shame approach is not a wise idea.
> 
> *As in, with the original KDP account, as all the publication dates for the Kindle books are the same.


Quoting this post in case anyone missed it.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

From reading those replies on the Reddit thread, seems as if a lot of people support him. Fair enough. But I find it hard pressed to believe that Amazon would just outright ban one of their best selling KU authors just because. If he got banned/terminated, then Amazon had enough evidence to warrant such a heavy handed option. Duh. Why do people then defend him when they cannot see the evidence presented against him simply because it hasn't been shared with the public?

I started publishing at the same time this author did and recall him soaring up the charts. He has great books...but I also recall him mentioning here on Kboards that he had saved thousands for advertising. It honestly sucks seeing this happen. We don't know what he did wrong, just that he DID do something wrong. Not a thing to rejoice or celebrate imo. I just hope he does cleaner work going forward for his own sake.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

........ said:


> https://www.reddit.com/r/litrpg/comments/925suq/amazon_has_terminated_mses_account/
> 
> Summary: he appealed his ban, Amazon ended up terminating his account.
> 
> ...


I get the gist from the "alternate forum" Zon is drawing a connection (which snagged Earle) between RH, boxsets and bot scams, with many authors who participated in the boxsets now losing their accounts.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

badtothebone said:


> One of the romance authors who was suspended/terminated a couple of weeks ago is now back on Amazon*, presumably after their case has been reviewed. Which is perhaps why a name and shame approach is not a wise idea.
> 
> *As in, with the original KDP account, as all the publication dates for the Kindle books are the same.





Anarchist said:


> Quoting this post in case anyone missed it.


I think people are trying to verify this. I myself have gone through the lists of names people posted on Twitter, and can't find who this could possibly be. I only see the pen names in *that* group that Amazon hasn't (yet?) banned.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

Ava Glass said:


> I think people are trying to verify this. I myself have gone through the lists of names people posted on Twitter, and can't find who this could possibly be. I only see the pen names in *that* group that Amazon hasn't (yet?) banned.


I think I know. And to be honest, they were one of the few names that didn't make sense. I assumed it might be something with another pen name, but I'm also willing to accept that they might have been sucked in because of too many shared variables and Amazon wanted time to do a post-mortem on the account. If I remember correctly, they were swept up in the second wave.

I do see others slowly coming back, but they seem to be coming back through distributors. So we'll see how long that lasts considering two things, they don't have KU anymore, and I don't think Amazon will be very happy.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

RPatton said:


> I think I know. And to be honest, they were one of the few names that didn't make sense. I assumed it might be something with another pen name, but I'm also willing to accept that they might have been sucked in because of too many shared variables and Amazon wanted time to do a post-mortem on the account. If I remember correctly, they were swept up in the second wave.


If I'm thinking of the right person then it might have been more a case of being caught doing something that's traditionally been KU ban-worthy but not full on account ban-worthy. It might just be a case of them coincidencidentally being caught in the same timeframe as the big bans.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Annie B said:


> A very high profile banned author/publisher is back on Amazon via setting up a special publishing account through a proxy and even got a Kindle Daily Deal I believe recently. So they aren't exactly savvy yet on keeping people from just going around them with proxies, but it might be that they'll start cracking down on that, too, eventually.


I hope so, Annie. What's the point of terminating an account, if you're just going to let them back in through a third party? Unless you're just putting a nice face on things, making people believe you're actually cleaning up your store.



> . . . a case of being caught doing something that�s traditionally been KU ban-worthy but not full on account ban-worthy. It might just be a case of them coincidencidentally being caught in the same timeframe as the big bans.


From what others seem to know, this is likely the case. Maybe this author could prove s/he had no connection outside of coincidentally being in the same promotion, or whatever it was that got their account blocked. If that's so, it goes along with previous times when Amazon blocked someone and later reinstated them once a full investigation was done, or enough verifiable evidence shown. Sucks for that person, but at least they can go back to selling on Amazon and in KU. But I bet they're watched closely from now on.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Shelley K said:


> The author isn't in KU now, which I think is telling.


Oh, that is interesting. Apparently they weren't misbehaving enough to get the full termination, just bounced out of KU. Or maybe they're going through a third party?


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

I can see that if they promised to never, ever, ever put anything but one book in with no cheater links and no scammy botting services and perfect formatting, they might be allowed to sell on Amazon but not be in KU. Forever, or maybe for a year. Maybe they just got caught up with someone who assured them that it wasn't wrong, Amazon didn't care (we've heard that justification before), and it wasn't hurting anyone. Maybe. Maybe they named some names, sort of a cooperate and get a lighter sentence thing.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

***********

Comment removed to protect content and data from the over-reaching TOS of new forum owner VerticalScope.

VerticalScope claims rights to any content posted to this site as theirs to disseminate beyond this site in any way they see fit.

Read the Terms of Service, both before AND after you've registered. At the time of this post, the new, more egregious TOS is available to read only after you've registered.

KBoards was purchased by VerticalScope 7.5 years and 4000 posts after I joined. VerticalScope will not allow that existing content to be permanently deleted, despite the fact I did not and do not agree to granting the new owners the rights to my content. 

***********


----------



## Salvador Mercer (Jan 1, 2015)

Interesting, though I would caution extrapolating too much with the dates.  When I went wide for the first time ever, I was given a chance to put in whatever date I wanted for whether my title was previously published or not on D2D.  IIRC, I was given similar options on Kobo and GP with which I went direct and not through a distributor.  I don't remember having that option on my KDP dashboard.  I could be wrong however since it's been a year.  Since the left hand isn't following what the right is doing on Amazon very closely, once a new ASIN is assigned, perhaps a simple email to Amazon support, OR there may be some mechanism on these distributors that allow review linking for the republished books.  That sounds like a loop hole to me...


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

Shelley K said:


> I spot checked a couple of books. Same ASIN as on Goodreads, as well as on the cached book pages from Jun 22 and Jul 10 (I checked two). Looks like they got their account genuinely restored.


The person Shelley and I are thinking of got the KDP publishing restored, but as far as we know, they are no longer allowed to publish in Select. My guess is they got sucked in because of a lot of commonalities. Amazon might have taken a closer look and determined that while the author might not have participated in the most egregious of activities, they still thumbed their nose at the compilations vs 10% bonuses and that was enough to suspend their select privileges.

But there are definitely others going through distributors, and they must have some brass dangly bits because they are using their known pens.


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow (Jun 10, 2018)

RPatton said:


> The person Shelley and I are thinking of got the KDP publishing restored, but as far as we know, they are no longer allowed to publish in Select. My guess is they got sucked in because of a lot of commonalities. Amazon might have taken a closer look and determined that while the author might not have participated in the most egregious of activities, they still thumbed their nose at the compilations vs 10% bonuses and that was enough to suspend their select privileges.
> 
> But there are definitely others going through distributors, and they must have some brass dangly bits because they are using their known pens.


As my girl once said 'Such a fine line between chutzpah and stupid.' I don't always fall on the bright side of that line.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Shelley K said:


> In this case, massive chutzpah and a pretty gross level of greed. They seemed to have been publishing their novels wide while they were in Select. I just discovered this accidentally. No real mystery now why they're not in KU. They've been getting away with having novels in Select and selling them on BN and Kobo (probably itunes too) for $3.99 a pop. For several months.
> 
> It takes some real brass ones to violate Amazon's new bonus content rules so blatantly while you're pulling a trick like that.


 

How does someone like that get their account back?


----------



## 101569 (Apr 11, 2018)

Odd question but made me think. If Amazon bans you an TOS says you may never come back, then you come back through a secondary distributer, can in theory Amazon sue you for all the royalties that you got when you weren't supposed to be allowed to publish through them?


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

idontknowyet said:


> Odd question but made me think. If Amazon bans you an TOS says you may never come back, then you come back through a secondary distributer, can in theory Amazon sue you for all the royalties that you got when you weren't supposed to be allowed to publish through them?


There might be grounds for that. But I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on the Internet.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Starry_Knights (Sep 15, 2016)

WasAnn said:


> I've been wondering the same thing, but that shell publishing company being used to get back into Zon and KDP has had one of those authors up for quite some time with zero problems, and as mentioned, even rewarded the person with KDD and KMDs.


Has Amazon been made aware of this?


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Shelley K said:


> You've got me there. I suppose it's entirely possible Amazon never caught their double-dipping and stripped them from KU for violating the bonus content stuff. But we're talking dozens of novels in Select that were published wide in January of this year. Maybe that's what got this author pulled, or a combo.
> 
> Since that's just blatant, willful cheating and their account was restored, I think people's faith in Amazon's willingness to weed out actual cheaters is _super_ misplaced. And it makes me wonder what the people who _don't_ get their accounts back could have done that's so much worse.


It's not as easy as people think to detect all these things. I remember going to an FBI presentation a while back where they were telling us how they'd found their big money laundering cases. The answer pretty much boiled down to someone on the inside tipped them off to what was happening and they were able to use that tip to build their case. Quite possible Amazon had no knowledge of this person double-dipping and still don't.


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow (Jun 10, 2018)

Cassie Leigh said:


> It's not as easy as people think to detect all these things. I remember going to an FBI presentation a while back where they were telling us how they'd found their big money laundering cases. The answer pretty much boiled down to someone on the inside tipped them off to what was happening and they were able to use that tip to build their case. Quite possible Amazon had no knowledge of this person double-dipping and still don't.


Any one else wonder why they hell she was at an FBI class?


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Cassie Leigh said:


> It's not as easy as people think to detect all these things. I remember going to an FBI presentation a while back where they were telling us how they'd found their big money laundering cases. The answer pretty much boiled down to someone on the inside tipped them off to what was happening and they were able to use that tip to build their case. Quite possible Amazon had no knowledge of this person double-dipping and still don't.


Kinda. The tip-off usually comes from within the financial institutions being utilized by the launderer. (I do this for a living.) Amazon has the necessary access to view the behavior, but they might not have the detection software--or the appetite--in place.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Yet another loophole Amazon needs to close is allowing those with terminated accounts from coming back under some distributor or a "publishing" company. It's been happening for a while, I see people being told all the time to get an LLC and republish that way.

Unless Amazon really is stupid -- hey, lurker, what say you? -- then they have to know this is happening. It's not exactly hidden, since it's easy to see the same titles, content and author names, and they've been told about it.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Lilly_Frost said:


> Has Amazon been made aware of this?





WasAnn said:


> Given that they gave her a KDD...I'm guessing they know.


The person I'm thinking of "only" got a KMD not a KDD, but still...

And yes, Amazon is aware.

Also on that note, we know Amazon trawls this board. It's why I'll be starting a new thread about the D2D practice I posted about above to try to call more attention to it. It's why I think naming names is also beneficial. Are the Amazon folk trawling here, who seem to be decision-makers, the same folk we're accessing with our emails? It doesn't always seem so.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

GeneDoucette said:


> (I do this for a living.)


So did I. I worked for one of the big securities regulators as an AML expert and then spent another decent chunk of time helping firms put together their monitoring systems for AML compliance. So, yes, SAR filing is a big part of how these things get reported. Which is why it was such a huge shock to me to have the FBI basically tell us they relied on insider tips to find most of the big cases they brought. But I certainly know from having had to follow a money trail through an international bank that trying to decide if those five monthly wires to those accounts is suspicious or if it's just distributions to all the kids is not as easy as you'd think so having someone who says "this is how we did it" makes it a lot easier to see how things fit together.

/end thread derail


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Cassie Leigh said:


> So did I. I worked for one of the big securities regulators as an AML expert and then spent another decent chunk of time helping firms put together their monitoring systems for AML compliance. So, yes, SAR filing is a big part of how these things get reported. Which is why it was such a huge shock to me to have the FBI basically tell us they relied on insider tips to find most of the big cases they brought. But I certainly know from having had to follow a money trail through an international bank that trying to decide if those five monthly wires to those accounts is suspicious or if it's just distributions to all the kids is not as easy as you'd think so having someone who says "this is how we did it" makes it a lot easier to see how things fit together.
> 
> /end thread derail


Fair enough!


----------



## Aloha (Jun 5, 2018)

David VanDyke said:


> There are shortcuts and there are shortcuts. My theory is, once someone starts taking shortcuts, they'd better write themselves a hard and fast set of ethics and stick to them, because it's no doubt tempting to take even more shortcuts--some of which will push close to, then cross, then obliterate the "line."...


Good insights, David.

When I first entered the Amazon KDP world back in 2011, I read somewhere that _new authors need to research the publishing world._ So I went to hundreds of websites hosted by agents, authors, editors, and publishers.

One editor wrote of how she had reviewed a book she had edited and given it 5-stars. She went on to say, "I know as the editor for the book, I'm not supposed to review it but..."

One author wrote of how he had had friends and relatives review his books. His rationalization was more of a "I know you're not supposed to do that but..._nod, nod, wink, wink..."_

Many, many authors wrote of the value of using ARCs (Advance Review Copies) to get reviews for their books. I went to the Amazon pages of those who beat that drum the loudest and did not find evidence of a single ARC review that had been written according to FTC regulations. The ironic thing was that some authors who were _*not*_ banging the ARC drum had ARC reviews that *had* been written according to FTC regulations.

Justifications and rationalizations for breaking rules and regulations are many and eloquent. But far too many of us have heard and read them before. So why do the short cut takers that David VanDyke wrote about keep repeating them or inventing new ones?


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Aloha said:


> So why do the short cut takers that David VanDyke wrote about keep repeating them or inventing new ones?


Why does a scorpion sting or a snake bite? Because it's in their nature--or at least, they learned the wrong lessons growing up. And, they profited from it early, and continue to crave that quick win. They'll continue to do so unless some major change in their psyches come along. Until then, all we can do is try to stop them from playing in our sandbox and limit their damage when they do.


----------



## Aloha (Jun 5, 2018)

David VanDyke said:


> Why does a scorpion sting or a snake bite? Because it's in their nature--or at least, they learned the wrong lessons growing up. And, they profited from it early, and continue to crave that quick win. They'll continue to do so unless some major change in their psyches come along. Until then, all we can do is try to stop them from playing in our sandbox and limit their damage when they do.


Great analogy (scorpion sting or a snake bite), David.

I have always thought of them as wolves in sheep's clothing, gleefully feasting on the flock of writers, especially the newbie lambs.


----------



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

Michael-Scott Earle will be coming back to Amazon via a publisher. Statement from his fb page:

Great news guys.

Amazon is allowing me to go with another publisher. I've been talking with a few on the side, so I'll figure out which one I'm going to go with either tomorrow or early next week. It will probably take a few days to get all the lawyering done, rights transferred, books re-uploaded, reviews moved over, series stuff added, etc... I'm thinking Death Ship 4 will be out the 12ish and Tamer the week after. Might be an additional week depending on all the paperwork.

Thank you all so much for all the love and support. It's been a tough two weeks, but the words have encouragement have helped my wife and I get through this. I'm going to call Luke and Nick to get the audio books started again.

Feel like a 300 pound weight is off my chest.

Thanks again. Time to get back to the stories.

EDIT- I dunno if the books are going to be in KU or not. I have to talk to which every publisher I'm working with.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

........ said:


> Michael-Scott Earle will be coming back to Amazon via a publisher. Statement from his fb page


Ohh, man, that's putting some serious shine on the situation.

A plain-text reading of both the suspension and termination messages pretty much said they were revoking the privilege of having a publishing account through KDP, but never mentioned the books. They didn't block the books, they blocked the publisher. It stands to reason that if someone can find a publisher, willing to put the books up there, Amazon won't stop them. Of course, that means actually finding a publisher and agreeing to the terms.

Still kind of perplexed how this is a "win" since absolutely nothing has changed.


----------



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

A publisher or a "publisher"?


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

What kind of publisher picks up an author banned from Amazon? I guess we find out soon.

Mind you, if it gets around all you have to do to get a publishing deal is be banned by Amazon, everyone will soon be doing it.


----------



## TinyChickadee (Apr 11, 2018)

That's very interesting. It makes the case for having a LLC or INC in place to publish your books through if Amazon nukes your account.

It's not that Amazon doesn't want his books on Amazon. They just don't want him publishing. Hmmm.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

***********

Comment removed to protect content and data from the over-reaching TOS of new forum owner VerticalScope.

VerticalScope claims rights to any content posted to this site as theirs to disseminate beyond this site in any way they see fit.

Read the Terms of Service, both before AND after you've registered. At the time of this post, the new, more egregious TOS is available to read only after you've registered.

KBoards was purchased by VerticalScope 7.5 years and 4000 posts after I joined. VerticalScope will not allow that existing content to be permanently deleted, despite the fact I did not and do not agree to granting the new owners the rights to my content. 

***********


----------



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

I'm not sure why this is different from distributing via D2D (although they've said they won't distribute banned authors).

What defines a publisher in this case? Simply setting up a llc?

I guess that other author who can't be named may do the same.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

One thing I've been wondering about is Amazon changed the TOS to say if they terminate your account, you will not establish a new account.  OK, so yes if a "publisher" puts your books up instead, you haven't opened an account under your name, but didn't most of these successful writers have their Amazon account under an LLC already?  Do they need to pretend they don't own the publishing house?  Hey, maybe some can get their books published by an established publisher that they don't own or  some of them should have enough money to buy a small press that's already established.

I just don't see how having a "publishing house" actually makes a difference if they were under an LLC already.

If Amazon really didn't want them on I think they would have to say no books that were previously published under a banned account can be re-published.  I know they didn't ban actual books and it was the publisher account, but if they just let the books back on the bans don't mean that much and it's just a temporary inconvenience.  All they have to do is set up a new LLC or pay someone somehow to re-publish their books.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

So, all of this was basically a big fat nothing. Get caught messing around with dirty tactics? That's okay, Amazon still wants to get their share.

For the Amazon lurker here, we've got the message. Ethics means nothing. Integrity means nothing. Scam as much as you want, but just don't get it outed in the media, and we're good. Thanks. :/


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

JWright said:


> One thing I've been wondering about is Amazon changed the TOS to say if they terminate your account, you will not establish a new account. OK, so yes if a "publisher" puts your books up instead, you haven't opened an account under your name, but didn't most of these successful writers have their Amazon account under an LLC already? Do they need to pretend they don't own the publishing house? Hey, maybe some can get their books published by an established publisher that they don't own or some of them should have enough money to buy a small press that's already established.


I think it's a degree of separation thing. Publishing under your LLC is still you. INAL, however, if you jump through a few legal hoops, you can have a "publisher" who is, in effect, you but not easily traceable to you. Heck you could probably name your grandmother CEO and get it pushed through. After that, Amazon can wash their hands and go "Welp, all looks legit to us ... even though they opened their doors just yesterday and this big name is their only client".

Worst of all, it's pretty much giving anyone who was banned a roadmap to follow to get their stuff back onto Amazon time and again.

"Best" of all, I think some publishers can get additional perks, like being in KU (albeit not in the same pool as KDP users), but able to publish wide as well.*

It really is a slap in the face to those who legit follow the rules.

*ETA: if this isn't the case, then this is far more palatable. No KU would definitely lessen the sting of this.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

PhoenixS said:


> The shark has officially been jumped.


I hate to feel this way, but is this definitely one of those "why do I even bother?" days.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I hate to feel this way, but is this definitely one of those "why do I even bother?" days.


Silly author. Ethics are for rubes...


----------



## lmgregory (Nov 2, 2017)

I'm curious if when the book comes back will it be different? I suspect there are many ways both externally and through the book directly to manipulate Amazon. Maybe I'm analyzing this wrong, but I would think if Amazon is going to allow books to come back from banned accounts that the cheating was manipulation of KU pages. This could, from Amazon's perspective, be taking money from Amazon, in which case removing them from KU could be a fair punishment (could be, I'm not arguing it is) as the manipulation could be corrected. Assuming it was KU, than if the book came back different, with the formatting returned to "normal" or unstuffed, or who knows what else, it could be assumed that was the cause of the original ban. This still isn't fair to authors playing by the rules, but might be something Amazon is willing to allow for the $$$.

If it was using purchase bots, fake reviews, or anything that could be transferred allowing the author to keep their unholy gains, that would be horribly unfair to other authors and encourage cheating. If you can cheat your way to the top and keep your ranks, audience, place on Amazon...ugh.

Also the convoluted thought process to guess possible cheats, the outcome of those cheats and Amazon's reasoning gave me a headache.    (Although that may have been mixing Comet and bleach)


----------



## Starry_Knights (Sep 15, 2016)

TimothyEllis said:


> What kind of publisher picks up an author banned from Amazon? I guess we find out soon.


Oh, I dunno, maybe a fellow banned author running a publishing company? I know which one my betting money would be on.


----------



## boba1823 (Aug 13, 2017)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I think it's a degree of separation thing. Publishing under your LLC is still you. INAL, however, if you jump through a few legal hoops, you can have a "publisher" who is, in effect, you but not easily traceable to you.


An LLC is maybe sort of 'you', at least in a colloquial sense - but in the States at least, in the technical/legal sense an LLC is its own separate entity. Still, Amazon can set its own rules pretty much however it wants. E.g. it _could_ state that the person or persons who controlled a banned KDP account are prohibited from creating or controlling any other KDP account - regardless of questions of ownership / publishing rights for the books in question. Or it could essentially 'punish the books' published under a banned account. But I can understand what that would be a tricky question for Amazon. It isn't safe to simply assume that the person who wrote a book and the person running the account that publishes it are one in the same, and I imagine that Amazon might be reluctant to punish an author for the bad actions of his or her publisher.

It's really simple to set up an 'anonymous' LLC. Basically just registering it through your lawyer, in most jurisdictions, means that your name won't be on anything public. (Lots of totally legitimate reasons to do this, of course. That's how I did it, in fact. Amazon doesn't have my name or any of my personal information - because I'm mildly paranoid about privacy and don't really trust Amazon to maintain the secrecy of my real name - pen name link.)

_However_, as I understand it, Amazon has reasonably sophisticated mechanisms to prevent people from opening multiple merchant accounts (which.. probably applies to KDP accounts as well, I would guess), especially after having an account banned. I think it comes up more with individuals who have sleazy merchant seller accounts hawking junk or knockoff brand name stuff. The measures are mainly related to detecting whether the same computer/IP address that is opening a new account is associated with an account that has been banned. So definitely not foolproof, but enough to keep people from casually creating multiple accounts.



Rick Gualtieri said:


> "Best" of all, I think some publishers can get additional perks, like being in KU (albeit not in the same pool as KDP users), but able to publish wide as well.*


Do you (or anyone) have more information about this? I've heard it before, but haven't been able to find anything from Amazon. Maybe this is a deal that is only offered to big-time publishers?

I know that for most trad-pub books, the _Sold by_ on the product page will list e.g. "Houghton Mifflin Hardcourt" rather than "Amazon Digital Services LLC". So I'm assuming that they have some kind of a non-KDP ebook selling account. Which I would _really_ love to have. (And I am set up as an LLC publisher, although it's only my own books under one pen name that I publish.) I don't do Kindle Unlimited, but I would definitely consider it if I could still be wide.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

There are a lot of assumptions going on here.

The first is that what the author is sharing is the truth. Well, it might be the truth, but i doubt it's the clear truth.

The second is that Amazon never said the books can't be published. This was always at the account level and about the person controlling the account.

Third, don't you think the first time they see a familiar pen name they are going to be jumping all over that "publisher"? This isn't just KDP's ball game anymore, there are likely other departments involved. Including legal. (And if don't you think Legal has approved each and every message, I have a bridge to sell you.)

Instead of saying, "I've reached out to some publishers", he said when I find a publisher. That's hedging language. There's more here, a lot more than we aren't hearing.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

I agree we don't actually know what Amazon said or if it was interpreted correctly.

If Amazon doesn't ban actual books from coming back that were published under a banned account (which there may very well be reasons why they can't or decide it's not in Amazon's best interest), then the banned can just keep coming back over and over.  They can now by just setting up new pen names under a new LLC as long as they make sure they can't be traced, but they at least can't directly capitalize on the books they published from a banned account.

It could end up being a public relations nightmare for Amazon if they let them back, but we shall see what happens.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> Third, don't you think the first time they see a familiar pen name they are going to be jumping all over that "publisher"?


They didn't seem to mind when a certain other person who shall not be named did it, so why would now be any different?

I personally think that coming back under an LLC is the same as starting a new account under say, your spouse's name. It wouldn't be allowed because it's still you. And LLC is basically a dodge around the law and tax man.


----------



## boba1823 (Aug 13, 2017)

she-la-ti-da said:


> And LLC is basically a dodge around the law and tax man.


 Err, an LLC is just a type of company...


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2018)

........ said:


> Michael-Scott Earle will be coming back to Amazon via a publisher. Statement from his fb page:
> 
> Great news guys.
> 
> Amazon is allowing me to go with another publisher. I've been talking with a few on the side, so I'll figure out which one I'm going to go with


I'd bet that Amazon "is allowing" nothing of the sort. Very nearly every public statement on the subject of his ban that he's made since this started (it was a couple books mistakenly flagged for copyright issues, etc) has been false. Managing fan perception is likely the primary reason. In this instance, since he's looking to backdoor his way into Zon and is aware of the attention his ban has received, I think this sort of statement might also be an attempt to mitigate the likelihood of being reported once he pops up.


----------



## Elizabeth S. (Oct 20, 2016)

It's very possible a legit publisher would be interested in his catalog if they think it will make them money. RPatton's statement above is right on, though. He doesn't say he already has a deal in place, just that he's been talking to publishers. So we'll see.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

she-la-ti-da said:


> And LLC is basically a dodge around the law and tax man.


Huh? You mean in this case only? As in the author in question may try to use an LLC nefariously to get back onto the Zon? I agree on that point. An LLC is a separate entity. But legally, LLC's have 'controlling persons' reported to their state of origin, and that is public information. Which the Zon could conceivably access.

There is nothing otherwise unethical or illegal in getting an LLC. A massive percentage of US businesses are LLCs.

LLC's get taxed. They have to report income and losses to the IRS, and they pay taxes.

What they avoid in having an LLC is losing their personal property if they get sued.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

If he's just selling his books (NO KU) then it's not so bad, right?  I guess it all depends on who runs the company and how, and what Amazon allows.  It seems like banning someone and letting them come right back to do the same thing again is really not quite right.  But if he has to legitimately sell books, then his readers will be happy, and there won't be any KU issues, right?  IDK.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

The author in question was popular and a good enough author, that I'm wondering if he landed a trad deal with a known small press. I could see Amazon allowing an established company to re-publish his books. If he comes back with 47 North or another Amazon run publisher (which is a rumor going 'round), I'll be gobsmacked.



> I'd bet that Amazon "is allowing" nothing of the sort. Very nearly every public statement on the subject of his ban that he's made since this started (it was a couple books mistakenly flagged for copyright issues, etc) has been false. Managing fan perception is likely the primary reason.


Not a bad theory and one that crossed my mind. I will say this, on FB his fans are ecstatic concerning this news. They don't really understand the intricacies of indie publishing or the significance of the various scandals going on. For those readers, this is a beloved author who they feel has been wronged by the big bad "Amazon". So this story is definitely being spun to for their benefit, and it does appear to be working.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

RPatton said:


> There are a lot of assumptions going on here.
> 
> The first is that what the author is sharing is the truth. Well, it might be the truth, but i doubt it's the clear truth.
> 
> ...


Also consider that an actual publisher might not let shennanigans slide. This may be why Amazon is allowing this to happen. And...has it happened yet? What if Amazon decides not to? Either way if this ends up happening it's absolute crap imo. Sorry (not sorry) to be offensive.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

I can see it from Amazon's point of view -- that is, if they are truly considering such a move.

They get to sell his books, which apparently were popular sellers. He wouldn't be able to do whatever he must have done to get kicked off Amazon. A different publisher probably would not do those things, either. Perhaps the threshold of wrong this UF guy did wasn't the same level as the other banned authors discussed here on other threads. Not knowing the particulars, I have no opinion on that.

If a new publisher takes his books, it may be a publisher that Amazon already knows well; one that already has a good rep with the company.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

jb1111 said:


> If a new publisher takes his books, it may be a publisher that Amazon already knows well; one that already has a good rep with the company.


Several recent threads on this and similar subjects have made reference to a banned author who found a backdoor route back into Amazon by forming their own limited company whose real ownership is difficult to trace. With that in mind, I suggest KBers draw their own conclusions as to what course of action other banned authors might decide to take.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

I think the way this looks to the industry as a whole is that Amazon couldn't organise a p*ss up in a brewery and certainly can't clean up after itself. It's pretty pathetic.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2018)

jb1111 said:


> But legally, LLC's have 'controlling persons' reported to their state of origin, and that is public information.


Not entirely correct. There are jurisdictions where a person can form an LLC and keep shareholder/director information private and all people will see is a PO Box (probably for a solicitor). Then the person ensures domain registration information is kept private and you have a LLC where nothing can be gleaned as to who is controlling it. There is one such publisher where the controlling parties have gone to some effort to hide any details that might reveal their identity. When you look at their "authors" they publish a certain banned author and authors closely intertwined with the banned author. Even more concerning is that the "publisher" will supposedly soon be open to submission from other authors. I wouldn't want to be a dolphin used by that LLC to hide the tuna...


----------



## Lefevre (Feb 1, 2014)

Stop bickering about the LLC, that is not even relevant. If this author is allowed to use a back door to continue "business as usual" (whatever nefarious thing they did) then the ban was irrelevant. This will teach unethical authors that the rules don't matter and getting banned is no big deal. Amazon exists on consumer trust. It takes years to build a reputation and only seconds to destroy it. Controlling THEIR platform is fundamental to Amazon maintaining that trust (from us vendors and consumers).


----------



## TinyChickadee (Apr 11, 2018)

Knowing Amazon, if they implemented something like that, half of the romance category would get tossed, which I'm sure would make some people happy  

I honestly don't care either way if someone who was banned comes back through a publishing company. Obviously Amazon is fine with that, and there are checks and balances in place that they're happy with in those cases. The hue and cry resulted in no large increase in page rate (yet, we'll see in another 12 days...), and got a lot of normal marketing tactics labeled as "scammy". Siiiiiiiigh.

All this tells me is that if Amazon decides to toss my account, there's a way for me to keep getting my books to my fans. That's a win.


----------



## Desert Rose (Jun 2, 2015)

oakwood said:


> It would be much more effective if Amazon banned _the content_ instead of authors.


That would kill small presses, no matter how legitimate. How many authors are going to take the risk of publishing with Perfectly Legitimate Small Press, knowing that if - despite their due diligence - it turns out to be Not So Legitimate Press, or gets sold to Scammer Needing a Cover Press, they would lose the ability to republish any of their back catalog, even if THEY did nothing wrong?


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

oakwood said:


> It would be much more effective if Amazon banned _the content_ instead of authors.


So, they ban the content, and that leaves the author free to continue to produce new content to sell, and it also leaves them free to continue to do nefarious things without any form of accountability for that nefarious behavior.

That ought to work.


----------



## Desert Rose (Jun 2, 2015)

oakwood said:


> Sure they couold, they could publish as much as they like since they would not get banned, the could just not publish the offending book, nobody could since _the content_ has been banned..


So you'd be okay with a small press doing something to get banned, and all of the innocent authors they published being punished.

Okay then.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Through all these many, many pages in many, many threads, I've never seen ANYBODY say that they expect the page rate to go up with the departure of the Mastermind group. After all, they're taking all their dubiously garnered page reads with them. 

What has been expected, and what I've seen, is more visibility for other books in those genres that have been crowded out of higher spots by the huge onrush of hastily written, heavily promoted stuff. That's happened already, and hooray. 

I would also expect a big change in bonus recipients, as those folks were taking them on both author and book level. We'll see.


----------



## TinyChickadee (Apr 11, 2018)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Through all these many, many pages in many, many threads, I've never seen ANYBODY say that they expect the page rate to go up with the departure of the Mastermind group. After all, they're taking all their dubiously garnered page reads with them.


I've definitely seen this hinted at/implied and if not said on Kboards. It's been outright said elsewhere.

Frequently it's not "the page rate will go up!" being said but "the page rate is low because of this" or "they're stealing from the communal pot by diluting it with scam reads." The only way that could be is if the pot was fixed, and the extra reads from stuffed books and/or botfarms was pushing the page rate down, which implies that without those extra pages, the rate will go up.

Only after it became obvious that the page rate wasn't going to change did the main "perk" of stuffers/scammers disappearing shift from hints about page rate to talk of visibility and all-star bonuses.

TBH, you're not going to change my mind on this, and I'm not going to change yours without extensive amounts of my time being spent on digging up quotes, so let's just agree to disagree, yeah?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I'll make it simpler and say what I personally believe they have stolen from the wider community.

- Visibility, which is an indie author's #1 objective
- Bonuses
- Credibility as per the quality of books in KU, or indeed on Amazon, especially in their genres
- A clear picture of what actually sells and is worth reading in the genres they infected
- KDP merchandising deals (KMDs, KDDs, placement in newsletters)
- Effective advertising space at a rate non-gaming authors can afford, especially in their main subgenres
- For many authors: peace of mind as their page reads and even sometimes their accounts have been stripped or suspended due to cross-contamination

I am sure I could think of more, but those are the big ones I've noticed. Personally, they're plenty. 

I've seen in various spots where people argue that if these people aren't in KU anymore, there's no problem. The issue is that there is evidence of their cheating in more ways than gaming KU reads, and those avenues are still open to them. People who game tend to be people who game, in whatever area of their lives. They don't get slapped on the hand and go straight. They find another angle. They tend to believe that only dummies follow the rules. 

ETA: I've only seen the idea that the page rate would go up mentioned by those who claimed OTHERS thought it, and then proceeded to debunk the idea. Followed by other posters who said, no, nobody's saying the page rate will go up. Whole thing seems like a pointless attempt to cast shade on people who object to these tactics, by claiming they are expecting something that any thinking person would see will not happen.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

TinyChickadee said:


> I've definitely seen this hinted at/implied and if not said on Kboards. It's been outright said elsewhere.
> 
> Frequently it's not "the page rate will go up!" being said but "the page rate is low because of this" or "they're stealing from the communal pot by diluting it with scam reads." The only way that could be is if the pot was fixed, and the extra reads from stuffed books and/or botfarms was pushing the page rate down, which implies that without those extra pages, the rate will go up.
> 
> ...


I don't think the page rate would go up by much if it did at all because all of those readers still need a book to read, only now they're reading books that haven't been thrust to the top of the charts by artificial means and bad behaviour, and (hopefully) nobody is flicking through stupid amounts of extra pages as per the advice of the PA.

Better visibility for books that actually have real reads in the charts, and better visibility for ads.


----------



## boba1823 (Aug 13, 2017)

oakwood said:


> . . . very possibly tainted your pen-name because.... whom we associates ourselves with in the pub biz, regardless of if we knew about the pitfal or not, that smear of association lingers, is never forgotten.


I think the response by the fans of Author #2 shows that many readers, at least, could hardly care _less_ about these things.

Frankly, I'm the same way. I want to read the books that I want to read. The author may be a cheat and a scoundrel, but that's not going to make me deprive myself of books that I enjoy.

Now sure, if an author commits one of those great hot-button 'sins' of the day (especially anything related to a politicized issue), that might cost him or her a boatload of fans. But I don't think that ordinary readers have particularly strong feelings about Kindle rank manipulation, or whatever else these authors have been accused of. And since Amazon isn't big on formally announcing what wrongs have led to an author's ban, most fans seem to be happy to accept the author's "Didn't do it!" and move on.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Through all these many, many pages in many, many threads, I've never seen ANYBODY say that they expect the page rate to go up with the departure of the Mastermind group. After all, they're taking all their dubiously garnered page reads with them.
> 
> What has been expected, and what I've seen, is more visibility for other books in those genres that have been crowded out of higher spots by the huge onrush of hastily written, heavily promoted stuff. That's happened already, and hooray.
> 
> I would also expect a big change in bonus recipients, as those folks were taking them on both author and book level. We'll see.


Do you think that the promotion, the hasty writing, the mechanization of production was as much of an issue as the 'illegal' type of behavior that got the banned authors banned?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Oh, no. (Sorry; my quote function is not working for some reason.) I think it was the illicit activity all the way. Amazon doesn't care whether books meet some kind of arbitrary quality standards as long as people buy them (though they will ding you if you get too many quality warnings--which, somehow, these folks' books didn't seem to get--I guess their readers didn't care), and using ghostwriters isn't against the rules.


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

idontknowyet said:


> Odd question but made me think. If Amazon bans you an TOS says you may never come back, then you come back through a secondary distributer, can in theory Amazon sue you for all the royalties that you got when you weren't supposed to be allowed to publish through them?


This would not surprise me. Although I'm thinking they just wouldn't pay out those "royalties" in the first place. They have a history of that, I believe. I remember someone came to KBoards, they'd been selling the sweary coloring books, and Amazon had told them they wouldn't be paying them what they'd "earned," because of some copyright issue. But the books were still up, ranked very highly, and Amazon continued to sell them for some time after. (This was an issue of something like 50K, from memory. Wild guess. Might be very wrong on the number, but it was substantial money.)

I've wondered this about all the really obvious botted scam books too. WHY did they leave them all up so long when they were being reported daily by reputable people?

Maybe there's some individual working at Amazon who worked out that they could achieve 100% of the retail price of those books as profit, instead of paying out a share. Maybe it's the same guy who decided to hold back exactly 50% of a whole lot of authors' page reads. EXACTLY 50%, in so many cases. Really? Is this a poorly written video game we're stuck in?

So maybe Amazon will just ignore all those books coming in the back door, then refuse to pay out on them later, and keep the 6 or 7 figures their "publishers" "earned." They've certainly done stranger things.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

TellNotShow said:


> I've wondered this about all the really obvious botted scam books too. WHY did they leave them all up so long when they were being reported daily by reputable people?
> 
> Maybe there's some individual working at Amazon who worked out that they could achieve 100% of the retail price of those books as profit, instead of paying out a share. Maybe it's the same guy who decided to hold back exactly 50% of a whole lot of authors' page reads. EXACTLY 50%, in so many cases. Really? Is this a poorly written video game we're stuck in?
> 
> So maybe Amazon will just ignore all those books coming in the back door, then refuse to pay out on them later, and keep the 6 or 7 figures their "publishers" "earned." They've certainly done stranger things.


Or maybe their legal department is making sure that every I is dotted and T is crossed.

It's not just a matter of waving their hand and the problem aside. They have to make sure that they are doing everything perfectly. Anderle repeated what a KDP representative told him, accounts go through a review with several sets of human eyes before they are terminated. Just because we aren't seeing what's happening behind closed doors, doesn't mean they aren't doing everything by the book.

It's also worth reminding people that Amazon cannot and will not comment about accounts. So the account holder can say anything they want without recourse. They can spin the narrative, weave untruths, and paint a picture far different from reality. And no one will contradict them.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> Or maybe their legal department is making sure that every I is dotted and T is crossed.


I definitely think it is this. I had some suspicious downloads on a book and called them right away hoping to avoid being banned. They transferred me to a special department that deals with this stuff and I talked to a person for a fairly long time. They were very nice and very thorough. I didn't get my account banned, so I considered it a win.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

The only thing I've seen others say about this "payout will go up" was more in regards to us having a better chance at actually getting more page reads. Some without much experience in how Amazon figures the payout may think they will raise the actual rater per page, but most of us know the pot is somewhat fixed, and it's at Amazon's discretion.

To me, when people keep bringing up this debunked point, it's like a way to cloud the very real issues authors have faced because of this mess. What is that called? A strawman argument?

So for the record:

We don't think the actual pay per page will go up, no more than a fraction of a percent if anything.

We don't think this is going to stop all scamming, for all time.

We don't think Amazon is shipping us our unicorns at this very moment.

It's still going to be hard to get visibility, but it should be a bit easier for some genres and sub genres, at least.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Lilly_Frost said:


> Way to ruin my Sunday there, She-la-ti-da. And here I'd bought sparkly bows to braid into his mane and tail and everything.


If you did get a unicorn from Amazon, most likely it would be a worn out Shetland pony with a piece of broom handle hot glued to its forehead.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

***********

Comment removed to protect content and data from the over-reaching TOS of new forum owner VerticalScope.

VerticalScope claims rights to any content posted to this site as theirs to disseminate beyond this site in any way they see fit.

Read the Terms of Service, both before AND after you've registered. At the time of this post, the new, more egregious TOS is available to read only after you've registered.

KBoards was purchased by VerticalScope 7.5 years and 4000 posts after I joined. VerticalScope will not allow that existing content to be permanently deleted, despite the fact I did not and do not agree to granting the new owners the rights to my content. 

***********


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> Quote from: Lilly_Frost on Today at 11:10:59 am
> 
> Way to ruin my Sunday there, She-la-ti-da. And here I'd bought sparkly bows to braid into his mane and tail and everything.





> If you did get a unicorn from Amazon, most likely it would be a worn out Shetland pony with a piece of broom handle hot glued to its forehead.


Sorry about that guys!  But it just goes to show, you can't trust reviews. 

Also, what PhoenixS just posted above. For all we know, the rate will go up and stay up, so long as KU stays pretty clean. Wouldn't that be nice? Then we could buy our own unicorns, and to heck with Amazon. _snort_


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Lilly_Frost said:


> But it had all 5-star reviews!!!


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

@Perry:


----------



## lmgregory (Nov 2, 2017)

Assuming I am thinking of one of the same authors being discussed here (litrpg, UF), it appears he is back. Not only back, but it appears all books are new releases and some are in KU. 

Is this correct? Wouldn't getting to re-release every book as a brand new one be a bump in visibility? I'm hoping I'm wrong in my assumptions. Or maybe he wasn't a cheater, but if that was the case wouldn't Amazon have reinstated the account, not had him start again? And he is apparently working with Amazon to get his reviews moved over. 

So if this is correct, an author:

1. Cheated
2. Got banned.
3. Allowed to return
4. Got the new release visibility bump
5. May get reviews back which could multiple the affect of 4

I once had a new release glitch and it looked like it was available for sale, but attempting to buy of download through KU resulted in a "due to copyright this book is not available in the United States". I contacted Amazon, they said they'd look into it. I noticed I'd left DRM on, assumed that was the case, asked Amazon if I could just unpublish and republish without DRM. Was told no, they would handle it.  Over a month later it was "fixed". It sold 85% less than the previous book I published and 75% less than the next book. (not a series). It never recovered. Though I recently went wide with it where it sold better than both the books immediately before and after. Not proof it would have done better on Amazon had it not glitched, but suggestive.

So really I should have cheated, got banned and allowed to republish?

Reading about this author's return was a gut punch this morning. I do well enough that I'm happy, but who wouldn't want to do better? 

Is Amazon saying cheating is ok now? Maybe only if you sell a lot?

I really hope I'm misunderstanding what is going on.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

lmgregory said:


> Assuming I am thinking of one of the same authors being discussed here (litrpg, UF), it appears he is back. Not only back, but it appears all books are new releases and some are in KU.


What publisher?


----------



## Justa Nobody (Mar 25, 2016)

Removed 9/19/2018 - non-agreement with VerticalScope TOS


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

TwistedTales said:


> What a joke. The 8 or so books loaded on 8 August already have over 20 five star review and they're climbing by the minute.
> 
> Nice job, Amazon, you've made it completely clear this is a free-for-all. You can do whatever you want on Amazon's platform.
> 
> Amazon don't care, do you?


And are on some of the Hot New Releases list, too.

Nice, Amazon. Way to send a clear message with this one.


----------



## thebriansimons (Feb 19, 2017)

Wow.  He's going to have a lot of books from his backlist that all get new publication dates.  I'm curious how Amazon generally looks at older books that an author takes down and re-pubs as if it's brand new.  Is that someone anyone could just do, with no pushback from Amazon, or does the Zon frown on that?


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2018)

A surrogate with his name as a display name...

Given that his original author page is still banned (the one showing is a separate, new listing; both can be found) and showing the missing page placeholder and that a reply from Zon had already been publicly disseminated stating they had reviewed his appeal and were not reinstating his account, isn't it a strong possibility that he had a surrogate set up an account and simply set one of the 3 allowed display names to his with the intent to fly under the radar as long as possible? 

A great many things escape Zon's attention due to the size & complexity of the company. Maybe people, as many as are willing, bringing the new author and book listings to Amazon's attention, by customer service reports or emails or whatever, to ensure it isn't an unauthorized workaround would be a good idea. Worthwhile, I think, simply to clarify Amazon's intentions. And if my aforementioned suspicion or something similar is in play, then it would certainly be reassuring to see it dealt with.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

WasAnn said:


> I don't see them...can someone tell me which list to look at? I'm browsing like crazy but not getting to anything familiar.


And there hasn't been anything posted on the only other source I have.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2018)

TwistedTales said:


> I'd be very surprised if this author is trying to pull a swift one like that, they're not some fly-by operator and they know they'd be caught before they were paid.


I wouldn't be surprised at all. Firstly, I've read elsewhere that it wouldn't be unprecedented -- a different author but the surrogate tactic.
Plus, the guiding principle for the guy in question seems to be "catch me if you can". Moreover, we know that a lot of the scams going on in several genres (most notably romance, of course) took, in some cases, more than a year to see any punitive action from Amazon. Unless it's brought to their attention in the short term, I expect it to ride for quite a while. And bear in mind, the payouts, bank info, etc. would be to a seemingly unrelated party acting as surrogate, maybe personal, maybe a contractual business arrangement. This might very well be his "publisher" arrangement he commented on pursuing a week or two back.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

TwistedTales said:


> It's uneven. It's unfair. It's BS.


Yup!

Meanwhile I'm over here getting copyright challenges and warnings for British spellings. It would be so nice if Amazon focused on the right things.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Luke Everhart said:


> This might very well be his "publisher" arrangement he commented on pursuing a week or two back.


Well, you can't just tell your list "Yeah, I was scamming but I've found a way to republish." Gotta look legit, and what better way than to say Amazon relented and forgave you?

I'm so annoyed. Not even my genre, so REALLY not my business, but it pisses me off that the rules aren't the same for everyone.


----------



## lmgregory (Nov 2, 2017)

I assumed--I know, my bad--that Amazon let him back in somehow. It didn't make much sense as it appears to be a new account. If they were going to let him in, why make a new account?

If he's scamming again, that is just...I don't even know what that is.


----------



## badtothebone (Mar 31, 2011)

Believe him or not, but he said in Facebook and his NL that Amazon had allowed him back under a new publisher.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Well if he has a new "publisher" then they are choosing to remain anonymous since there is no publisher listed in the product details or opening pages of the books when you check the Look Inside.

I think it remains to be seen whether Amazon is actually okay with this.  If they are then I don't see what the point of it all was.  The old account still goes to a 404 page.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Desert Rose (Jun 2, 2015)

I refreshed his author page, and the republished books all vanished; now all I see are 4 audio books.


----------



## Avery342 (Aug 23, 2016)

I still can't find them. Any hints on what to look for? All I'm seeing are audio books and a 404 author page.

Quote: I refreshed his author page, and the republished books all vanished; now all I see are 4 audio books.

So,  I guess... nevermind....


----------



## Justa Nobody (Mar 25, 2016)

Removed 9/19/2018 - non-agreement with VerticalScope TOS


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

WasAnn said:


> Except, it's not a publisher.


This is what I wondered when he announced it.

There are trad publishers, and then there are Indie publishers, a lot of whom are just an author with their own LLC.

What I'm interested in, is how Amazon defines a publisher, and if they gave permission based on getting with a trad publisher, or one of the Indie publishers with a dozen or more authors. Rather than what this seems to be, an indie friend with an LLC, pretending to be a publisher.

So my question is, is there a real publisher here, or is this just backdooring through a convenient LLC? If the former, who is it? If the latter, why has it been allowed?



Dragovian said:


> I refreshed his author page, and the republished books all vanished; now all I see are 4 audio books.


And that might in fact be my answer. 

Amazon may have given permission to publish through a publisher, but what they mean as a publisher probably doesn't include JoeBloggsLLC. They have meant one of the big five. And it was interpreted loosely, and it appears perhaps incorrectly.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

Gonna say this again, because I think it's super important.

Amazon is making sure all their T's are crossed and I's are dotted. Just because we don't see what's happening behind the scenes doesn't mean they aren't working away furiously at it. And they cannot comment. Seriously, the only comment they can make is to decline to comment.

With how quickly Amazon responded, I think it's relatively safe to say that they knew exactly what they were doing when they terminated the accounts. And just because something slips though, doesn't mean they won't make a course correction.

However, all that aside, I have interacted with some very aggressive lobbyists who have stepped on a lot of people's toes, and even they don't have the brass gonads to do something like this.



TwistedTales said:


> That was quick. Either a bot has suspended the account for banned/duplicate/copyright content issues, or Amazon are surprisingly on the ball today.
> 
> But I doubt this show is over just yet.


The show definitely isn't over. I strongly suspect the claw backs can be tied back to the group of terminated accounts, so I would expect this to continue well into the end of the year.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

I am so confused. Did he really think that he wouldn't get found out? If Amazon banned you for 'reasons' there is still D2D with Barnes & Noble, Kobo, etc. Unless they don't want his books either.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> So really I should have cheated, got banned and allowed to republish?


This has been the message so far, but it seems perhaps that is changing? If the account that republished the books was pulled, then good for Amazon. Finally. Now, how about sending a clear email to these people you're pulling page reads from and let them know exactly what's going on. Because we're sick of the way you're doing things, we want a cleaned up store and we want details and assurances you won't let the same bad actors back in, and let new ones go for almost three years before you run the next great purge. Sheesh.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Rose Andrews said:


> I am so confused. Did he really think that he wouldn't get found out? If Amazon banned you for 'reasons' there is still D2D with Barnes & Noble, Kobo, etc. Unless they don't want his books either.


D2D made a point of posting that their policy is not to publish banned authors to the platform they were banned from, and they will terminate accounts if they catch people doing it.


----------



## lmgregory (Nov 2, 2017)

Huh. I apologize to Amazon. I’m sure they are happy to see that  

I jumped the gun in thinking bad thoughts and posting them. I’m honestly shocked though that the author attempted republishing in this manner. It will be interesting to follow going forward. The ramifications for authors trying to publish within the rules are big. I will avoid rushing to assumptions going forward.

Um, I’ll try anyway.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

***********

Comment removed to protect content and data from the over-reaching TOS of new forum owner VerticalScope.

VerticalScope claims rights to any content posted to this site as theirs to disseminate beyond this site in any way they see fit.

Read the Terms of Service, both before AND after you've registered. At the time of this post, the new, more egregious TOS is available to read only after you've registered.

KBoards was purchased by VerticalScope 7.5 years and 4000 posts after I joined. VerticalScope will not allow that existing content to be permanently deleted, despite the fact I did not and do not agree to granting the new owners the rights to my content. 

***********


----------



## 39416 (Mar 18, 2011)

I'm sorry, but I'm still in the dark who we're talking about here. Are we talking diamonds or hyphenated name?


----------



## 39416 (Mar 18, 2011)

Thank you.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

The process has been interesting to see.

I see 2 issues here. 


The first is the definition of publisher. Amazon probably mean trad publisher, while XXX has interpreted it to mean anyone with more than 1 author on their LLC account. If he did use the latter, I'm not at all surprised Amazon pulled his plug again.

The second is the release dates. When you go through D2D, they ask for when the book was first released. But Amazon DON'T. They assume its a completely new listing, and the result is old books hitting the new release lists again. 


Amazon now have a problem. If they are going to allow a banned author in through a publisher, they have to change their interface to ensure the original release date can be entered, and make sure this is used so the book does not hit the new release lists.  Alternately, they have to check every book to make sure it was not published previously, and if it was, automatically get the original (or even the oldest) release date.

The other thing is, there has been discussion elsewhere of people pulling books to re-release them, hoping to get a better launch. Amazon has to decide if this practice is ok or not, because if it is, any banned author coming back gets a huge boost like we just saw. They may have to close this door, in order to not reward a banned author.


----------



## Mark Dawson (Mar 24, 2012)

https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/finance/news/amazon-self-published-authors-books-banned-no-reason-134606120.html


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Mark Dawson said:


> https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/finance/news/amazon-self-published-authors-books-banned-no-reason-134606120.html


Nothing really new to see there, except maybe this part: "On Thursday morning, however, Amazon rejected the publisher's attempts and additionally told **** he would not receive the remaining book royalties due to him"

That's kind of telling.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Nothing really new to see there, except maybe this part: "On Thursday morning, however, Amazon rejected the publisher's attempts and additionally told **** he would not receive the remaining book royalties due to him"
> 
> That's kind of telling.


Yes, that is telling. Perhaps he finally crossed the last line. Ouch. Well, it does seem as if Amazon is serious about these recently terminated accounts.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

The  article also states the banned author tried to get back in under a third-party publisher using a KDP account. That still leaves open a loophole. Please get on with closing it, Amazon.

Also, I wonder what happened to that third-party account?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

PhoenixS said:


> The article also states the banned author tried to get back in under a third-party publisher using a KDP account. That still leaves open a loophole. Please get on with closing it, Amazon.
> 
> Also, I wonder what happened to that third-party account?


Assuming it was third party, of course.

Not saying it wasn't, but I have yet to see an actual publisher put up a slew of books without identifying themselves in the listing. But who knows? Maybe anonymous publishing is all the rage these days.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

TwistedTales said:


> I was also suprised Cipriano was paid his outstandings, usually Amazon withhold payment when they ban accounts.


I'm not. By paying outstanding revenue they effectively close the door to third party mediation. In that instance, according to the TOS we all agreed to, you effectively have no recourse.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

WOW.  

I was shocked to see one of those names there! 

They're trying to get media attention for their problem. I get it. Amazon banning them forever makes me truly wonder what sort of evidence they have against these authors who are claiming innocence. Would Amazon really ban several authors forever who didn't do anything wrong? Hm. I'm suspicious and thinking not. 

Never put all your eggs in one basket. I nearly fell out of my chair when the article mentioned that Amazon was the only source of income these authors had. 

EDIT: to add that (not trying to be a jerk here) but I've noticed that several of the authors who've been in the news lately belong to a specific author group. I find that interesting, is all.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

TwistedTales said:


> Seems a bit skewed. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything about the books being in KU. If I were to read that article with no background info I might think the issues related to sales of books and not page reads, which is what Amazon mostly mean when they accuse authors of manipulating of the platform. I was also suprised Cipriano was paid his outstandings, usually Amazon withhold payment when they ban accounts. I also didn't quite understand whether Earle was getting outstanding payments and then lost them for trying to reload the books.
> 
> I'm sure Amazon are happy enough with the press coverage, from their POV it might discourage scammers, although it probably won't because KU is just too tempting.


So, the reason Amazon gave for terminating the accounts was that they had the right to sever the relationship at any time. By paying the royalties, they made it impossible for the accounts to have any recourse. However, they explicitly told them that they would risk losing their royalties if they tried to go around the termination. Technically, there is no reason for the termination. However, since the terminations followed a suspension where they gave manipulation as the reason, I think we can safely assume that the termination following the suspension was based on manipulation. (And no, the manipulation likely isn't about the excessive use of bonus content, it's probably closer to what some might consider to be fraudulent activities.Though I am basing my beliefs on assumptions and logic, I think this is tied to both the clawbacks and some readers losing their review privileges.)

There's a great saying, "you don't tell the Russians you've broken their code unless you have to." Even if the code is no longer in use, you don't let them know that you know. Amazon is attempting to do that right now. They don't want to tell anyone that they've broken their code, and since we can safely assume that multiple activities were going on, Amazon doesn't want to let them know which ones they know about in the event that there are other activities going on.

So, everyone got their royalties because it gave them absolutely no avenue to appeal. And then someone decided they could outwit Amazon. Not only did it not work, they got raked over the coals as well. This was a full on Tar and Feathering. Loss of royalties, labeled with a huge scarlet letter they will never be able to remove, and the large possibility of losing whatever goodwill they might have had.

When this happened yesterday, I had an aha moment and shared with some friends that there's a chance this author is going to lose his royalties. (I almost shared it here, but wasn't confident enough in my interpretation of the phrasing from the termination letters.)

Not only can't Amazon comment about individual accounts, it's not in their best interest to. But rest assured, from what I have seen, they are taking this very seriously (and honestly using a distributor probably has to be parsed through legal, unless Amazon is not saying that the books can't be published, just that the publisher is no longer welcome to publish through Amazon).

The only account that came back, never actually had dog pages (or at least I don't think they did) and is no longer in KU. And from what several people have noticed, this might be the singular case that is solely based on excessive bonus content _and_ some associations with the terminated accounts so that author got a closer look. Basically, they looked like a duck, but ended up being a loon.



Rose Andrews said:


> They're trying to get media attention for their problem. I get it. Amazon banning them forever makes me truly wonder what sort of evidence they have against these authors who are claiming innocence. Would Amazon really ban several authors forever who didn't do anything wrong? Hm. I'm suspicious and thinking not.
> 
> EDIT: to add that (not trying to be a jerk here) but I've noticed that several of the authors who've been in the news lately belong to a specific author group. I find that interesting, is all.


We have hearsay from an author who says that Amazon told them they have human eyes on an account before they make a decision to terminate. I think we can assume that those eyes aren't just from KDP, but other departments as well. With as quickly as those print books came down, this wasn't necessarily a KDP decision.

And you'd be amazed by the ties. And the interesting part is that from what I can tell there are at least three distinct groups, but they all have weird ties that go back to one another. None of these accounts seems to be isolated cases. I'd also point out how quickly some individuals who were close to them are now doing their best to distance themselves.

I don't think this is over, not by a long shot.


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

RPatton said:


> And you'd be amazed by the ties. And the interesting part is that from what I can tell there are at least three distinct groups, but they all have weird ties that go back to one another. None of these accounts seems to be isolated cases. I'd also point out how quickly some individuals who were close to them are now doing their best to distance themselves.


Is it wrong of me to admit I really, really want to see the yarn string chart on this?


----------



## Starry_Knights (Sep 15, 2016)

From the article:

Xxxxxxxx, who says he was once approached by a major publisher, now faces another reality. Even if he wanted a future book published through a traditional publishing house, the possibility would be unlikely, Xxxxxxxx argues.  

“Why would a company want to work with a writer like me knowing Amazon doesn’t want me?” he explains. 
________________________

Old-timers have a piece of advice that pretty much covers that. "Don't crap where you eat."

I know, I know--it was just gas, right?


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

WasAnn said:


> That article kind of chaps me a little. It plays the sympathy card and does nothing to address the reality of what this group of folks were up to.


Right? There's a picture of one author with his very young daughter. As if that somehow changes things.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2018)

Rose Andrews said:


> I was shocked to see one of those names there!


I only saw 2 names mentioned and neither was a surprise to me given both their histories. Or did you see a name I missed?


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

Crystal_ said:


> Right? There's a picture of one author with his very young daughter. As if that somehow changes things.


I thought the same thing.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

Tilly said:


> I only saw 2 names mentioned and neither was a surprise to me given both their histories. Or did you see a name I missed?


No. I only knew one of the names. The other, I assumed, was squeaky clean.


----------



## 39416 (Mar 18, 2011)

It sounds to me like won't-name-the-guy is having trouble accepting that the party is over. The most an Arbitrator would do for him is order Amazon to pay the guy his final royalties (and even that is quite doubtful), but no Arbitrator would ever order Amazon to put his books back up.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Crystal_ said:


> Right? There's a picture of one author with his very young daughter. As if that somehow changes things.


Well, obviously Amazon is being a big meanie. How could they take food out of this child's mouth? Of course, let's not get into the fact that mommy or daddy was cheating their way to hundreds of thousands of dollars, every single month. Oh, no. How could that be wrong?


----------



## boba1823 (Aug 13, 2017)

Whatever the situation may be with unnamed-fellow, this reminds me of what originally scared me off of putting my books into Kindle Unlimited. We can certainly _hope_ that Amazon only does this sort of thing for good reason, but that hasn't always been the case in the past (e.g. the 'Hall of Spinning Knives' era not even a year ago: http://davidgaughran.com/2017/10/20/amazons-hall-of-spinning-knives/).

Back at that time, it seemed like a very real possibility that Amazon might ban an innocent author/account, either based on bad fraud-detection algorithms (and one does wonder if that is sometimes the case with the ongoing pageread-stripping) or based on blaming the author for unrelated third party actions, e.g. bots trying to mask their activities.

I was feeling somewhat less worries during the more recent book-stuffer fiasco - because in that case, at least, anyone could plainly see that the authors in questions had books with thousands of 'bonus' pages in them. I read one of the books from unnamed-fellow (the dinosaurs book) out of curiosity a while back, and while it certainly wasn't my cup of tea, it definitely was not stuffed, nor did it appear to have any weird formatting. It was _very_ long (for me), in the range of 130,000 words I think. Anyway, the point being that when there's no visible evidence and Amazon goes a'banning, it makes me feel nervous again. Very well could be the case that the author was involved in the many forms of nefarious activity that wouldn't be visible to readers, of course. But then again, who knows. Kind of scary to think that Amazon can just ban a person and there is truly nothing that said person, _even if innocent_, would be able to do about it.

Not being Amazon exclusive doesn't take all of the danger out of that, of course. I don't suppose anyone would be organized a bot-masking campaign that buys a bunch of my full-price (and higher range price, too) books - though a while back it seems like that _might_ have been happening with some of the 99cent Bookbub featured books. (Amazon rank-stripped some of those for some reason or other, at any rate.) I've tried to take Patty's advice to bring readers to my own platform, signing them up to my mailing list, directing all ads to landing pages on my website, etc. Hopefully many of them would still buy my books from B&N or wherever on the off chance that Amazon ever gave me the axe. Still, that would be a tough battle, and hopefully one I'll never have to fight - which is still probably the #1 reason why I just can't bring myself to consider using KU for any book.


----------



## 97251 (Jun 22, 2017)

I do not accept the new Terms of Service


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

Can these two guys really have sold so few books? They were quoted as saying 143,000 and roughly 300,000 respectively. 

I understand that KU page reads are on top of that, which makes a big difference. But given the high number of books they've released, and their consistently very high ranks, I'd have assumed many more genuine sales.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

One of them (not the one who "published" on Amazon yesterday) has put books wide.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Tangentially, I just peeked at the catalog of an epic fantasy author who was routinely botting books up to the Top 6 Paid in the store. Like, at least one book per month, and often more than one. They finally got slapped back in late July of last year. First, they had their account temporarily suspended, then it was reinstated, but they were banned from KU.

Now, this author had ALSO been slapped back a couple of years before that for gaming reviews. So with that black mark, plus not just once out of possible misguided ignorance, but multiple, multiple times botting their way up the chart over several months (5 books in June and July 2017 alone, for example), you'd think that if Amazon didn't terminate the account, they'd at the very least ban them from ever going back into KU, right?

Nope. Apparently all they got was a 1-year ban, because their books are back in KU.

Yep. A 1-year ban from KU was the only punishment for intentional botting for rank. 

And yet, if we compare that to those whose accounts were terminated (and re-terminated), then whatever the terminated authors were doing had to be much, _much_ more egregious than _routinely_ botting their way to #2 or #3 in the store.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

From the article...



> I imagine I make them probably about a half-million dollars a year which is nothing to them - it's probably a rounding error to them," says XXX, who says he has sold roughly 300,000 copies of his books.


 

Let's do the math here. 300k sales x 30% Amazon take = $90k. Where on earth does he get Amazon making half a mill off his sales? (And that's assuming 100% US store sales, which is ridiculous.)

And this is total sales, not per year as he claims. For him to think Amazon was getting half a mill a year from his sales, he had to be raking in millions himself, and I cant even figure that math. (Can someone do it?) Now how can he make millions off 300k total sales? Someone show my math is wrong please. Because if he was making that kind of money, he had to be doing something very, very wrong.

I cant get my head around the mindset of these guys. They gamed the system, they were stupid enough to keep doing it while other people were bailing from KU or frantically reformatting their books, and they got caught. But we're supposed to believe they are completely innocent and its big bad Amazon? Please!

Also from the article, this time X...



> We spent the entire vacation in the hotel worried if I was ever going to make another penny again and worrying about how I was going to pay off all of the expenses for everybody


Expenses for everybody? Who on earth is he talking about? Authors pay cover designers, editors and proofreaders. Not what I'd call 'everybody', and they should already have been paid. So who are all these other people? Arc list? Click farms? Promo teams? Reviewers? Who else? Which gaming schemes have I missed? Oh, add gigantic per day $ AMS/FB/BB ads, not yet received the bill for. What else?

Edit: So my math sucks, but I haven't been out of bed long, and not enough caffeine. You get the idea though, even if I cant do basic math anymore.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

300,000 copies not dollars.

I don't know how much his books sold for but: 

300,000 copies x $3.99 x .30 = $359,100 - so yeah still not millions.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

JWright said:


> 300,000 copies not dollars.
> 
> I don't know how much his books sold for but:
> 
> 300,000 copies x $3.99 x .30 = $359,100 - so yeah still not millions.


I need more caffeine.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

TimothyEllis said:


> I need more caffeine.


You are still right though!


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Now add KU page reads on top of that.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

TimothyEllis said:


> Let's do the math here. 300k sales x 30% Amazon take = $90k. Where on earth does he get Amazon making half a mill off his sales? (And that's assuming 100% US store sales, which is ridiculous.)
> 
> And this is total sales, not per year as he claims. For him to think Amazon was getting half a mill a year from his sales, he had to be raking in millions himself, and I cant even figure that math. (Can someone do it?) Now how can he make millions off 300k total sales? Someone show my math is wrong please. Because if he was making that kind of money, he had to be doing something very, very wrong.


I'm not sure what measuring stick he's using, but you threw out a challenge, and I like challenges, so...

So, if the average sales price was $4.99, we have for Amazon's profit:
4.99 x .30 x 300,000 = $449,100

But if he meant revenue rather than profit:
$4.99 x 300K = $1.497M
And if he's been pubbing for 3 years, that's about half a mil per year on Amazon's revenue side.

On his personal side, he's earning KU money on top of those 300K sales. Which is probably 50-70% of total earnings.
His total royalties on 300K copies would be about:
($4.99-.07 delivery fee) x .7 x 300K = $1,033,200
At 50% KU to sales ratio, that's $2,066,400 total revenue for him, assumed across 3 years, or $688,800 per year.
At 70% KU to sales, that's $3,444,000 total, or $1,148,000 per year.

And he was worried about where his next meal was coming from?


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

KelliWolfe said:


> Now add KU page reads on top of that.


If you take what Amazon paid out to him on page reads I think the number "earned" by Amazon would definitely be in the negative. The only thing they could earn would be some subscribers he might have attracted into KU at $10 per month, but I doubt it would be anywhere near what they paid out to him.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

KelliWolfe said:


> Now add KU page reads on top of that.


But Amazon don't take a cut of those. So not part of the calculation.



PhoenixS said:


> I'm not sure what measuring stick he's using, but you threw out a challenge, and I like challenges, so...
> 
> So, if the average sales price was $4.99, we have for Amazon's profit:
> 4.99 x .30 x 300,000 = $449,100
> ...


  My brain hurts. Where's the red bull?


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

TimothyEllis said:


> But Amazon don't take a cut of those. So not part of the calculation.


Please explain. I was under the impression that Amazon made money off KU page reads.

Unless you are referring to some other factor.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

jb1111 said:


> Please explain. I was under the impression that Amazon made money off KU page reads.
> 
> Unless you are referring to some other factor.


No, they don't. KU pays out of a pot, which is allocated money. It has nothing to do with subscriptions, which wouldn't pay for the pot. They routinely 'top up' the pot.

KU is a loss leader, designed to get people buying everything else from Amazon. They make their money from hard goods sales.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

TimothyEllis said:


> No, they don't. KU pays out of a pot, which is allocated money. It has nothing to do with subscriptions, which wouldn't pay for the pot. They routinely 'top up' the pot.
> 
> KU is a loss leader, designed to get people buying everything else from Amazon. They make their money from hard goods sales.


It's still making them money at the end of the day by getting people on the site.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> And he was worried about where his next meal was coming from?


Nah, probably not. But got to get the sympathy vote, because Amazon bad.

Also, I imagine once they get to this point, they're paying out a lot, what with ads, buying reviews, paying for click farms, paying for the perks to readers to buy the books, the ghostwriters, the PA to do at least some of the work, and who knows what else.

Still, hardly starving, or what was the point of it all? I can't find myself feeling sorry for any of them, they're adults and knew what they were doing. Not an innocent author among the bunch, because you can't be ignorant at this level of scheming.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

she-la-ti-da said:


> Nah, probably not. But got to get the sympathy vote, because Amazon bad.
> 
> Also, I imagine once they get to this point, they're paying out a lot, what with ads, buying reviews, paying for click farms, paying for the perks to readers to buy the books, the ghostwriters, the PA to do at least some of the work, and who knows what else.
> 
> Still, hardly starving, or what was the point of it all? I can't find myself feeling sorry for any of them, they're adults and knew what they were doing. Not an innocent author among the bunch, because you can't be ignorant at this level of scheming.


This.


----------



## Patrick-Stew (Jun 10, 2018)

TimothyEllis said:


> No, they don't. KU pays out of a pot, which is allocated money. It has nothing to do with subscriptions, which wouldn't pay for the pot. They routinely 'top up' the pot.
> 
> KU is a loss leader, designed to get people buying everything else from Amazon. They make their money from hard goods sales.


Can you provide a source to support this please.


----------



## Elizabeth S. (Oct 20, 2016)

Patrick-Stew said:


> Can you provide a source to support this please.


The help section on Amazon explains how the KDP Select Global Fund works. Just Google "KDP Select faq" and you'll find it.


----------



## traineroflegend (Jul 4, 2018)

Elizabeth S. said:


> The help section on Amazon explains how the KDP Select Global Fund works. Just Google "KDP Select faq" and you'll find it.


I think the question might've been about KU being a "loss leader" for Amazon. There's no information that's the case. It could be possible, considering how they only started making money on selling packages in the last two years (with AWS being the big whale that props everything up).


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

traineroflegend said:


> I think the question might've been about KU being a "loss leader" for Amazon. There's no information that's the case. It could be possible, considering how they only started making money on selling packages in the last two years (with AWS being the big whale that props everything up).


It's a loss leader. Anyone who is familiar with marketing or business will tell you that KU is a loss leader. They don't have to make any money on it because it brings customers in who then spend more money. It's why grocery stores run specials and department stores have sales. You take a loss on one thing because you'll make more on everything else.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

I seem to remember someone with stats skills (Phoenix?) running an analysis a while back that showed the money taken in via KU subscriptions couldn't possibly be sufficient to pay the authors in the program. E.g., (numbers made up), if there are a million KU subscribers at $10 a pop, that's $10M, and KU pays $20M-ish, each month.

Again, I just made up those numbers, but the analysis I vaguely remember had been able to estimate the real numbers based on some kind of data pull. Sorry I can't remember more than that.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

I can't see how KU is losing money. If it only takes 2 million users to hit the 20mil pot, considering how many page reads it takes to reach the top bonuses, and consider that those authors are in genres that wouldn't necessarily 'cross the streams' for whale readers, then I would have thought there would be a lot more users. 

Doesn't amazon have to release figures to its shareholders?


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

Lilly_Frost said:


> Plus with all the free months and 3-months-for-99c deals, a lot of those subs aren't even paying in the $10 per month.


Exactly. I've been a KU member for years and have never paid $10 a month. I always get 6 or 12 months at a time when it goes on sale. Of all the people I know who have KU, I don't know any who have ever paid $10 a month.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Atlantisatheart said:


> I can't see how KU is losing money. If it only takes 2 million users to hit the 20mil pot, considering how many page reads it takes to reach the top bonuses, and consider that those authors are in genres that wouldn't necessarily 'cross the streams' for whale readers, then I would have thought there would be a lot more users.
> 
> Doesn't amazon have to release figures to its shareholders?


No, they don't. They only release numbers by major divisions, and the bookstore as a whole is buried in their digital content division. The guesstimates I've seen run at 2.5 million and up. In comparison, Scribd has about 700,000, a good chunk of which are there for the document repositories and not the book library. It's possible that KU is bringing in slightly more money than they pay out to authors every month, but the project overhead eats away at what's left so there's essentially no way that it's actually making Amazon money.

But Amazon doesn't care about making money. Bezos has been clear about that since 2005. The goal has always been to gain users and market share and expand-expand-expand.


----------



## traineroflegend (Jul 4, 2018)

RPatton said:


> It's a loss leader. Anyone who is familiar with marketing or business will tell you that KU is a loss leader. They don't have to make any money on it because it brings customers in who then spend more money. It's why grocery stores run specials and department stores have sales. You take a loss on one thing because you'll make more on everything else.


I am quite familiar with what a loss-leader is. I've also been following Amazon for a while. Again I ask, what evidence do we have that Kindle Unlimited is a loss leader? I fully understand that Prime users spend several times more than non-Prime users (the nearest KU equivalent), only making up for the increased delivery cost after several years in operation. However, Amazon is a publicly-traded company. Surely there are ways to know the state of KU better than some back-of-the-envelope calculations made by a user.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

traineroflegend said:


> I am quite familiar with what a loss-leader is. I've also been following Amazon for a while. Again I ask, what evidence do we have that Kindle Unlimited is a loss leader? I fully understand that Prime users spend several times more than non-Prime users (the nearest KU equivalent), only making up for the increased delivery cost after several years in operation. However, Amazon is a publicly-traded company. Surely there are ways to know the state of KU better than some back-of-the-envelope calculations made by a user.


Just because it's publicly traded doesn't mean that they disclose details about individual programs like KU in their reports. They don't. Very few large companies do, both because they don't want shareholders trying to micromanage things they don't have any business messing with and because they don't want to give away information that might be sensitive to their competitors. So we have to do back of the envelope guesses.

The best current guesses I've seen estimate about 2.5 million subscribers. Not all of them are paying, and not all of them are paying the full rate., so the income from the program is going to be under $25 million. Take out the author payments and you don't have just a whole lot left over. Then you have to pay for advertising, server and network usage (mostly electricity and bandwidth), etc. So the odds of them actually making any kind of profit are low. They're probably not losing a whole lot, but they're not generating profits.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

traineroflegend said:


> I am quite familiar with what a loss-leader is. I've also been following Amazon for a while. Again I ask, what evidence do we have that Kindle Unlimited is a loss leader? I fully understand that Prime users spend several times more than non-Prime users (the nearest KU equivalent), only making up for the increased delivery cost after several years in operation. However, Amazon is a publicly-traded company. Surely there are ways to know the state of KU better than some back-of-the-envelope calculations made by a user.


Only if you are part of the accounting consulting firm they use. And even then you'd be restricted from saying anything by your confidentiality agreement.

However, before someone can accept the premise that KU is a loss leader, they have to understand what's valuable to Amazon. It's not profit and it's not sales. Data has always been Amazon's bread and butter. Since the very beginning, it wasn't ever about selling books, it was about gathering the information from the demographics and being able to monetize that data.

Every single ad that is on an amazon page, is sold based on the data they've collected. How do they make that data more valuable? Make sure it's consistent. Having data that represents a random customer isn't nearly as valuable as the data representing the a customer who fits a very specific demographic.

Even if they break even on KU, whcih most people don't think is possible all things considered, the data they are able to gather now is worth more than if they were able to increase their subscriptions 100 times over.


----------



## 39416 (Mar 18, 2011)

Apropos of nothing, Amazon made 2.5 billion in profit in the last three months, 945 million of which was from advertising, their fastest growing revenue.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

So, what I take away from all this, from what is being said here -- is that the famous scammers weren't literally ripping off money from other authors, because the money in the pot isn't based on page reads.

They were ripping off visibility, but not actual money from the pot, because the money in the pot is all artificially based. Someone makes an arbitrary decision somewhere to throw more money in to keep the program running.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

jb1111 said:


> So, what I take away from all this, from what is being said here -- is that the famous scammers weren't literally ripping off money from other authors, because the money in the pot isn't based on page reads.
> 
> They were ripping off visibility, but not actual money from the pot, because the money in the pot is all artificially based. Someone makes an arbitrary decision somewhere to throw more money in to keep the program running.


No. No, no, no, no, _no_. Consider the people who had book rankings stripped when they were running promos because the Amazon Black Hat Detection Algos designed to detect illicit boosts from bot/reader farms caught them by mistake. Or the people who have had page reads stripped - and after the 800k batch we just saw that was reinstated, who knows how many of those were truly "bad" page reads? People had their accounts suspended and lost income for weeks over that mess. What about AMS? These people were dumping tens of thousands a month _each_ into AMS ads, jacking the price up for everyone else and pricing a lot of people out of the market for their genres. And lets not forget the authors who got gypped out of their All Stars bonuses because of the black hats.

It isn't just about the stupid freakin' page rate. These people cost a whole lot of legit authors a whole lot of money. Focusing on nothing but the page rate trivializes what the actual impact was on everyone else in the KU system.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

KelliWolfe said:


> It isn't just about the stupid freakin' page rate. These people cost a whole lot of legit authors a whole lot of money. Focusing on nothing but the page rate trivializes what the actual impact was on everyone else in the KU system.


^^ This. The page rate is absolutely an artificial construct that they've set up to look like a zero-sum game when it's not; the page rate is exactly what Amazon wants it to be. But there are lots of other things in play as well.

(And stealing is stealing, IMO, whether from Amazon or other authors, but to my neverending surprise that doesn't seem to be a universal opinion here.)


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

jb1111 said:


> So, what I take away from all this, from what is being said here -- is that the famous scammers weren't literally ripping off money from other authors, because the money in the pot isn't based on page reads.


No.

The pot is fixed. The number of pages read is variable. The higher the number of pages read by bots and scammers, the less the rest of us get out of that pot.

And while people say the rate is what Amazon wants it to be, since they started removing scammers, the rate has pretty well stabilized, where before it varied a great deal.

I think Amazon sets a rate they want to be paying out, but if the pages read are higher than expected (because of bot and scammer activity), they just let the rate fall to compensate for the millions of extra pages. They dont care if authors get paid less. Yes they top it up, but only based on the rate they want, and the pages they expect.

Remove scammers and bots, and the rate stabilizes, which so far we've seen.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

TimothyEllis said:


> The pot is fixed.


The pot is not fixed.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fixed


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

lilywhite said:


> The pot is not fixed.


I suppose you're going to tell me it's not black either?


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> They were ripping off visibility, but not actual money from the pot, because the money in the pot is all artificially based. Someone makes an arbitrary decision somewhere to throw more money in to keep the program running.


It doesn't matter that the pot is set each month, it's still real money, and it was still being sucked up by people who didn't earn it fairly, and it was still taken from people who would have gotten that money (especially the bonuses). And yes, visibility.

Folks keep throwing up these screens and trying to make out this is something it's not, to the point it looks like excusing bad behavior because "it wasn't really stealing". Well, there's no actual money on Wall Street, but the crooks and cheats there are still stealing. Hacking into someone's credit card doesn't involve actual money, but it's still stealing.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

she-la-ti-da said:


> It doesn't matter that the pot is set each month, it's still real money, and it was still being sucked up by people who didn't earn it fairly, and it was still taken from people who would have gotten that money (especially the bonuses). And yes, visibility.


I hear what you're saying and basically agree with you here.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

KelliWolfe said:


> No. No, no, no, no, _no_. Consider the people who had book rankings stripped when they were running promos because the Amazon Black Hat Detection Algos designed to detect illicit boosts from bot/reader farms caught them by mistake. Or the people who have had page reads stripped - and after the 800k batch we just saw that was reinstated, who knows how many of those were truly "bad" page reads? People had their accounts suspended and lost income for weeks over that mess. What about AMS? These people were dumping tens of thousands a month _each_ into AMS ads, jacking the price up for everyone else and pricing a lot of people out of the market for their genres. And lets not forget the authors who got gypped out of their All Stars bonuses because of the black hats.
> 
> It isn't just about the stupid freakin' page rate. These people cost a whole lot of legit authors a whole lot of money. Focusing on nothing but the page rate trivializes what the actual impact was on everyone else in the KU system.


I understand all the rest of it, how it was cheating the system. I read most of the posts on the other threads. I'm well acquainted with what went on from reading everything on KB over the past several months.

I was referring to the mechanics the Zon either uses or doesn't use to distribute proceeds to authors for pages read.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

TimothyEllis said:


> No.
> 
> The pot is fixed. The number of pages read is variable. The higher the number of pages read by bots and scammers, the less the rest of us get out of that pot.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your explanation. Makes more sense now.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

KelliWolfe said:


> The best current guesses I've seen estimate about 2.5 million subscribers. Not all of them are paying, and not all of them are paying the full rate., so the income from the program is going to be under $25 million. Take out the author payments and you don't have just a whole lot left over. Then you have to pay for advertising, server and network usage (mostly electricity and bandwidth), etc. So the odds of them actually making any kind of profit are low. They're probably not losing a whole lot, but they're not generating profits.


Isn't there two "versions" of Kindle Unlimited? One is available through KDP Select and is paid out of a shared pot.

The other is available outside of KDP, specific to publishers who have negotiated with Amazon to be in Kindle Unlimited but not exclusive. Those in that program are paid, I believe, a set amount per borrow (or equivalent) out of a different fund.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that mean that whatever Amazon is making from KU subs (let's say 2.5 million. That seems like a solid number) would not only be part of the pot that KDP authors share, but also supply the royalties for the other fund for publishers outside of KU (trad pub mostly) and the monthly all-star bonuses?

Considering some of the books in KU but outside of the shared pot are Harry Potter, which probably gets a steady amount of borrows (more than most indies), I imagine the other fund is quite high as well.

Even more evidence to me that KU is a loss leader, and Amazon isn't even breaking even.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

David VanDyke said:


> I seem to remember someone with stats skills (Phoenix?) running an analysis a while back that showed the money taken in via KU subscriptions couldn't possibly be sufficient to pay the authors in the program.


Wasn't me. I've always speculated Amazon is treating KU like a loyalty program (which is basically what Prime is) with it's own assigned budget and P&L. Probably bottom-lined as 'marketing,' which would also mean any direct expenses (costs) from the program itself would 'come off the top' for purposes of taxation.

As an example, if the program is being allocated a $25M monthly budget, is pulling in $15M in KU fees and is paying out a total of $40M ($24M in KU royalties/bonuses to KDP authors and another $16M to AP authors/Pottermore/non-KDP accounts*), then the program would still be operating within budget and in the black.

Keep in mind that Amazon reported $5.6B in profit in 2017. That's revenue minus costs. And with a corporate tax rate of 35%, Amazon likely owed NO taxes (and may have even gotten a tax refund) due to tax credits and stock compensations. Even if they can't replicate that in 2018, the corporate tax rate will fall to 21%, which is better but still sizable. Any business costs they can write off the top, which also have indirect influence on customers buying more, are good things. For instance, many small businesses evaluate where they're at at the end of Q3 with taxable profit and often decide that spending more on ads in Q4, even if those ads don't result in positive ROI, will lower the tax burden more than the difference between what their ad spend is and the ROI on that spend.

_*The $15M and $16M figures are guesstimates only._


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Back on topic: It seems likely one of the authors in the Yahoo article currently has a book up, under a pen name, that was up (under that same pen name) when the original account was terminated. It now has a new ASIN. I have no idea whether it's pubbed under a new KDP account or via D2D or what. Amazon is aware. Watching now to see what they do...


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2018)

Patrick-Stew said:


> Can you provide a source to support this please.


Common Sense and basic math is all you need to understand that KU is a loss leader. A gateway drug to get people into the Amazon ecosystem.

Though Amazon has never released official numbers, the estimated number of KU subscribers is around 3,000,000. At $9.99, that works out to $29,970,000 a month. Which sounds like a HUGE amount of money...and it is in the gross.

But subtract from that the global fund, which in June was $22,600,000. That leaves 7,370,000. Which still sounds like a lot, but...

Now the global fund ONLY covers page reads paid to indies. It does not cover monies paid to trade publishers with books licensed to be in KU. Remember, KU isn't just indie books. It also includes magazine subscriptions and books from trade publishers. NONE of them are being paid on arbitrary page views. They are being paid through special licensing agreements. Let's be conservative and assume only 50% of the balance is being paid toward trade publishers and magazine subscription licensing fees (I consider that exceptionally low, as it assumes that the bulk of books read in KU are indie books with trades and subs only accounting for a small percentage, but this is a mental exercise so we'll go with it). That leaves only $3,685,000 left over. Which might sound like a nice profit...but doesn't actually account for Amazon's actual operating expenses. to run the program.

And, again, these are conservative numbers. The Harry Potter books are in KU. They list as ebooks for $8.99 each. The Hunger Games are in KU. They list at $7.99 each. These publishers are not accepting pennies for pageviews in exchange for "exposure." They are getting their full purchase payments (assume 50% minimum, depending on the licensing terms, but probably more because Amazon would have had to sweeten the pot to get trade publishers to agree to be in KU).


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

PhoenixS said:


> Back on topic: It seems likely one of the authors in the Yahoo article currently has a book up, under a pen name, that was up (under that same pen name) when the original account was terminated. It now has a new ASIN. I have no idea whether it's pubbed under a new KDP account or via D2D or what. Amazon is aware. Watching now to see what they do...


Wow. That's ... wow.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

PhoenixS said:


> Back on topic: It seems likely one of the authors in the Yahoo article currently has a book up, under a pen name, that was up (under that same pen name) when the original account was terminated. It now has a new ASIN. I have no idea whether it's pubbed under a new KDP account or via D2D or what. Amazon is aware. Watching now to see what they do...


You have to wonder how people's minds work. Surely it would make a lot more sense to wait until the hoo-ha has died down and everyone has given up watching out for shenanigans from these banned authors.


----------



## 3rotic (Mar 28, 2013)

PhoenixS said:


> Back on topic: It seems likely one of the authors in the Yahoo article currently has a book up, under a pen name, that was up (under that same pen name) when the original account was terminated. It now has a new ASIN. I have no idea whether it's pubbed under a new KDP account or via D2D or what.


What, seriously? Which author/book? After the first time, I can't believe they'd try it again.


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

Lydniz said:


> You have to wonder how people's minds work. Surely it would make a lot more sense to wait until the hoo-ha has died down and everyone has given up watching out for shenanigans from these banned authors.


I wonder if these attempts are either testing Amazon's limits, so that the rest of the gang will know what they can get away with, or they're a distraction, while the others are quietly setting up little publishing companies here and there, and will start creeping back in a few weeks.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

LOL on all the PMs. I get it, but in this case, I'd like to give Amazon a couple more days to react before being bombarded, since others are aware and are likely emailing Amazon too.  

The book -- a debut from this pen name -- hit at least #110 in the overall store under its new ASIN, and is currently still in the top #200.


----------



## Glis Moriarty (Jun 20, 2018)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> the estimated number of KU subscribers is around 3,000,000. At $9.99, that works out to $29,970,000 a month.
> 
> But subtract from that the global fund, which in June was $22,600,000. That leaves 7,370,000.
> 
> Let's be conservative and assume only 50% of the balance is being paid toward trade publishers and magazine subscription licensing fees ... That leaves only $3,685,000 left over. Which might sound like a nice profit...but doesn't actually account for Amazon's actual operating expenses. to run the program.


You forget the extra AMS income generated by KU writers.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Common Sense and basic math is all you need to understand that KU is a loss leader. A gateway drug to get people into the Amazon ecosystem.


The main driver for Amazon across all of its businesses is achieving scale and preferably domination. Mostly by driving down costs. P&L comes second, just so long as they cover their costs.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

A reminder that in this kind of situation, in-thread requests for PMs are not permitted.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

jb1111 said:


> So, what I take away from all this, from what is being said here -- is that the famous scammers weren't literally ripping off money from other authors, because the money in the pot isn't based on page reads.
> 
> They were ripping off visibility, but not actual money from the pot, because the money in the pot is all artificially based. Someone makes an arbitrary decision somewhere to throw more money in to keep the program running.


So when some criminals get away and other innocent people get arrested, an average citizen wasn't being "actually" affected--by first-order effects. There are a ton of second- and third-order effects, though.

This kind of assertion is really getting stale--the idea that if we don't see the hand that's stealing or the money disappearing, it doesn't exist. The real question is, at the end of the day, will thousands of authors earn more money with a cleaner, better, less corrupt ecosystem. The answer is obviously yes.


----------



## 39416 (Mar 18, 2011)

My experience has been that people who go in for white collar crime (stealing money though flimflamming) become addicts to that easy money. Doesn't matter if they are awaiting trial, or they've just gotten out of prison for it, they almost always make a beeline right back to it. They just can't give it up. I'm not at all surprised the Black Hatters are still trying to get back into KU; IMO they will keep right on trying to do so. The only thing that will keep them out is (Amazon) force.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

PhoenixS said:


> The book -- a debut from this pen name -- hit at least #110 in the overall store under its new ASIN, and is currently still in the top #200.


I assume this is due to all his loyal followers buying the book again so that his children won't starve? We'll see if he actually collects any of that money at the end of October.


----------



## SalomeGolding (Apr 25, 2018)

TwistedTales said:


> I was also suprised Cipriano was paid his outstandings, usually Amazon withhold payment when they ban accounts. I also didn't quite understand whether Earle was getting outstanding payments and then lost them for trying to reload the books.


Really? Every story / post I've seen re authors being banned has said that Amazon will be paying out the pages "read" prior to the ban. Supposedly it's to lessen Amazon's legal exposure.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

SalomeGolding said:


> Really? Every story / post I've seen re authors being banned has said that Amazon will be paying out the pages "read" prior to the ban. Supposedly it's to lessen Amazon's legal exposure.


Ummm, not what I've seen. They will pay out the royalties is what I've seen. That's book sales, not reads.


----------



## SalomeGolding (Apr 25, 2018)

TimothyEllis said:


> Ummm, not what I've seen. They will pay out the royalties is what I've seen. That's book sales, not reads.


I see.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

ParkerAvrile said:


> You can easily sell books with mobi files on Smashwords and get higher royalties. So I've been wondering about that too. This is sci-fi. I don't picture that readership having much trouble sideloading a book to Kindle...
> 
> Readers of other "niche" items already know about Smashwords, surely they could post their new home on reddit and to their mailing list & start making money again almost right away.


Well, they'd be making money, sure, but it won't be scamming KU amounts of money. These folks who actually can produce books people will read could make decent money. I just don't think that's what they're after. It's the huge amounts they make from those page reads and the bonuses that makes it all worthwhile. Simple sales won't be enough.



SalomeGolding said:


> Really? Every story / post I've seen re authors being banned has said that Amazon will be paying out the pages "read" prior to the ban. Supposedly it's to lessen Amazon's legal exposure.


Amazon said they'd pay out the royalties earned up to a point, but what might have happened is that finding further dirty dealing took that away. So, trying to open a new account made money that would have been paid out (likely at the end of this month) forfeit. They went against TOS again, and they lost.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2018)

Glis Moriarty said:


> You forget the extra AMS income generated by KU writers.


AMS has nothing to do with KU. You don't need to be in KU to use AMS. I have an ad running right now for a title not in KU.


----------



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

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> AMS has nothing to do with KU. You don't need to be in KU to use AMS. I have an ad running right now for a title not in KU.


The confusion may come from the fact that when Amazon originally offered indies access to a version of AMS ads, it required KDP Select. That requirement was dropped some months ago, but I don't think everyone realizes that.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

loraininflorida said:


> My experience has been that people who go in for white collar crime (stealing money though flimflamming) become addicts to that easy money. Doesn't matter if they are awaiting trial, or they've just gotten out of prison for it, they almost always make a beeline right back to it. They just can't give it up. I'm not at all surprised the Black Hatters are still trying to get back into KU; IMO they will keep right on trying to do so. The only thing that will keep them out is (Amazon) force.


I had wondered if it is something like this.


----------



## Elizabeth S. (Oct 20, 2016)

TwistedTales said:


> - Member pays $10 per month, which is equivalent to 2,200 pages per month (paying the author .0045 per page).


And not everyone pays that. They just had a deal of three months for 99 cents. Plus all of the free monthly trials they give out. You can do one monthly trial a year.


----------



## 101569 (Apr 11, 2018)

Don't forget there are also people like me that read 20+ books a week to add into the pool.

On a side note...Where are you guys finding kindle subs for that low? I have always paid the almost 10 a month except on my few free months when I unsub and resub.


----------



## Glis Moriarty (Jun 20, 2018)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> AMS has nothing to do with KU. You don't need to be in KU to use AMS. I have an ad running right now for a title not in KU.


I didn't imply it did.
But some people do use AMS to promote KU books; and that provides another income stream attributable to KU on top of subscriptions.


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

Lilly_Frost said:


> Am I the only sucker paying their $10 a month for KU? I'm starting to wonder if I'm keeping KU afloat singlehandedly.
> 
> Edited to add that I just saw idontknowyet's post, so that makes two of us keeping it afloat.


Make that three. I stump up the full whack every month, never had a deal beyond the first month and I'm pretty sure I don't borrow enough to cover the cost. But I do like the convenience of being able to get the whole book without paying at the point of sale. Convenience, convenience. And it doesn't bother me anymore if I don't finish a book.


----------



## Glis Moriarty (Jun 20, 2018)

TwistedTales said:


> The viability of valuing companies based on market share is probably coming to an end, which is why Bezos outlined his plans to increase profits 3 or so months ago (which FYI always stated AMS and AWS would be the profit engines for Amazon). Amazon's profitability is lagging behind other tech stocks right now so I expect the internal drive for profitability to increase.
> 
> Market positioning is changing and Amazon is adapting, which means they are shifting the underlying assumptions everyone seems to have about what drives their decisions, but a lot of people don't want to accept that. Meh...


Market share has never really been the basis of valuations, although there have been a lot of naive investors who don't understand tech at all but see the growth and got sucked in without understanding what they are being sucked in to. They did use market share as a proxy for value and have been caught out with some companies who have struggled to find a way of monetising their market share.

Bezos has fought investor pressure to increase pressure for years.
I've seen no sign of Amazon actually changing its spots. It has always been about relentless cost improvement, being lower cost than competitors and being able to sustain competition for longer because it is not (currently) trying to take profit out. Doing that gives it control of its market. Once it has that control, it becomes free to increase prices (and profits) without losing market share, so long as it maintains its cost advantage. It's all about thinking long term.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

My KU membership comes free with Prime, although I'm not sure how 'free' it technically is given prime's cost. I've had KU for years and only paid about $20 worth for it...because then we got Prime and that was that.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

TwistedTales said:


> I've a theory that this scam game doesn't work anywhere near as well as the bot version. With the bots it was all profits, but the circlejerks are a combo of incentivized or "quid pro quo" downloads, reviews and reads plus straight-up AMS style advertizing. Amazon pay on a 90 day cycle, which means these players must carry up to 90 days expenses ... All it means is by the time they get caught they can be deeply in debt, which only adds to their desperation.


This could be it. One of the guys really didn't need to scam his way to hundreds of thousands though. He has a true and loyal following, and, I think some genuinely original plots and a decent "voice." I think that it had to be the thrill for him.


----------



## 39416 (Mar 18, 2011)

Just out of curiosity, what's your suspicion of how much of these successful Black Hatters' success is illusory (i.e. fake)? More than 50%?


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

TwistedTales said:


> I'm not saying the guy didn't have a large and loyal fan base, but how can you tell if he did? Some of these apparent KU successes have virtually no web presence or FB activity and I always wonder why not. Based on their ranks, a single book is selling/downloading at a rate of 3 - 5,000 copies a month (or more). Over a period of say 12 months that's potentially 40 - 70,000 unique readers for that book alone (plus it's one book in a series). I would have expected more fan action as in comments, likes, shares, tweets, etc so the small visible reaction always surprises me, especially considering how many reviews these books can gather.


You might be right. There is a petition to get certain authors reinstated and it hasn't reached 3,000 signatures yet--they're close, but some of the signers actually are saying "don't reinstate them." I would expect, with their sales numbers, that they would have a lot larger base.


----------



## Elizabeth S. (Oct 20, 2016)

TwistedTales said:


> I'm not saying the guy didn't have a large and loyal fan base, but how can you tell if he did? Some of these apparent KU successes have virtually no web presence or FB activity and I always wonder why not. Based on their ranks, a single book is selling/downloading at a rate of 3 - 5,000 copies a month (or more). Over a period of say 12 months that's potentially 40 - 70,000 unique readers for that book alone (plus it's one book in a series). I would have expected more fan action as in comments, likes, shares, tweets, etc so the small visible reaction always surprises me, especially considering how many reviews these books can gather.


Some of it can be attributed to the type of readers they're courting. They're targeting the readers who devour books by genre and trope, not necessarily by author.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

C. Gockel said:


> You might be right. There is a petition to get certain authors reinstated and it hasn't reached 3,000 signatures yet--they're close, but some of the signers actually are saying "don't reinstate them." I would expect, with their sales numbers, that they would have a lot larger base.


Whoa. That is telling. It doesn't surprise me that they're trying to get reinstated again and again to prove their 'innocence'. Sucks, really. Is this happening because even legitimate authors want to get to the top hella fast? It takes years to gain an audience. There's no going around the hard work part. What makes me sad is thinking that these guys actually love to write and create worlds. What awaits their future as authors now? Have they completely blown it?


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

C. Gockel said:


> This could be it. One of the guys really didn't need to scam his way to hundreds of thousands though. He has a true and loyal following, and, I think some genuinely original plots and a decent "voice." I think that it had to be the thrill for him.


And Lance Armstrong had a fair shot at all his titles and wins, but he chose to dope in order to ensure them. Lots of already-successful sports figures have fallen prey to this, trying to get that edge.

Many times these people are alpha types for whom money --making and spending, not having-- is how they keep score. They can't stand not to seize any edge, fair or not.



C. Gockel said:


> You might be right. There is a petition to get certain authors reinstated and it hasn't reached 3,000 signatures yet--they're close, but some of the signers actually are saying "don't reinstate them." I would expect, with their sales numbers, that they would have a lot larger base.


Yeah, that's more evidence--not proof, mind you, but evidence--of the gap between the real and the illusory. I guarantee you I could get 3000 sigs on a petition from my 20K+ genuine newsletter list, and my sales have never been near the levels of those banned by Amazon. I have a seven-figure author friend who also doesn't do much web presence--no social media, one website--and whose sales, reviews and success is entirely organic. His new releases sell 10K+ (counting a borrow as a sale) as soon as the Amazon announcement hits the inboxes, and regularly rise to the two-figure rankings. I guaranteed you he could get 10K sigs within a day or two.

So, when someone who SEEMS to be performing at a certain level by primary measures nevertheless cannot perform at that level by secondary measures, there's a reality gap somewhere.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

The fact that they are still trying to do work arounds pretty much shows their mindsets and the fact that they most likely are not squeaky clean. 

Of course they don't want to get kicked off Amazon but the attempts and how they are doing it and the things they say not matching up is very telling.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

WasAnn said:


> How did you get KU free with Prime? I've been prime since 2001 and they've never offered it for free. Prime reading, yes, but that's not KU.


I think it may have been a promotion at the time, idk. We've never been charged for KU and that started at the time we got on Prime. We've never looked deeply into it.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

C. Gockel said:


> You might be right. There is a petition to get certain authors reinstated and it hasn't reached 3,000 signatures yet--they're close, but some of the signers actually are saying "don't reinstate them." I would expect, with their sales numbers, that they would have a lot larger base.


Most readers don't follow the author drama and aren't really inclined to get deeply involved. KU is "popcorn" to them. They devour several books a month. So if their favorite disappears, they just move on to the next available author. There's already been a couple of authors moving into space formerly occupied by the banned SciFi authors.

I don't think the following was illusory at all. It just wasn't particularly loyal.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> What makes me sad is thinking that these guys actually love to write and create worlds.


But do they? Because I'm thinking if they truly did, they'd already be up on every other retail site they could get an account for. If they are only about writing and making the readers happy, they wouldn't be telling people they can't "afford" to write any more books without Amazon, by which they mean KU.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

I've had KU a few times and even when I got three months for .99, I didn't spend the cost of my subscription (I mean, I do still have two months to go). Not everyone reads 20 books/month. There's no reason to assume the majority of people are super readers. We don't have any data on this, at all. I don't see why we're guessing that KU isn't profitable because we know people who read a lot. Of course we know people who read a lot. They're most likely to be our customers.

It doesn't matter if KU is profitable or if it's a loss leader or if it's an experiment. It's clearly something Amazon wants to continue (they keep selling three year subscriptions), so bringing readers to KU or keeping them in KU is a win for Amazon. Every KU author who moves pages is helping KU stay in business and thus helping Amazon. It might not make them money directly, but it does make them money as part of their overall strategy.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Gentleman Zombie said:


> There's already been a couple of authors moving into space formerly occupied by the banned SciFi authors.
> I don't think the following was illusory at all. It just wasn't particularly loyal.


Were there any others besides the two mentioned in this post? I thought most of the other banned authors were in romance.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

***********

Comment removed to protect content and data from the over-reaching TOS of new forum owner VerticalScope.

VerticalScope claims rights to any content posted to this site as theirs to disseminate beyond this site in any way they see fit.

Read the Terms of Service, both before AND after you've registered. At the time of this post, the new, more egregious TOS is available to read only after you've registered.

KBoards was purchased by VerticalScope 7.5 years and 4000 posts after I joined. VerticalScope will not allow that existing content to be permanently deleted, despite the fact I did not and do not agree to granting the new owners the rights to my content. 

***********


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Elizabeth S. said:


> Some of it can be attributed to the type of readers they're courting. They're targeting the readers who devour books by genre and trope, not necessarily by author.


Which is what I think some (maybe most) of the more voracious KU readers fall into. Which means that while their books may have been popular, the authors in question may have been far less so. I.e. their books satisfied a need for a certain genre and the speed that they produced likewise satisfied that need. But at the same time, if you were to ask those readers who their favorite authors are, you might never hear the names of those whose books they devoured.

ETA: this is not necessarily a bad thing. It's just aiming at a specific niche of the market.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

David VanDyke said:


> And Lance Armstrong had a fair shot at all his titles and wins, but he chose to dope in order to ensure them. Lots of already-successful sports figures have fallen prey to this, trying to get that edge.


Lance Armstrong didn't have a fair shot, though; _everybody_ was cheating, and as far as I'm aware that's still the case. He was better at hiding it than most, but at the top levels of cycling it's my understanding from what I've read that there's no such thing as a clean athlete.

I think there are probably other athletes/sports where that comparison would hold up better, though. Although sadly none come to mind. Basically all sports are so physically demanding at the professional level that it's hard to imagine there isn't cheating running rampant in every possible sport.

In books, though, cheating stands out like a sore thumb. It's not so much about gaining an edge and picking up that extra little push of attention, but about simply gaming the system for all it's worth. Some are making extra money at the expense of Amazon, Amazon's customers, and legit authors. Others are trying to gain visibility at the expense of the credibility of Amazon's review system.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

she-la-ti-da said:


> But do they? Because I'm thinking if they truly did, they'd already be up on every other retail site they could get an account for.


I was wondering about this too. Any genuine author unfortunate enough to be booted out of Amazon (say for a genuine mistake), would be busting a gut to get loaded wide as fast as possible, and then hitting all the promo sites to advertise their free first in series. With BB ads now, there is an alternative to AMS, and BB prefer wide.

The fact these authors are not, suggests KU is their only motivation for writing. XXX has said he had 2 books almost ready for release, and the dates have now passed. Why are they not up wide? Because he knows they'll flop without KU? If he had the reader base he indicates, surely they'd buy wherever he releases? But maybe not, maybe its all KU readers, and he knows almost none of them will follow him wide?

I know when I went wide, I lost 50%+ of my readers. But at the time, I also had no funds for proper wide marketing. Now, should I decide to go wide again, I have funds put away in case I need to do a major campaign, and as such, should do a lot better.

Now if XXX knows he'll lose 95% of his readers launching wide, that's a strong incentive to not do it, and find a hole to crawl back into Amazon through. Otherwise, why isn't he wide with at least his completed series?


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

You make valid points, Timothy. But wouldn't something be better than nothing? I mean, if author XXX has 40+ books that are well crafted and professional in package, one would think that would be enough of a head start compared to the average author going wide. If he has good products, why not start with the 5% and grow from there? It's sketch imo.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Rose Andrews said:


> You make valid points, Timothy. But wouldn't something be better than nothing? I mean, if author XXX has 40+ books that are well crafted and professional in package, one would think that would be enough of a head start compared to the average author going wide. If he has good products, why not start with the 5% and grow from there? It's sketch imo.


Yeah. And the fact XXX hasn't even made any attempt to go wide (as far as I know atm), looks wonky. 5% of his list is probably bigger than my whole list, and should at least establish some ranks to build on. When I went wide, I dont think any of my books even got ranked outside of amazon. XXX should be able to, with whats being said, get reasonable ranks on enough books, and the next 2 releases should get him traction wide. But why isn't he? Wonky!


----------



## 39416 (Mar 18, 2011)

My guess is that he hasn't gone wide yet because he hasn't yet been able to face that his books aren't going to be going back into KU.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

TimothyEllis said:


> I was wondering about this too. Any genuine author unfortunate enough to be booted out of Amazon (say for a genuine mistake), would be busting a gut to get loaded wide as fast as possible, and then hitting all the promo sites to advertise their free first in series. With BB ads now, there is an alternative to AMS, and BB prefer wide.
> 
> The fact these authors are not, suggests KU is their only motivation for writing. XXX has said he had 2 books almost ready for release, and the dates have now passed. Why are they not up wide? Because he knows they'll flop without KU? If he had the reader base he indicates, surely they'd buy wherever he releases? But maybe not, maybe its all KU readers, and he knows almost none of them will follow him wide?
> 
> ...


There's a big difference between wide and everywhere but Amazon. Not being on Amazon is huge.



loraininflorida said:


> My guess is that he hasn't gone wide yet because he hasn't yet been able to face that his books aren't going to be going back into KU.


It's also possible part of the agreement that gets these authors paid their royalties involves not breaking KU exclusivity until their original select periods are up.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Crystal_ said:


> It's also possible part of the agreement that gets these authors paid their royalties involves not breaking KU exclusivity until their original select periods are up.


Well, Amazon did tell them they wouldn't get paid their royalties if they tried to republish on Amazon, and look what they did. These aren't authors who seem to want to abide by the rules or accept their punishment, regardless.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Crystal_ said:


> There's a big difference between wide and everywhere but Amazon. Not being on Amazon is huge.
> 
> It's also possible part of the agreement that gets these authors paid their royalties involves not breaking KU exclusivity until their original select periods are up.


If this is the case, why haven't they said it? It should be the central theme in big bad amazon bashing. I'd have thought it the lynch pin in whip up the fans motivation, and yet, it hasn't been said. Why?


----------



## shermp (Jul 21, 2018)

I hope you authors don't mind a reader giving his two cents in the Writer's Cafe, but hey...

Having read some books from both of the authors mentioned in this thread, I thought I might give a readers view of the situation.

For the original author this thread mentioned, I never really got into his books. The (copy) editing was decent enough, but there was something about the prose that never grabbed me. Also, one of the books I actually read all the way through had plot holes up the wazoo, indicating it was really rushed to market, and I'm not normally that sensitive to the odd plot hole. It also became pretty obvious that he was certainly "inspired" by a lot of existing series...

As to the second author, I actually didn't mind some of his works, for what they were. Don't get me wrong, they were no great literature, but enjoyable enough. But the more he wrote, the shorter the books became, the more wonky the formatting, and the quicker they were released. It got to the point where I couldn't be bothered any more, and gave up. For most authors, I get the feeling that first and foremost, they want to tell a good story, hopefully getting paid along the way. For this author, I got the feeling it became all about the dollar signs, the story a distant second. In short, he and his works started feeling very... mercenary, which certainly put me off.

So, I wouldn't be very surprised at all if they don't have many fans that would follow them wide, as their books simply aren't worth it. I don't even think it has much to do with the genre, but rather the fact the "books" were *REDACTED* out onto Amazon as quickly as possible, and most readers would only be willing to read them because, "why not, I've already paid for KU?".


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

shermp said:


> I hope you authors don't mind a reader giving his two cents in the Writer's Cafe, but hey...


More than welcome. Something we often miss is the reader perspective. And your comments are interesting.

Just as a matter of interest, was first author X, and second author XXX?


----------



## shermp (Jul 21, 2018)

TimothyEllis said:


> More than welcome. Something we often miss is the reader perspective. And your comments are interesting.
> 
> Just as a matter of interest, was first author X, and second author XXX?


The first likes his initials, the second is fond of hyphenation, but you knew that already


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

shermp said:


> So, I wouldn't be very surprised at all if they don't have many fans that would follow them wide, as their books simply aren't worth it. I don't even think it has much to do with the genre, but rather the fact the "books" were *REDACTED* out onto Amazon as quickly as possible, and most readers would only be willing to read them because, "why not, I've already paid for KU?".


Thanks, Shermp!

And welcome. The Writer's Cafe is always open to readers, imho.

Your theory kind of mirrors mine in that I think there's a subset (possibly a large one) of authors who focus specifically on the unique niche that KU offers. The upside being potential for huge short term rewards. The downside being a greater chance of them lacking viability as evergreen products


----------



## NoLongerPosting (Apr 5, 2014)

Removed due to site owner's change to TOS.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Rickie Blair said:


> I don't know how long they've been up, but Author X and Author XXX both have their books published now on Nook, Google, Kobo, and iBooks.


I stand corrected.

Which presumably means they've given up on getting back into KU, which is a good sign Amazon will stand firm.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Lilly_Frost said:


> Me either. It makes me feel unloved.


Same here! My sister just got the .99 deal. When they run those cheap deals it makes even more sense for them to have KU as a loss leader because they will pick up people who are not necessarily voracious readers, but it will draw them back to the site more often.

I remember reading one of the first updates on KU and Amazon said that since the introduction of KU that book sales were actually up 25% across the board for the people who had KU memberships. Which sounds crazy....but I've found that true for me. I buy a lot of books outside of KU and since getting a KU membership I have started buying more from Amazon than I used to, staple stuff like cat litter boxes and pantry stuff. So, KU is a huge funnel to the 'everything' store. And Amazon's stock continues to soar. I had some that I sold five years ago when I bought my condo--it was around $300 a share then. My dad kept telling me to sell it because Amazon was so volatile but he started paying attention when I started publishing and he bought in around $500 a share. It's over $1800 a share now....I don't think KU was ever designed to be a profit center on the subscription price, but more of a funnel to sell everything else.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> the other's books have been there since 2016/17


And in KU? Because that right there is grounds for account termination. I saw some of those books on B&N, but I didn't bother checking to see if they were also in KU.

The thing is, it's hard to go wide. It takes time and money. You have to put a lot more into getting readers, but it's possible. If you have a fan base and money to promo (which these people should certainly have, considering their ill-gotten gains numbered into the hundreds of thousands), it's a heck of a lot easier.


----------



## Avery342 (Aug 23, 2016)

Sorry. This post has been deleted by the author due to the updated TOS that we were neither told about or given the option of accepting. I do NOT accept the TOS currently in place.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

she-la-ti-da said:


> And in KU? Because that right there is grounds for account termination. I saw some of those books on B&N, but I didn't bother checking to see if they were also in KU.


No, more likely the books were wide back then, and simply inactive while in KU.

Most of my books are still on D2D, but unpublished. Republishing would just be a matter of uploading the few with changes made, and hitting the publish button again.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

***********

Comment removed to protect content and data from the over-reaching TOS of new forum owner VerticalScope.

VerticalScope claims rights to any content posted to this site as theirs to disseminate beyond this site in any way they see fit.

Read the Terms of Service, both before AND after you've registered. At the time of this post, the new, more egregious TOS is available to read only after you've registered.

KBoards was purchased by VerticalScope 7.5 years and 4000 posts after I joined. VerticalScope will not allow that existing content to be permanently deleted, despite the fact I did not and do not agree to granting the new owners the rights to my content. 

***********


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

I agree with you TwistedTales, especially about KU and/or whale readers.  Most voracious readers I know or am aware of  (including myself) are quite discerning and picky about what we read.  We might be willing to initially try things out but they aren't going to hold our attention if they aren't decent and most are not going to keep reading a writer's other books if we don't like the first one we come across. 

Also, many voracious readers will read by various means.  I have a KU and a Scribd subscription and I still buy both new and used books, check them out at the library, listen to audio books once in a while, etc.

There are some people who will only read in KU either due to economics or they are able to find plenty of books to read.  However, I think the pool of KU readers is probably varied.

I also have no doubt that some books can do better in KU if they aren't the best because there isn't a big risk to the reader.  Shermp's post from the reader's perspective was very enlightening on that.

I do think that the fact that borrows count as a sale for rank and that KU seems fairly easy to manipulate does make "success" appear quite deceptive when looking at the bestseller lists.  Some writers can only succeed in KU and not outside of it.  

Edit: Yes I am paying $9.99 too and have so for years. Actually the charge on my card is $10.50.  I should quit and try to find a deal, lol.


----------



## Kat Faitour (Jun 3, 2016)

Lilly_Frost said:


> Am I the only sucker paying their $10 a month for KU? I'm starting to wonder if I'm keeping KU afloat singlehandedly.
> 
> Edited to add that I just saw idontknowyet's post, so that makes two of us keeping it afloat.


Count me in as #3. 

Wait. Caught up on the thread, I think I'm lucky #5.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

I pay the 10 bucks a month and probably read 2 books, tops. LOL I'm that guy subsidizing your membership!


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

TwistedTales said:


> You're not lost in the slightest. If 2 & 3 are more true than 1, then the bestseller lists will be fraudulent as well, or at least a percentage of the books listed will be.


I don't think that's an if. Especially if you have readers buying and borrowing the same book.



> It's always interesting to see what makes it onto bestseller lists on other platforms and, bearing in mind they don't have the KU books, it's often the same trad books and some of the non KU indies (especially when they've had a new release or BookBub promotion), otherwise the lists are very different. You might say that's because KU is exclusive, but I've always wondered what Amazon's bestseller list would look like if KU was stripped out. Would it be the same as the other platforms? If not, then why not?


I think it would look more similar to the other storefronts, but you'd still find KU books in there, just not in such a high density in the top 100 (or 200). Assuming a 1:2 buy to borrow ratio, you'd probably see KU books barely hit the top 1000, with the exception of those hitting the top 50 right now (their sales volume would keep them in the top 200 at the very least. At a 1:1 buy to borrow ratio, I think the cut off would be closer to top 500. But unless you are seeing 1 buy for every 2 borrows, you'll likely drop faster than a lead balloon.



> I've also always been somewhat skeptical of the claim that the KU reader is a "special" sort or "whale reader" as I've heard them described (ugly sounding name for them). I do think they're often prolific readers, otherwise why join KU? I'd describe myself as a prolific reader capable of devouring a book a day, but I don't lose my mind and not care about what I'm reading or not know who I'm reading. Volume doesn't equate to stupidity.
> 
> I'm prepared to accept KU has a decent percentage of high volume readers aka "whales" (still don't like that term), but that doesn't mean most of them are swimming the seas sucking up books as if they are as interchangeable as plankton. Out of say a 100,000 unique readers, I would expect to see a higher level of social media interaction and a lot of upset readers if the author was banned, otherwise who is writing all those glowing, "I wuv you" reviews? Everyone knows 98% of readers don't leave reviews, so those that do went out of their way to write one.


Yeah, they aren't really whales. whales spend money. KU readers are more like the couponers. A whale is a reader who buys every single version of every book you've published. A KU reader is more value driven. And there are two types of customers who use subscription services. The ones who don't binge (and these are the ones you want if your sole revenue stream is about subscription) and the ones who binge and end up costing more money if all you do is subscription.



> And this is why I suspect there is a lot more 2 & 3 than there is 1 going on.


See, I see 1 not as a weird subset, just as a subset, especially in romance, who have been conditioned to get lots of books fast and priced at .99. For that to happen, the quality isn't always the best. (I've been guilty of throwing something into KU after a very brief proofing and readers didn't ding me in the slightest - When I went wide I had to unlearn a lot of bad habits and spent way too much time going over everything.) It's not so much that they'll read anything, it's that they're willing to give up some things to have access to other things. So, quantity is likely going to outweigh quality. Not that they will read something that's bad (at least most organic readers won't), but they're more tolerant of the quality.



> What hope is there? I'm quite optimistic about writing/publishing, but I'm not in KU. If you are then at least understand the playing field, it's potential issues/risks, then decide if it still works for you. If so, then carry on and be happy.


So I have a wide pen, it's my main pen and I have a trilogy that's been sitting in my hopper and so doesn't fit with my brand. Just to clear out my hopper, I am going to clean up this trilogy and plop them into KU. And I am honestly not trying to be offensive, but I know someone will take it as such, so please, read the following with the understanding that I am not casting aspersion on any one. KU is lower effort than wide. One version, one cover, one upload. I can throw a few AWS ads out there, and if I nail my description, I should be able to net a few thousand per book. I can't do this for every book in my hopper, but these three sort of fit the KU trends pretty well. And now, with such a large chunk of authors who normally squatted in the top 20 of these categories gone, my little books have a chance to creep up there. The opportunity for visibility has widened.

I don't think I will ever go all in ever again, but for the moment, KU is the better option for this trilogy. I might take them wide after a KU term is up, but I am also going into it informed and empowered, meaning I don't expect things to go smoothly and won't count my page reads until they're read.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Books with legs are the same in KU as out of it (or offered free, for that matter). Strong cover, title, blurb, and concept to draw the reader's eye, hook them, and get them to read right away rather than tossing the book onto a TBR pile. Strong voice, storytelling skill, and mastery of genre to keep the reader reading. Strong ending to get them looking for the next book and recommending to their friends. 

The short, 99-cent, short-shelf-life, trend-focused books are a different animal, but they're not the only books in KU, even in romance. I did well pre-KU and no differently post-KU, except for the period when the chopped-apart short segments were dominating the store, and when the Masterminds similarly took so much visibility. The appeal is the same in both cases. There are many segments of readers both in KU and out of it, and word of mouth still provides the best long-term push for a book and an author.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

TwistedTales said:


> @rpatton (I'm not good with the paste feature so I'm only addressing it to you because you're the one triggering the questions.)
> 
> 3. If so, is it wise to build a catalog that might only do well in KU?


While I agree on the whole all eggs in one basket concept, not everyone runs their business the same. A catalog aimed specifically at KU could be considered a niche offering.

I've used this as an example before, and I still think it's valid: The Asylum (the movie company). They've made a business of churning out low budget clones of more popular (and far better funded) movies. It's not inconceivable for someone to label their stuff as "crap". Yet, they're still in business and one could argue they've thrived on this model. Why? Because they know they're servicing a niche. They're not going for the theater crowd. They're going for that person who's home on a Saturday night, needs entertainment, and doesn't want to watch another re-run. They know that customer isn't likely going to rave about the movie afterwards ... or even remember who starred in it. No. They made their money selling it to SyFy (or whoever) and now it's time to move on to the next project.

One can argue someone(s) could (and likely HAS) taken this approach with KU. They're putting out product to a hungry audience. It doesn't matter if it isn't the best or most memorable. These aren't designed to be evergreen books that can be enjoyed years from now. They're designed to hit the market hard, get tons of borrows, then disappear into obscurity after the 30 day cliff ... only for another title to take its place. Rinse and repeat.

Is it an easy model? Doubtful. Because nothing about publishing is easy. Is it a viable long term model? I can't say, but my gut says not likely. However, can someone make a S***load of money in the short term via it? Judging by what I've seen and heard, definitely YES.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

TwistedTales said:


> 4. Why do certain niches appear to do better in KU than others or wide? Again, I don't have an answer, but if I were to judge all readers by the niches popular in KU, I would assume everyone is reading gamer harem books with kick-a$$ girlies or snarky witches. None of these genres hit the big time wide to the same extent as KU, not like say any romance or true scifi can, which is why Amazon's bestseller lists can be so skewed. This is another thing that makes me go hmm about KU and scamming. I can see some authors doing well enough in the niches, but are there really so many readers they dominate the top 100 cats to this extent. Hmm...not sure I believe it.


This is a very good point. I think it's easy to see how some of these sub niches would definitely have readers and some that appear to be new would have an exciting appeal on top of that, but to dominate over more well-established sub-genres with much larger pool of readers? It does seem hard to believe.

I can also see some appeal for certain writers like MSE. I haven't read any of his books but just looking at some covers and blurbs they looked like Neo Conan the Barbarian. But again, such high ranks for the books and author in the entire store for this type of book? Maybe I guess.


----------



## 91831 (Jul 18, 2016)

I've got lost somewhere reading this tonight. We've changed from initials to X and XXX...?

So, is X the first author and XXX the second?


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

evdarcy said:


> I've got lost somewhere reading this tonight. We've changed from initials to X and XXX...?
> 
> So, is X the first author and XXX the second?


Yes.


----------



## 101569 (Apr 11, 2018)

RPatton said:


> Yeah, they aren't really whales. whales spend money. KU readers are more like the couponers. A whale is a reader who buys every single version of every book you've published. A KU reader is more value driven. And there are two types of customers who use subscription services. The ones who don't binge (and these are the ones you want if your sole revenue stream is about subscription) and the ones who binge and end up costing more money if all you do is subscription.
> 
> See, I see 1 not as a weird subset, just as a subset, especially in romance, who have been conditioned to get lots of books fast and priced at .99. For that to happen, the quality isn't always the best. (I've been guilty of throwing something into KU after a very brief proofing and readers didn't ding me in the slightest - When I went wide I had to unlearn a lot of bad habits and spent way too much time going over everything.) It's not so much that they'll read anything, it's that they're willing to give up some things to have access to other things. So, quantity is likely going to outweigh quality. Not that they will read something that's bad (at least most organic readers won't), but they're more tolerant of the quality.


I completely disagree with this. I am a prolific reader. I use KU and purchase books as well. Most of my favorite authors are trad pub and not in KU. I have bought most of their books several times both in print and on kindle. If I like your books I will read them regardless of price. Though my person limit is no more than the cost of a trad pub paperback for any book. Each month I have a set budget for buying books and most months I exceed it (its all about trying to stay in budget right?). I don't think all binge readers only read in KU. We love reading point blank and if we love your books we will pay for them if we need too. I was a prolific reader before KU and i'll be a prolific reader after KU disappears.

For me quality matter mostly for content though. I really don't care if your grammar stinks if you write a good story. Some of this comes from the fact that my grammatical skills are soo bad that if I notice your mistakes you probably aren't capable of writing coherent sentences. I cant tell you how many hundreds and hundreds of KU books I have dnf and returned. It is a serious pain in the butt.


----------



## 91831 (Jul 18, 2016)

Rose Andrews said:


> Yes.


Thanks!


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

The question was asked in a litrpg forum whether the readers there would buy the litrpg books like XXX and X's and the overwhelming answer was: no.  In general, the readers said that most of the litrpg books were not well written and, basically, didn't deserve to be bought. But they had no problem reading them if they are in KU, because it didn't cost anything more.

Now before people in KU think I'm insulting them, I'm not. This is what those READERS said about these authors in particular.  

Also, I can tell you as someone that runs a subscription site for my writing that there are stories that would sell individually like hotcakes and people sign up just for those.  Then there are the stories I wrote that maybe didn't hit the mark, but they read them, but ONLY because they were included with the membership. But if I sold those stories individually? Eh, they wouldn't buy them.

I don't know what quality level X and XXX's stories were. I make no comment on that, but this is what readers are saying who do read this genre voraciously and this is their opinion.  So it very well could be that the "quality" of the book the reader in KU would tolerate is far lower than they what it would have to be in order for them to actually buy it.  So on the other stores, maybe the "quality" of books written for the KU market aren't high enough to warrant being purchased.  Maybe if these authors adjust their writing/editing whatever they will be if their stories are that good.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

idontknowyet said:


> For me quality matter mostly for content though. I really don't care if your grammar stinks if you write a good story. Some of this comes from the fact that my grammatical skills are soo bad that if I notice your mistakes you probably aren't capable of writing coherent sentences.


I've always had KU, and I'm one of those subscribers that amazon loves, I pay full whack and never read anything in it at all - I have a gazillion books I've bought and am planning to read next time I'm down with the flu. I don't give a poop about grammar either because mine is terrible as well. Which makes it all the more fun that I edit my own pulp books (grammarly helps/doesn't help much) and have been six figures for the last six-seven years.

Yes, of course, there are readers that one star me for grammar, but those aren't my readers. I remember that report a few years ago that said most readers have a reading age of a teenager and I write accordingly - those are my readers because those are the books I read/used to read. I'm the type of reader who grew up on pulp western novels my dad left lying around - Mills and Boon fast reads from granny - and comic books from my siblings. Give me an award-winning book and I'll use it as a bookend. I'm also a hoover where books are concerned, doesn't matter the genre or the style, get me hooked and I'll go through everything you've ever written - shopping list included.

It's possible to do everything wrong, bookwise (by some peoples' standards) be on the up and up, and still make good money. So, quality-quantity, I just say find your tribe.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

I did see a handful or so readers on Reddit threads discussing the termination of MSE who seemed to be big fans but they still wanted to be able to read the books in KU.

It does seem strange to me because I value my time and it takes time to read a book so I do want it to be good.  I admit it is easy to borrow a KU book and then toss it back if it doesn't live up to the Look Inside (which I do tend to read).  Different strokes for different folks for sure.  It does make it easy to try out new writers and I have found some for sure through my KU subscription or just to see what certain successful writers are doing.    

There's tons of free books if you just want free or I guess $10 all you can read does satisfy some and if it isn't in KU they just find something else.  I get books from everywhere but I'm not going to plow through something just because it's free or "free" (part of a subscription).


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

idontknowyet said:


> I completely disagree with this [that KU readers don't spend money on books]. I am a prolific reader. I use KU and purchase books as well. Most of my favorite authors are trad pub and not in KU.


That's me too. I'm a book-a-day reader, and one of the reasons I do a lot of re-reading is I can't find enough decent books to read. My guess is I only get past the first few pages of one in four KU books I try. Even at that, I get my $10 worth every month, and I've been paying full freight since I subscribed.

The big reason I stick with KU is as a way to discover new-to-me authors without wasting loads of money. Back in bookstore days, I used to read the first couple of pages of a book, some from the middle, including a good bit of dialog, and the ending. (Gone With The Wind made me an ending reader.) I rarely made a mistake in choosing books.

When ebooks first started, I thought reading samples would be enough to keep me from wasting time and money, but I found out fast a good beginning doesn't necessarily mean a good book. The sample was a pretty good indication of grammar, editing, and quality of writing, although sometimes even those would fall apart later in a book, and I'm one who does care about all of those things. However, a high percentage of books fall apart later on because of plot holes, inconsistencies, unbelievable plot--endless ways.

Some of what I've downloaded with high hopes has been so bad it doesn't surprise me a scammer had to pay someone to click pages. Surely no real reader would read such stuff, even if she didn't care about grammar.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

ellenoc said:


> When ebooks first started, I thought reading samples would be enough to keep me from wasting time and money, but I found out fast a good beginning doesn't necessarily mean a good book. The sample was a pretty good indication of grammar, editing, and quality of writing, although sometimes even those would fall apart later in a book, and I'm one who does care about all of those things. However, a high percentage of books fall apart later on because of plot holes, inconsistencies, unbelievable plot--endless ways.


In the early day, I found a few books that were just well edited to 10%. After that, they fell apart. It was really disappointing.


----------



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

I think I've found my new tag line. Amanda M. Lee: Where the dollar store and crappy niche writing meet.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> I think I've found my new tag line. Amanda M. Lee: Where the dollar store and crappy niche writing meet.


Snort. It's pretty funny. Why people imagine that KU subscribers would read any old crap that's thrown up there, and continue to read those authors, is beyond me.

What KU will do, just as offering a book free does, is encourage readers to take a chance on a new-to-them writer. After that, as with any marketing, it's ON THE BOOK. People, even KU subscribers, mostly aren't brain-dead zombies who just want werdz on a buk page, and any werdz will do.

If a book does great and holds its rank, absent manipulation, it probably satisfies its audience. You may think they should be watching The Silence of the Lambs and not Miss Congeniality, but lots of us love Miss Congeniality and woudn't watch The Silence of the Lambs for a hundred dollars in cash money. Readers have lives. Sometimes hard lives with hard things in them. They aren't necessarily looking for hard, dense reads or dark, gripping topics. If that's your audience, awesome. If it isn't, I don't know why you'd begrudge other readers the books they love, or other writers their audience.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Lilly_Frost said:


> There are editorial services that offer "look inside" edits, to get the first 10% all polished up the better to part the fool from his money, or the KU reader from one of her 10 slots.


That's a strange idea. It's not as if those 10 slots are valuable. Download something n.g., dump it, try again. The new try fills the same slot the dumped one did. No pain. The only value in polishing Look Inside only would be in luring people who don't read things right away to buy. If I bought and then returned books the way I download, try, and reject them in KU, Amazon would probably ban me.

Not only that, if only the Look Inside is edited, most readers will stop reading at that point. In KU1 when authors got paid if a reader finished 10%, maybe that worked, not now.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> I think I've found my new tag line. Amanda M. Lee: Where the dollar store and crappy niche writing meet.


If what I said made you think I was saying this about all KU writers or books, I'm not. I'm not even saying it about X and XXX. This was what readers were saying about those particular authors. Not you. Not anyone else in KU. But it was a discussion regarding whether they would purchase these authors' books instead of just borrowing them since they were no longer in KU and this, unfortunately, was what was said.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Books with legs are the same in KU as out of it (or offered free, for that matter). Strong cover, title, blurb, and concept to draw the reader's eye, hook them, and get them to read right away rather than tossing the book onto a TBR pile. Strong voice, storytelling skill, and mastery of genre to keep the reader reading. Strong ending to get them looking for the next book and recommending to their friends.


Yes and no. Commerical books need great packaging everywhere but the packaging isn't always the same in KU vs wide. There are certain niches and subgenres that have such a huge KU audience that authors struggle to publish them wide. It's not like one is a magic pill, but I don't know if you can say a book that's successful in KU will do well wide and visa versa.


----------



## Justin Jordan (Feb 15, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> However, can someone make a S***load of money in the short term via it?


Indeed, and it might be enough. If I could hit, say half a million in income (even pretax) for three years or so, I wouldn't actually need to work again.

But even on a smaller level, it can still make sense. If the KU double your income, and being wide doesn't, KU is probably a smarter choice, because, well, you're not locked out of going wide later in most cases. You might have problems if you write to genuine trend, but even then, I'd venture you're likely to better in KU than out.

Always worth doing the analysis.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> I think I've found my new tag line. Amanda M. Lee: Where the dollar store and crappy niche writing meet.


  Bite your keyboard!


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Lilly_Frost said:


> But the rank has already increased at that point, and unless the reader returns their poorly edited book, the money has exchanged hands. Lots of people don't know you can return an ebook within the first week, so imagine how many people get stuck with books they can't bear to read. And sometimes the reader keeps reading, because I've read many book reviews that state the editing/proofing break down later in the book. Some of these "authors" aren't after readers, the way you are, they're after buyers/borrowers. Once the customer has bought or borrowed, the author doesn't care about them anymore.


I thought we were talking about polishing Look Inside to lure KU borrows. I agree it would have value as to buys. I've already mentioned that it's the unreliability of the sample, _i.e.,_ Look Inside, that's made me give up on it for choosing what to read. For new-to-me writers, generally it's KU, the library, or I don't do it. Once in a great while reviews, recommendations, or a fantastic blurb may lure me in, but then only doing it once in a great while I can return a book that doesn't work out.

It's as to KU readers I don't see value in polishing Look Inside only.

Admittedly I never think much about the effect on rank. Being totally mercenary, all I care about and pay attention to for myself is $$, so I forget about the ranking thing and how even downloading a KU book and looking at page 1 affects rank. For money in KU, people have to get to the end of the book. If I download a book in KU and decide it's a no-go, I "Remove From Device" on the spot and go elsewhere, so no $$ to the author. I guess there are people who discover what made them borrow the book in the first place ends at 10% and keep going. It's hard for me to believe, but I see the posts in the Book Corner from readers who say if they start a book they finish it. A truly boring book cured me of that long before ebooks were a gleam in Amazon's eye.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

I'm not sure how when discussing a very specific case with very specific (probably) readers in very specific niches suddenly translated to all books in KU are crap.

This discussion, at least as I read it to be, is specifically about UF, RH, and Romance. And it's specifically about books that no matter how you look at them, don't add up.

We're not talking about KU readers in general, we're talking a group of readers who consume niche books at a rate that is more than just voracious and whether or not they are genuine readers, organic readers, or typical readers.

Again, no one is saying that books in KU are crap.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

RPatton said:


> I'm not sure how when discussing a very specific case with very specific (probably) readers in very specific niches suddenly translated to all books in KU are crap.
> 
> This discussion, at least as I read it to be, is specifically about UF, RH, and Romance. And it's specifically about books that no matter how you look at them, don't add up.
> 
> ...


And no one has even mentioned who I think the main legit readers for these books are: teenage boys, median age probably 15. Outgrown MG, no YA specifically targeted to them. Time: limitless. Money: none. Interested in: S&S, D&D, violence and male dominated sex, no matter how poorly written.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

Patty Jansen said:


> And no one has even mentioned who I think the main legit readers for these books are: teenage boys, median age probably 15. Outgrown MG, no YA specifically targeted to them. Time: limitless. Money: none. Interested in: S&S, D&D, violence and male dominated sex, no matter how poorly written.


Very scary thought. That demo is perfect for one of the tactics I think some of the terminated accounts used. But that's a total sidebar, so table it for a later discussion.

That audience is exactly why these authors wouldn't be able to compete in a wide market. The readers who are reading them in KU can't follow them to other storefronts. Or if they did, it would be at a much lower volume. So, they can either spend their whatever they spend on KU a month on buying books, or they can just find another author to read. Anyone wanna bet what they'd likely do?


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Patty Jansen said:


> And no one has even mentioned who I think the main legit readers for these books are: teenage boys, median age probably 15. Outgrown MG, no YA specifically targeted to them. Time: limitless. Money: none. Interested in: S&S, D&D, violence and male dominated sex, no matter how poorly written.





RPatton said:


> Very scary thought.


That is a very scary thought. But does explain a lot.


----------



## Tulonsae (Apr 12, 2015)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

TimothyEllis said:


> That is a very scary thought. But does explain a lot.


I'm not actually sure why it's that scary. I'd say that the bulk of legit readers fuelling the KU boom in SFF/S&S and related, or UF/PNR are under 20, and are divided fairly strongly along gender lines. If your books (general you) do much better in KU than out, and even after chucking money at wide promo, it ain't happening, I bet this is your audience.

I don't think it's scary at all. Young teens have oodles of time and love to explore the boundaries of violence and sex (two things they know nothing about, life doesn't allow them to explore for realz and they're curious about--oh and they dislike the sanitised version of what "good" adults tell them they should read/watch).

They'll grow up. They'll branch out to other fiction. These are the future readers.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

Patty Jansen said:


> I'm not actually sure why it's that scary. I'd say that the bulk of legit readers fuelling the KU boom in SFF/S&S and related, or UF/PNR are under 20, and are divided fairly strongly along gender lines. If your books (general you) do much better in KU than out, and even after chucking money at wide promo, it ain't happening, I bet this is your audience.
> 
> I don't think it's scary at all. Young teens have oodles of time and love to explore the boundaries of violence and sex (two things they know nothing about, life doesn't allow them to explore for realz and they're curious about--oh and they dislike the sanitised version of what "good" adults tell them they should read/watch).
> 
> They'll grow up. They'll branch out to other fiction. These are the future readers.


It's not the demo that's scary, it's how the demo can be used that's scary. It's easy enough to see how RH/Romance used a tactic with a specific demo. I could never figure out how that demo translated to the RH/UF market, but that's because I wasn't thinking of a completely different demo.


----------



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

I've been finding the convoluted excuses along the way quite amusing.

Oh no, I wasn't banned, it's some new Amazon bot that accidentally did it.

Oh no, I was banned... but I can come back with a publisher.

I'm back guys... oh no, they took the books down because they got confused.

Oh no, they're still down... [next excuse loading]...


----------



## Avery342 (Aug 23, 2016)

ellenoc said:


> That's a strange idea. It's not as if those 10 slots are valuable. Download something n.g., dump it, try again. The new try fills the same slot the dumped one did. No pain. The only value in polishing Look Inside only would be in luring people who don't read things right away to buy. If I bought and then returned books the way I download, try, and reject them in KU, Amazon would probably ban me.
> 
> Not only that, if only the Look Inside is edited, most readers will stop reading at that point. In KU1 when authors got paid if a reader finished 10%, maybe that worked, not now.


Actually, those 10 slots are very valuable. Even if the downloader doesn't read a single page. No, you don't get any direct money out of the download, but you DO get a rank boost. One KU download equals one sale. So you gain visibility which might in turn earn you much more money.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Patty Jansen said:


> And no one has even mentioned who I think the main legit readers for these books are: teenage boys, median age probably 15. Outgrown MG, no YA specifically targeted to them. Time: limitless. Money: none. Interested in: S&S, D&D, violence and male dominated sex, no matter how poorly written.


Or grown men who never seemed to outgrow that phase. There are a lot of them, just going by my own experience. (I almost always worked mainly with men, so I've known a lot. And not in the Biblical sense.) And I'm not saying this is bad, but just is. There are women who never got past the fairy tale stage, and who only want stories that give them that feeling. I think this is why so many YA books appeal to adults, because it brings back that feeling that the awkward, plain, ordinary girl (sometimes a guy, but mostly girls) is somehow special and necessary and people will find out and love her and make her queen of the universe.



........ said:


> I've been finding the convoluted excuses along the way quite amusing.
> 
> Oh no, I wasn't banned, it's some new Amazon bot that accidentally did it.
> 
> ...


It's somewhat amusing to watch, that's true. At least we get something out of the years we've been watching this crap going down.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

RPatton said:


> I'm not sure how when discussing a very specific case with very specific (probably) readers in very specific niches suddenly translated to all books in KU are crap.


Ditto. With the stuff I said, I was talking about a very specific subset of writers, in no way implying that KU = crap (because if so, I'd have to put my own stuff there as well)


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

WasAnn said:


> Except one of them has a new pen name that's rocking the charts and is doing the whole wink-wink-nudge-nudge to his readers under the old name that he's now under this new one. And in KU...just fine and dandy.


Part of me wants to know the penname. Part of me does not.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

C. Gockel said:


> Part of me wants to know the penname. Part of me does not.


Yeah, it's *wink wink* enough that I hope someone forwarded it to KDP.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## boba1823 (Aug 13, 2017)

WasAnn said:


> Prove who you are via a social security number or something far more difficult to fake, something that actually becomes a crime to fake. Detach KDP from the overall Amazon account so that they are separate entitites in terms of registering.


Am I missing something? I thought that you _do_ have to provide either your SSN or your business EIN when registering a KDP account?


----------



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

boba1823 said:


> Am I missing something? I thought that you _do_ have to provide either your SSN or your business EIN when registering a KDP account?


You do for payment, but, at least when I set up my account, you could initially open a KDP account before submitting SSN or EIN. One would think having to submit such information for payment purposes would still solve the problem, but clearly more is required.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

Patty Jansen said:


> ...or UF/PNR are under 20, and are divided fairly strongly along gender lines. If your books (general you) do much better in KU than out, and even after chucking money at wide promo, it ain't happening, I bet this is your audience.


*Partial quote

Not sure I agree with UF/PNR under 20. In my experience and analysis of data of the target market via ad testing for female POV UF the age demographic tends to be 25 to 40, about 70% female and 30% male. Conversion rate, even for KU, for under 25 is much lower.

I no longer even advertise to under 25 anymore.

I do separate male and female targets, and men are cheaper to advertise to. And convert well.

It could simply be the books I'm advertising, but this is across multiple series and authors. Some of the UF is more romance centric than others. But it is a small pool of books, and none are YA.

This analysis is backed up by looking at the age demographics of three UF Facebook groups (one specific to me, one specific to another bestselling author, and one general UF group) and my email list.

Going wide with a romance centric UF series has been quite successful as well, so the market for UF wide isn't nonexistent, even though the vast majority of UF authors are exclusive. Most of the wide UF authors are more established brands who have been around for years and pretty much have been wide for the majority of their career.

Based on the two reverse harem groups I'm in--though I don't write it--this demographic holds true.

I have zero data about the demographics of LitRPG/GameLit/Harem books.

~~I know you're being general in this. Just wanted to share my experience as a data point, not as a 'you're wrong and this is why blah blah blah' because I suspect what you are saying is at least partially true.

I have no idea how the rest of the catalogues I advertise will do wide because they never have been before. It'll be an interesting test for the future.~~


----------



## A Woman&#039;s Place Is In The Rebellion (Apr 28, 2011)

Fel Beasley said:


> *Partial quote
> 
> Not sure I agree with UF/PNR under 20. In my experience and analysis of data of the target market via ad testing for female POV UF the age demographic tends to be 25 to 40, about 70% female and 30% male. Conversion rate, even for KU, for under 25 is much lower.


Readers of my UF KU pen name skew toward middle-aged women. I'm not aware of any UF KU author with a huge under 20 readership.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

Augusta Blythe said:


> Readers of my UF KU pen name skew toward middle-aged women. I'm not aware of any UF KU author with a huge under 20 readership.


I wonder if this has anything to do with college. I know in college I barely had time to read fiction at all, but after college, even with kids (I had those suckers early), I am able to read a lot more.

And I majored in accounting, not literature or anything reading heavy.

Then there's high school.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

TwistedTales said:


> They would need to verify it as his, but this is a game of whack-a-mole. He no doubt has a secret squirrel group and a large mail list, so how hard is it to get someone else to front his next pen name and ghostwritten books?
> 
> If Amazon act against him again it will prove they're trying, but while that's encouraging, it doesn't get rid of what I believe is a growing problem.
> 
> It's just too easy to game KU.


His lack of respect for boundaries and the word "NO" continues to amaze me. It reeks of entitlement. After all of this, I am starting to rethink everything in relation to best seller lists in KU. Like, I always suspected there was some [bullcrap] going on with certain authors (thinking of a very one in particular tied to XXX's group) but never had any evidence prove me right. I am still waiting for that proof. There are legitimate authors doing well in KU who do not deserve this sort of shady [crap] in their pot.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Patty Jansen said:


> And no one has even mentioned who I think the main legit readers for these books are: teenage boys, median age probably 15. Outgrown MG, no YA specifically targeted to them. Time: limitless. Money: none. Interested in: S&S, D&D, violence and male dominated sex, no matter how poorly written.


If you're going to stereotype nerdy teenagers, do it right. Teenage boys are generally not reading a lot.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## boba1823 (Aug 13, 2017)

WasAnn said:


> As another posted, only for payment and then only an EIN is needed, which are as easy to get as you like. Just roll up and apply for new EINs over and over for slightly different business names and you're set for banning and re-upping an unlimited number of times.


Well, I'm assuming most people do want to get paid - so for all practical purposes, an SSN or EIN is required.

It's true that a person can establish a new business entity and get a new EIN. But Amazon also has other measures in place - or at least it does for regular merchant type accounts, so I assume it would be the same for KDP. These are reasonably sophisticated; if a person sets up the account, or probably even logs on, from the same computer or IP address that was used for the old banned account, the new account gets 'associated' with the old one and then banned as well. I've heard rumours that Amazon might even have some additional capabilities in that regard.

But yes, it's possible for someone who has been banned to set up a new account and begin operating again. But the reality of it is that effectively _nothing_ is going to change that. Amazon can make it more difficult, but there's always a way around it, and people will find it if there's enough potential money to be made. E.g. even if Amazon required a person's SSN in addition to a business EIN (which would be horribly invasive, by the way - I certainly would _not_ be willing to give Amazon my SSN), then a scammer type could just pay someone else to use theirs. Maybe 'hire' that individual to a position in the new publishing company.

In any case, trying to ban the bad actors only gets Amazon so far.. and that's not very far if they aren't also taking measures against the _behaviour_. Where there's one person doing it, there's bound to be more. I'm not sure what XXX actually did to get banned, if anything (my confidence in Amazon isn't that high lately). I've heard rumours about formatting tricks to expand KENPC, but have yet to see any actual evidence. In any case, _if_ that was it, one would think that Amazon would be able to put in some automated checks for formatting trickery.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

Usedtoposthere said:


> If a book does great and holds its rank, absent manipulation, it probably satisfies its audience. You may think they should be watching The Silence of the Lambs and not Miss Congeniality, but lots of us love Miss Congeniality and woudn't watch The Silence of the Lambs for a hundred dollars in cash money.


Lowbrow entertainment will always be more popular with the masses than something more intellectual. KU appeals to that crowd. I read tons of novels on KU from authors that I would NEVER pay a dime to read if I were buying their books individually. KU provides decent popcorn entertainment. Some books on KU would do better if they went wide but certain niches like litrpg or romance will always benefit from being in KU because that's where the fans are.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Riddick said:


> Lowbrow entertainment will always be more popular with the masses than something more intellectual. KU appeals to that crowd. I read tons of novels on KU from authors that I would NEVER pay a dime to read if I were buying their books individually. KU provides decent popcorn entertainment. Some books on KU would do better if they went wide but certain niches like litrpg or romance will always benefit from being in KU because that's where the fans are.


Wow. All righty, then. Romance is all lowbrow entertainment for the masses. Gotcha.

What fabulous literary genre do you write? (I'm waiting for "sci-fi" or "thriller"--two genres men, for reasons I will never understand, tend to assume is far superior to romance. I say that as a thriller reader. Genre fiction is entertainment that can be layered and subtle and funny and even profound or not--but it's entertainment by its very nature. Pride and Prejudice is classic romance, for example. It's many other things, but it's funny, it's light, and it's romance.)


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Wow. All righty, then. Romance is all lowbrow entertainment for the masses. Gotcha.
> 
> What fabulous literary genre do you write? (I'm waiting for "sci-fi" or "thriller"--two genres men, for reasons I will never understand, tend to assume is far superior to romance. I say that as a thriller reader. Genre fiction is entertainment that can be layered and subtle and funny and even profound or not--but it's entertainment by its very nature. Pride and Prejudice is classic romance, for example. It's many other things, but it's funny, it's light, and it's romance.)


As usual, we must rue the lack of a Like button.


----------



## boba1823 (Aug 13, 2017)

Riddick said:


> Some books on KU would do better if they went wide but certain niches like litrpg or romance will always benefit from being in KU because that's where the fans are.


I dunno, my Romance books aren't in KU, and I'm not sure I would benefit from putting them in there.

I get more in royalties for sales than I would for a KU read-through. I think I used to underestimate how much a read-through would get me because I didn't know how Amazon figures KENPC, but since then I've heard that it tends to be 200 words/KENPC or thereabouts. So maybe they'd put me at 400+ pages. But that's still no more than $2 per read-through.

Sure, there are people who don't buy my books now who might borrow them, so that would be all 'bonus' dollas, right? But then.. a lot of Romance readers do have KU. I don't know, but think it's reasonable to assume, that many of the ones who buy my books have it. (At some point, I should probably poll them.. but I don't know if the ones you get on your newsletter are representative of all buyers.) So then they'd be so happy they can save their *X* dollars and borrow my book instead of buying it, most likely. And then.. oh no, _cannibalization_!

So I'd rather make those readers buy it so I can better royalties, because I can imagine it ending up giving me less profit if I were in KU. Plus.. I haven't even started advertising targeted to B&N people yet. Or.. even put my books on the Apple. But eventually I will, and it would stink to miss out on that.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

kw3000 said:


> I don't (know) how you fix it.


No doubt I'll be reviving an old argument, but it's actually simple to reduce the problem by at least 50%, perhaps 90%:

Cap the damn KENPC lower.

This is what should have been done when we went from 1.0 to 2.0, from a per-read model to a page-read model. That gets you the best of both worlds. It eliminates the scamphlets, and sets a cap on how much a book gets. Whether that cap is 1500 KENPC or 1000 or 800 or whatever, every reduction in cap directly and dramatically reduces the ability of scammers to scam. It cuts directly into their profit margin for the "books" that are used to scam most--the looong "books" (box sets, compilations, stuffed books etc.)

Yeah, we all know the counter-arguments about the 1% of legit authors that would be affected by this. Sorry, sometimes system security requires inconvenience. Like, those limits on the dollar figure you can use your credit card for, or the security alerts you get from your card company when you try to charge something out of your area. We all get inconvenienced in order to reduce a far more serious problem.

Really, that's all it would take to drop their "take" by huge amounts, and would cut hugely into their ability to steal bonuses, which would make an immediate dent in their incentive to scam.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

kw3000 said:


> I don't look at it as a choice between "low brow" and "intellectual". I do think some books can be seen as more challenging to read than others, but that's a stylistic thing. For instance, I do tend to see Margaret Atwood's work as being more of a challenging read than say E.L. James. Having said that though, I don't think it means the creation of either author's work involved more or less intellectual heft on the part of the authors themselves. Again, I think we're talking stylistic differences here. Also, creators tend to craft stories in ways they believe will best resonate with their audience.
> 
> I think a lot of the time we equate hit books or hit movies with being 'mindless entertainment' without fully appreciating the effort it often takes to create those works in the first place. A lot of literary types love to look down their noses at the Dan Browns of the world, but crafting a mega-seller (i.e. an extreme reader-pleaser) like Brown has (more than once!) is no easy feat, and whether you enjoy his writing style or not, you have to respect the amount of work, force of will and creative talent it takes to pull that off.
> 
> ...


Excellent analysis. That is what I always think when people dump on successful romance writers (which does happen a lot, and which gets pretty tiresome). If you (general you) think it is easy to write consistent bestsellers that delight your audience (which you may find to be pickier than you imagine), I suggest you try it and see. Go on, dumb down your work or whatever you imagine it takes, and try it.

An easy read does not necessarily mean an easy write. Personally, I edit and edit and edit to get the sentences flowing smoothly, the story staying hooky and pulling the reader through, and staying in the easy-breezy tone that readers enjoy. That said, it's my natural voice, and the humor and thoughtful moments come pretty naturally, too. A few people, though, to my knowledge, have looked at how it's worked out for me and thought, "Huh! It must be simple!" They've studied the market, written some books, had them edited, researched covers and blurbs, etc., etc., and ... the books have sort of sat there, selling 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 copies, and then quietly dying on the vine.

Not that easy.

I find that writing with humor is harder than writing more "weighty" material. It is pretty easy to be ponderous. It is not that easy to be genuinely amusing to a wide variety of people.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

boba1823 said:


> I dunno, my Romance books aren't in KU, and I'm not sure I would benefit from putting them in there.
> 
> I get more in royalties for sales than I would for a KU read-through. I think I used to underestimate how much a read-through would get me because I didn't know how Amazon figures KENPC, but since then I've heard that it tends to be 200 words/KENPC or thereabouts. So maybe they'd put me at 400+ pages. But that's still no more than $2 per read-through.
> 
> ...


This. I'm not a big seller by any stretch but Barnes & Noble has been paying a few bills for us for quite some time now. It saved our asses back in the spring. Amazon? It's a blip. Honestly it's hard to say where anyone's books will do better, which is why I find it a disservice to tell new authors they should absolutely try KU first. It isn't what it used to be and with all the gaming visibility has gotten harder. Why bother being all in if you're not even getting the very thing promised in the terms?

No path works the same for everyone. We all have to find our own way.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

TwistedTales said:


> FYI, I meant "option 2" on my original post (brain freeze moment).
> 
> Back to your reply...
> 
> Who buys these books has always been a tough question to answer. *There's harem (for boys readers) and reverse harem (for girl readers) and, yes, I get that's a generalization.* At the end of the day, we're looking at soft erotica, which does have a market in almost every genre, but is it so big that a book can stay in the top 1,000 - 5,000 for years? Even with the widest marketing, which would cost so much any profit would be eaten, it seems incredibly unlikely. There is always the Fifty Shades case study, but it's one book with trad reach, so not comparable.


Is there any evidence this is true? Harem & reverse harem come out of shoujo anime, which is primarily aimed at and consumed by girls. I know I've watched both harem and reverse harem anime series (though not for some time).


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

TwistedTales said:


> Who buys these books has always been a tough question to answer. There's harem (for boys readers) and reverse harem (for girl readers) and, yes, I get that's a generalization. At the end of the day, we're looking at soft erotica, which does have a market in almost every genre, but is it so big that a book can stay in the top 1,000 - 5,000 for years? Even with the widest marketing, which would cost so much any profit would be eaten, it seems incredibly unlikely. There is always the Fifty Shades case study, but it's one book with trad reach, so not comparable.


I can't speak for harem books (it's not a genre I read or write), but reverse harem is not equal to soft erotica.

Some of the oldest, most popular reverse harem series are YA with zero on screen sex. Sometimes zero sex altogether. One of the first to come to mind, which has been around a couple of years, doesn't even have kissing until quite a bit into the series.

Reverse harem does have ties to anime reverse harem, and those tend to be less sexual. There also tend to be less associated with modern western literary reverse harem (which as a reader expectation is the female protagonist does not choose a love interest at the end, rather they all end up together versus reverse harem trope in anime where the female protagonist might choose or ends up with no one.)

Is there reverse harem on the explicit end? Of course. It's like Romance. Some is sweet. Some is fade to black. Some is more sensual. Some is more explicit.

Go ask a group of reverse harem readers, and while you will never get a consensus, a majority love the genre not for sex, but for the polyamory aspect of one woman, multiple lovers that have a happy ending all together. #whychoose is a very popular hashtag.

As for genres like reverse harem (and LitRPG which I believe harem sprung off of), it's not that surprising that it shoots up the charts. And it doesn't mean everyone writing it is cheating. (Or even the majority of people.)

Reverse harem is a trope, rather than a straight sub-genre because it can exist outside the romance genre.

Many UF and PNR authors jumped on the RH train when it was shown to be popular. Add in the fact that readers of reverse harem are a) voracious b) underserved--or were and c) active on social media, especially in FB groups, I get why it's on the top of the charts.

Think about it just from a reader aspect.

These books are in KU almost exclusively. There are a couple of reverse harem Facebook groups with a large (a few thousand) amount of active readers. An author announcing their new book in one (or multiple) groups can look forward to a LOT of sales at once. The more enticing the cover and blurb, the more sales.

When things were less oversaturated, even those things didn't matter as much.

And it's not because the readers aren't picky. In fact, they are downright bloodthirsty if you get the trope wrong. There just isn't as many books that they want of this trope available so they are more willing to try out new authors/series, especially in KU.

Even if the book sucks, the author still benefited from the borrow boost.

It is entirely feasible that just posting in one of these groups (especially the bigger one) can get a new author hundreds of sales and downloads at once. Quite similar to when an established author sends an email to their list.

There aren't readily available FB groups like that for the other genres/sub-genres. They are too diverse. And most FB groups tend to devolve into authors screaming about 'BUY MY BOOK' something that is forbidden to do in these RH groups.

Now consider a more established author, even a mid-lister, who not only can benefit from posting in those groups, also has their own fanbase buying and borrowing.

With AMS/FB/BB ads and a generous ad spend, keeping a reverse harem book in the top of the charts legitimately, without scamming, is entirely possible.

In fact, ads, or at least a high spend, might not even be necessary.

What's the very best form of advertising? Word of mouth. Reverse harem readers will shout as loud as possible about their favorite book series/authors. It works in reverse as well.

These might be small niches. The readership is substantially smaller than say contemporary romance or paranormal romance. But the way that ranking works on Amazon, and thus visibility, a short term surge of sales/borrows upon publishing rockets books to the top of the charts, no scamming necessary.

I don't write reverse harem. But I read it. Which is why I'm part of these groups.

I do believe that LitRPG/GameLit is very similar to reverse harem. They have their own active groups on FB. And on Reddit.

Harem is different. Browsing the LitRPG subreddit has shown that a lot of those readers don't care for that. Some do. Some are okay with it if the other aspects of the story is good.

Readers of LitRPG and Reverse Harem are just as picky as readers of other sub-genres. Their choices are just more limited.

Back to harem. From all the snippets and conversations about it, it's basically porn. Not erotica. Not romance. It's male-fantasy porn. Which, to each their own, isn't my thing. And I'm a reader that loves explicit love scenes in my romance (and other genres if it fits.)

So I do believe that harem appeals to men.

Reverse harem likely does appeal more to women. But there are sub-niches of the niche where not all the members of the harem are male. And sub-niches where the men are involved with each other. And so forth.

The idea that a large portion of authors in these genres are using gray/black hat methods to be in the top of the charts is a bit ridiculous. And trust me, I get the visibility issue. I write urban fantasy. Unless you are a big name, trad pub, or have a Bookbub, you aren't getting in the top 100. About half of the list is reverse harem and harem books.

Are there scammers in those niches? Probably. Does that mean the majority scam? Well, look at contemporary romance. Scamming and black hat methods to get to the top of the charts has been shown over and over. But the majority of best-selling romance authors just write good books that sell. The scammers aren't (or shouldn't be) a taint that touches the rest of the genre and it's authors.

Reverse harem and LitRPG should be the same.


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

Crystal_ said:


> Is there any evidence this is true? Harem & reverse harem come out of shoujo anime, which is primarily aimed at and consumed by girls. I know I've watched both harem and reverse harem anime series (though not for some time).


Anecdotalish, but if you look at a few pages of the signees of the petition to reinstate these authors it's 99% obviously male first names. It seems fair to categorize their true fans as mostly male (and presumably on the young side.)


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

Riddick said:


> Lowbrow entertainment will always be more popular with the masses than something more intellectual. KU appeals to that crowd. I read tons of novels on KU from authors that I would NEVER pay a dime to read if I were buying their books individually. KU provides decent popcorn entertainment. Some books on KU would do better if they went wide but certain niches like litrpg or romance will always benefit from being in KU because that's where the fans are.


Oh, boy...

There are definitely no Romance readers on other platforms. Nope. It's a dead genre anywhere but in KU... /s

Romance does well in KU because the readership is voracious. And books are expensive. Romance does well wide and out of KU because it's the most read genre there is.

I won't say that there are two types of romance books because it's likely more of a spectrum.

On one end, you'd have what I guess you could call popcorn books, the equivalent of say a Michael Bay movie. Category romance falls into this type. That's not to say the individual books are lesser or poorly written or anything of the sort. They just tend to be, as a whole, less read because of the particular author and more so because of the tropes (which tended to fall along specific published lines.)

That's traditionally published books. Many books in Kindle Unlimited follow that same sort of business model. The readers will devour the books, but might not be able to tell you who the author is. And if that author disappeared, would just find a new one to hit that itch.

Category romances in the traditional published sphere tended to cost less than non-category, likely because of the market demand.

Then there are romance books that are bought because of the author rather than the trope. These books can be in Kindle Unlimited, too. If one of these authors left KU, their readers would follow because they can't get that particular itch scratched from a different author.

They aren't any more "lowbrow entertainment" than thrillers, science fiction, fantasy, mysteries, or any other genre fiction. They can be intellectual. But mostly they make the reader FEEL something. That's what good fiction, regardless of genre, does.

And making a reader FEEL something is freaking hard. It takes a crap ton of talent to not only do that once, but to make a career out of it.

And romance, more than any other genre, depends on that. At its core, Romance is about feelings.

Space battles, car chases, epic clashes of war between elves and orcs, fireballs, shoot outs, etc, those action pieces that entertain a reader are easier to do right than a quieter scene between two characters that relies on emotion rather than action to entertain.

Both can be done wrong. And both can be done right. Neither is easy, either.

And there are plenty of popcorn books in other genres. Pulp fiction is quite popular. And readers who enjoy those type of books aren't less intelligent or intellectual or easier to entertain than readers who will only crack a literary masterpiece.

The idea that something that entertains the masses must be inferior because of doing so is a fallacy.

And the idea that KU readers only want mindless entertainment and have lower standards than those not subscribed to KU is silly. That's like saying people who have Netflix have lower standards than people who go to movie theaters... or buy DVD's.

If anything, as a KU subscriber, my standards are higher. If I'm not enjoying a book in KU, I stop reading it. If I paid for it, I'll probably force myself to finish, just to get my money's worth.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

Writing romance is hella hard. It always makes me laugh when others think it's so easy. Nope. No. Try selling fake emotion to a bunch of intelligent women and see where that gets you.


----------



## Starry_Knights (Sep 15, 2016)

Rose Andrews said:


> Writing romance is hella hard. It always makes me laugh when others think it's so easy. Nope. No. Try selling fake emotion to a bunch of intelligent women and see where that gets you.


As George Burns said, "Sincerity--if you can fake that, you've got it made."


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Fel Beasley said:



> If anything, as a KU subscriber, my standards are higher. If I'm not enjoying a book in KU, I stop reading it. If I paid for it, I'll probably force myself to finish, just to get my money's worth.


I agreed with your whole post but snipped just to say this is so absolutely true . I will toss books back so fast in KU if they don't hold my interest. It's a lot easier to try books and also easy to toss them back if I don't like them. If I do like them, I can binge on the series or the other books by the author.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Nope not missing the point. I don't pick up just anything. I do read the Look Inside first. However, if I don't like it I do most certainly toss it back.

Edited to Add: I think the chances of me picking up a scammer's book are probably pretty low because I don't think they target readers like me. However, I do wish that borrows didn't count the same as sales in terms of rankings. Unfortunately, I doubt Amazon will get rid of it since it's a huge carrot for writers to stick with KU and the exclusivity.



WasAnn said:


> Ah, but you're missing the point. The fact that in KU you *can* pick up any number of books means you do and if you hate it, get another. You can be discerning because there's always more too choose. When you're *buying* it's a different game in terms of choosing.
> 
> Sure, maybe you'll return it, but do that too often and you get your account dinged. So, when buying with cash, there's more deliberation in it.
> 
> ...


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

JWright said:


> However, I do wish that borrows didn't count the same as sales in terms of rankings. Unfortunately, I doubt Amazon will get rid of it since it's a huge carrot for writers to stick with KU and the exclusivity.


I still say KU should have its own independent chart, and the product page displays 2 sets of rankings when a book is in KU.

Each borrow gives rank on the KU chart, but none on the sales chart.

This would make it so obvious which books are not legit, since if a book is top 200 on the KU chart, and 100,000 on the sales chart, you know immediately this is a book which doesn't sell, and relies on something about KU to survive.

Genuine top books, will have a similar rank on both charts. But even then, you will be able to tell which ones have a bigger KU following.

It makes no sense for sales and borrows to be ranking in the same chart. Especially since this is what benefits the scammers so much.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

WasAnn said:


> Ah, but you're missing the point. The fact that in KU you *can* pick up any number of books means you do and if you hate it, get another. You can be discerning because there's always more too choose. When you're *buying* it's a different game in terms of choosing.
> 
> Sure, maybe you'll return it, but do that too often and you get your account dinged. So, when buying with cash, there's more deliberation in it.
> 
> ...


Eh, I don't pick up just anything. I share my KU account with my son basically. I get 2 slots. 1 is almost always some kind of non-fiction book that I don't return right away. The other one is reserved for fiction.

I also buy a lot of books. I'm more likely to buy a book at $0.99 than I would to borrow it.

But I wasn't talking about discernment with choosing to buy or borrow. I was responding to the comment by Riddick that KU appeals to readers who have lower standards and want lowbrow entertainment with the example that they will read tons of books in KU they would never buy.

I disagreed. I wouldn't waste my time with a bad book if I didn't pay for it. I treat free (and really 99 cent books) the same.

I wasn't talking about borrow boosts or anything specific to authors in KU, but rather my behavior as a reader.

You missed the original point of the comments, actually. I'm not saying that to be snotty. There's a lot going on in this thread, and I can see where you are coming from. And I agree for the most part.

But I'm not sure how me borrowing a book, whether I take the time to discern whether or not the book is good beforehand (which I do, but most don't likely), makes me responsible for someone else borrowing and actually reading (even in parts) a scammer's book.

I'm just really confused what you're trying to say with that. KU readers are the problem because they indiscriminately borrow books even if they don't read them?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

TimothyEllis said:


> I still say KU should have its own independent chart, and the product page displays 2 sets of rankings when a book is in KU.
> 
> Each borrow gives rank on the KU chart, but none on the sales chart.
> 
> ...


It makes a lot of sense as far as Amazon attracting authors with followings to KU, though, and that's the point.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Usedtoposthere said:


> It makes a lot of sense as far as Amazon attracting authors with followings to KU, though, and that's the point.


I'm no longer sure it is.

It was used as a carrot to get authors to sign up initially. But KU is far enough down the track now, I dont think this is any real motivation anymore for new authors to join. They join because other authors tell them to, and because other authors reveal they get more than 50% of their earnings from KU. Those who are not in KU now, dont see the rank aspect as any incentive, given the obvious problems these days. And lets face it, KU is not an automatic boost for a newbie author. You dont get any boost from KU until you get some traction going. And that requires day 1 sales. So KU is not an automatic rank boost, and if a book flops on day 1, KU is not going to save it.

I'm not at all sure the rank aspect is the attraction any more. And my guess is, separating the charts wont make any difference to participation in KU at all.

Rank is a factor of visibility, but having a KU only chart will actually highlight to KU readers just how popular the book is in KU. Lack of sales might actually be a drag on rank in the sales chart now, so books in KU, without sales rank taken into account, could actually get a better rank in a KU only chart. Why compete for rank with the golden oldies, that have decades of sales stats to base rank on?


----------



## Eva Chase (Aug 8, 2015)

As an author who writes reverse harem (among other things), and whose most recent first-in-series hit the Amazon top 100 and stayed in the top 1000 for about three months, I second everything Fel Beasley said about the subgenre and how the books can end up that high in the rankings. All I do is social media interaction, AMS ads, and a little bit of Facebook advertising. I didn't need to (and wouldn't, obviously) scam my way to the top. The readers are there, and they know what they like.

And I see plenty of RH come out that doesn't shoot up the charts. If you don't offer what the (very real) readers are looking for, they don't come.

They *are* very heavily in KU, though. There are a few series that are wide (one of the long-established authors hit the USAT list with the latest in her series a month or two ago, with no significant push that I saw--I think it just happened organically because she has that many fans eager for the next book), but many of them read several books a week and can't afford to buy all of those, so they prioritize what they can read in KU over what they'd have to buy. So I don't actually think separate charts would tell you "immediately" that a book isn't legit. My RH books average anywhere from 8-12 full KU reads per 1 sale, and presumably not everyone who starts reading finishes, so the borrow to sale ratio must be even higher. Does that mean that those books aren't "genuine" top books, just because most of my readers prefer to borrow?

It's definitely frustrating the way scammers can use the KU system to their advantage, and it's p*ssed me off seeing some of them moving into RH, but from what I've seen, most of the books doing well in KU-centric genres are legit, not scam books. It doesn't really make sense to penalize or diminish all those legitimate authors because of a few bad actors. Amazon needs to get better at cracking down on the scams.

Puddleduck--Reverse harem fiction definitely takes the "harem" part literally--readers will get VERY upset if the heroine isn't clearly in a romantic (not necessarily sexual) relationship with 3+ guys by the end of the series. Some of it is very sexy. Some of it isn't at all. And you can find any heat level in between. If you specifically want to find some that doesn't have much steam, look into the YA offerings. There's quite a bit of YA RH. 

And even with the sexier ones, the readers care way more about the emotional relationships than the sex. My books are on the steamy side, but the sex scenes are only a small part of the story. There's a lot more time spent on developing trust and emotional intimacy.

(Edited to fix all the weird symbols.  )


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Patty Jansen said:


> And no one has even mentioned who I think the main legit readers for these books are: teenage boys, median age probably 15. Outgrown MG, no YA specifically targeted to them. Time: limitless. Money: none. Interested in: S&S, D&D, violence and male dominated sex, no matter how poorly written.


Sounds great (not) but I'd love to see the data to back that assertion up.

It reminds me of other statements here and there on KB concerning the target audience for the bad boy romances.

I would think that the reality is a bit different than the perception.


----------



## JWright (Apr 10, 2018)

Timothy Ellis, what you say makes a lot of sense to me.  It doesn't really seem like rank helps that much unless you are high enough ranked to make the best seller, hot new release list, etc.  Maybe Amazon recommends more in some cases even if you aren't ranked that high. I don't know.  

I can see where rank can matter for top sellers, but for everyone else I'm not so sure.  Seems to me ranking is over rated for most writers. I could be wrong though. 

Newbies still can get readers to take a chance on their books in KU, but then again they can have a perma free if they are wide. 

Best seller - that is supposed to mean sales (hence the word seller).  But borrowing a book in KU is showing interest in a book which is an indication of its popularity. So it definitely belongs somewhere.

I don't think Amazon will change it.


----------



## lmgregory (Nov 2, 2017)

Puddleduck said:


> But hey, if anyone knows of some great UF, RH, or (non-sexist/non-harem) LitRPG books in KU that are worth recommending, I'm all ears.


Carrie Summers or Matt Dinniman for LitRPG without harem. Both are well outside the norm for the diversity in player characters and better written than normal for LitRPG. But both are well within the normal (at least of what I've read) for LitRPG plots and settings. I wanted to play Carrie Summers' game after reading Temple of Sorrows.

But if you're really adventurous, you could try The Wandering Inn by pirate aba (the capitalization is intended). It is probably the best, I hate to put this way, but "badly" written book I've ever read. There are POV switches, by which I mean from first to third person in the same character! There are tense swaps. The first quarter desperately needs editing and the rest only slightly less so. And yet... &#129335;&#127995;‍♂ It was an amazing journey and I if could stand to read long works on websites I'd read the whole series now online, but I'll wait for the ebook releases.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

WasAnn said:


> *And yes, I do know someone who does this. She might go through 10 or more books a day in KU. She flips to the percentage where she knows most sex scenes are (I guess there are three waypoints?) or she searches for sex words and stops there to read. Seriously, there really are readers like that. I really think they provide enormous financial support to scammers because all they care about are the sex scenes and I guess the best one is always near the end?


Wow. There's a light bulb moment for me. I wonder if it works the same way with fight/battle scenes?

Sadly, I think not.

(And vanished)


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

The last thing Amazon wants to do is support any assertion that KU books are *different* than non-KU books in terms of quality, rank, or anything else. Pulling KU books from the regular ranking system would imply exactly that.

I think Amazon wants more titles from traditional publishers. TPs can list books in KU on a non-exclusive basis, but they won't, both because they don't like the terms of the per-unit agreement and because they don't like KU. All the cleaning up over the past couple of months was to resolve a reputational hit zon was taking, but the people they care most about looking good for work for the traditional publishers.

They wouldn't create a separate chart. It would change the narrative for KU entirely.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

GeneDoucette said:


> They wouldn't create a separate chart. It would change the narrative for KU entirely.


Why? They already have separate charts for sales and free. Why not a 3rd one for subscription reads? I dont see any downside. And they are 3 completely different ways of sourcing books.

If there was one single chart for all 3, I'd understand what you're saying, but there isn't. And like it or not, KU is a completely different animal to sales, even more so than free books are.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

TimothyEllis said:


> Why? They already have separate charts for sales and free. Why not a 3rd one for subscription reads? I dont see any downside. And they are 3 completely different ways of sourcing books.
> 
> If there was one single chart for all 3, I'd understand what you're saying, but there isn't. And like it or not, KU is a completely different animal to sales, even more so than free books are.


For the reasons I stated. They split the paid vs. free because publishers complained, but they aren't trying to sell publishers on a 'free book giveaway' ecosystem. Amazon IS trying to sell publishers on KU. Breaking it into a different list takes away the 'it would improve the ranking of your books and therefore give them greater visibility' incentive. And again, if Amazon wants to argue that the books in KU are just as good as the books not in KU--and I think they do, and I think they want to attract as many trad pub books as possible in order to bolster that argument--then giving KU an entirely separate set of charts would not help that cause.


----------



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

Amazon knows (and rightly so) that they will lose a ton of authors if there's a different list for KU. That actually handicaps KU authors and screws them, so I don't know why anyone would want that. The rank bonus is the trade for exclusivity. If Amazon takes that away, they will bleed authors.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> Amazon knows (and rightly so) that they will lose a ton of authors if there's a different list for KU. That actually handicaps KU authors and screws them, so I don't know why anyone would want that. The rank bonus is the trade for exclusivity. If Amazon takes that away, they will bleed authors.


I agree. Logically it might make sense for some of us perhaps that there be a separate list. And it's quite possible that internally Amazon maintains one. However, from both Amazon's standpoint and the standpoint of any TPs looking to enter the KU maelstrom, I don't think they'd see it that way.

There's also the customer to consider. Would a "borrow" list even make sense to them. Paid vs. Free is easy enough to understand. Borrows ... I'd argue not so much. From a customer standpoint alone I think this would be dead in the water before it even left port.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

GeneDoucette said:


> For the reasons I stated. They split the paid vs. free because publishers complained, but they aren't trying to sell publishers on a 'free book giveaway' ecosystem. Amazon IS trying to sell publishers on KU. Breaking it into a different list takes away the 'it would improve the ranking of your books and therefore give them greater visibility' incentive. And again, if Amazon wants to argue that the books in KU are just as good as the books not in KU--and I think they do, and I think they want to attract as many trad pub books as possible in order to bolster that argument--then giving KU an entirely separate set of charts would not help that cause.


Two charts, with both on the product page gives the book which sells well, and KU reads well a boost for both.

At the moment, people who buy cant tell if a book sells well, or if the rank is all KU, and KU rank for them is not relevant. Likewise, KU readers cant tell if the book ranks high in KU, or if it actually sells well.

Its 2 completely different markets, and no way of telling the true performance of any book in either. Hence as a lot of people say, the rank charts now are just a joke.

Used to be, the sales rank meant something. Now it doesn't. Too easy to game, and means nothing to either side of the fence.

Remove KU from Sales Charts, and you remove the ability to game the sales ranks. They can game the KU charts all they want, but for people who buy, they will see a true rank based on sales.

If trad people cant see this, they have a problem. But a trad book doing well in both sales and KU, is going to rank high on both, and that's double the value for the rank system, when both are seen on the product page.

So instead of it taking away incentive, it should double it!



Amanda M. Lee said:


> Amazon knows (and rightly so) that they will lose a ton of authors if there's a different list for KU. That actually handicaps KU authors and screws them, so I don't know why anyone would want that. The rank bonus is the trade for exclusivity. If Amazon takes that away, they will bleed authors.


How does Amazon know that, and why should it? Wont make any difference to me at all, quite apart from me pushing it.

Sure, it will shake the tree for a few months, but I think they're losing more authors over scammers and the response, than they will over splitting the ranks. It will be just like KU1 turning into KU2. Lots of people left. Down the track, lots came back.

Authors come and go out of KU for many reasons. Adding 1 more, isn't going to change things very much.

I think its worth doing just to get the sales system generating real ranks again.


----------



## Eva Chase (Aug 8, 2015)

I don't think most readers actually care whether a book got its rank from sales vs. borrows. I doubt most of them even think about that.

I do think it'd be confusing to them for there to be yet another list of rankings, and it'd clutter book pages to have two sets of rankings there. 

And where do you get the idea that sales can't be gamed? There've been plenty of accounts of people using Amazon giveaways and gifting for a rank increase. I highly suspect if the lists were separated that way, you'd see scammers shifting to gaming sales more than they do now, to maintain rank on both lists. 

You seem to have this idea that borrows and sales happen for totally different reasons and reflect different things about a book. But when I look at my BookReport stats, my books that are highest for page reads? Are also highest for sales. It's not as if I have some that do significantly better with readers who buy and some that do significantly better with readers who borrow. If a book appeals to readers, you get more borrows *and* more sales. (And this is not just within RH but across my non-RH books, of which I have a fair variety between my two author names.)

Separate lists would penalize honestly successful authors writing in genres with a heavy KU following. It's not hard for KU readers to find KU books on the current list--there's a label right on top of the cover thumbnail. So a separate list wouldn't bring me more KU readers. It would potentially lose me some of the sales I do get, with the loss of visibility to the readers who wouldn't look at the KU lists because they don't have KU. 

So basically what I'm hearing is that you think that the thousands of totally legitimate authors who get more borrows than sales should take a significant visibility and sales hit just so you don't have to worry about a handful of scammers muddying the charts (even though the scammers will undoubtedly find ways around that anyway). That doesn't sound like anything close to a perfect solution to me. Amazon has already done a massive crackdown that's removed a major portion of the scammers from the lists. Why not let them continue working at addressing the scammers directly rather than changing the entire system in a way that affects tons of innocent authors? Unless you really are arguing that interest from KU readers is somehow less worthy of recognition than interest from buyers, and KU-centric books are less worthy than those that are wide.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

TimothyEllis said:


> Two charts, with both on the product page gives the book which sells well, and KU reads well a boost for both.
> 
> At the moment, people who buy cant tell if a book sells well, or if the rank is all KU, and KU rank for them is not relevant. Likewise, KU readers cant tell if the book ranks high in KU, or if it actually sells well.
> 
> ...


You can game sales rank outside of KU. It's been documented before, and I doubt there is just one way to do so. KU borrows are just easier/cheaper. But most of the scamming in Amazon with KU isn't about rank. It's about money. And borrows do not equal money.

And you are assuming KU readers and book buyers are two different markets completely, and they aren't. There is overlap.

You also assume that readers care about rank specifically. They don't. It's just a visibility tool on Amazon's end for buyer recommendations and the bestseller list. (Which is only one list of several)

Why would KU readers care if a book sells well or not? Would they not borrow a book in KU that is selling well? I'm really confused.

As for having two charts on the product page, that is just making the page itself even more cluttered. Too much information and data is too much. They used to list all the categories a book was in at the bottom of the product page.

They've removed that, likely for space for more sponsored ads.

Amazon split-tests product pages constantly.

The visibility perk of ranking is based on the actual lists, not what is on the product page anyway.

The only people that really stand to benefit with a separate paid and borrow chart are authors that aren't exclusive.

In most groups where people discuss the merits of going wide or exclusive, the visibility from borrows=sales is one of the top reasons. Considering, unless a book is either priced low for it's length or is just super long, a buy gives more revenue than a full read, the trade-off is that visibility boost (that can be substantial). And the number of borrows on a book will always be larger than the full reads of a book.

The low barrier to sell that KU allows for authors can be solved with free, but free books are suppressed on Amazon (because of the separate chart and also-boughts).

I'm all for having three lists. It would benefit me. It would benefit quite a few authors.

But Amazon doesn't act on what benefits their suppliers. They act on what benefits them and then their customers.

Knowing how important KU is to Amazon (all of their imprints are in KU remember), it'd be more likely that if paid and borrows are separated, the default list would be borrows, not sales. Quite like the default list now is sales and not free.

But Amazon likely wouldn't do that either because it would upset trad pub.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Eva Chase said:


> You seem to have this idea that borrows and sales happen for totally different reasons and reflect different things about a book. But when I look at my BookReport stats, my books that are highest for page reads? Are also highest for sales. It's not as if I have some that do significantly better with readers who buy and some that do significantly better with readers who borrow. If a book appeals to readers, you get more borrows *and* more sales. (And this is not just within RH but across my non-RH books, of which I have a fair variety between my two author names.)
> 
> Separate lists would penalize honestly successful authors writing in genres with a heavy KU following. It's not hard for KU readers to find KU books on the current list--there's a label right on top of the cover thumbnail. So a separate list wouldn't bring me more KU readers. It would potentially lose me some of the sales I do get, with the loss of visibility to the readers who wouldn't look at the KU lists because they don't have KU.
> 
> So basically what I'm hearing is that you think that the thousands of totally legitimate authors who get more borrows than sales should take a significant visibility and sales hit just so you don't have to worry about a handful of scammers muddying the charts (even though the scammers will undoubtedly find ways around that anyway). That doesn't sound like anything close to a perfect solution to me. Amazon has already done a massive crackdown that's removed a major portion of the scammers from the lists. Why not let them continue working at addressing the scammers directly rather than changing the entire system in a way that affects tons of innocent authors? Unless you really are arguing that interest from KU readers is somehow less worthy of recognition than interest from buyers, and KU-centric books are less worthy than those that are wide.


NO.

There would be no change to the product pages, except for 4 extra lines with a KU rank, and 3 KU category ranks.

Nothing else changes as far as the reader sees the product page.

How does that disadvantage anyone?

And by the way, I am someone who gets 65%+ of my income from KU, so I'm not suggesting anything which I think will decrease my income 1c.


----------



## Eva Chase (Aug 8, 2015)

TimothyEllis said:


> NO.
> 
> There would be no change to the product pages, except for 4 extra lines with a KU rank, and 3 KU category ranks.
> 
> ...


I'm confused. Have you not repeatedly suggested that the separate ranks be used not just on the product pages, but also to make separate top lists, one for borrows and one for sales? That's the main thing I think would hurt KU-centric books, and the main thing I was talking about. I only mentioned the product page thing briefly (and not even in the three paragraphs you quoted from me).

Edit: Actually, I think having separate lists would hurt even visibility with KU readers, because they'd have to learn to seek out the separate KU list vs. just looking at the regular one like they're used to. Some wouldn't notice, certainly not right away, and would miss books they'd otherwise have grabbed.


----------



## Eva Chase (Aug 8, 2015)

Puddleduck said:


> Thanks, Eva. It's nice to hear about RH from someone deep into it. I guess that as an RH newbie, I'm coming to it from a handful of RH anime. In those, the "harem" of men often includes a number of men who aren't even (genuinely) romantically interested in the heroine, and she always picks one by the end either way. And usually there's not anything more physically intimate than kissing (and often not even that) with any of the other men before she chooses. For me as a romance reader, sex is kind of the point of no return, which I want the lead (whether male or female) to cross only with the one person they ultimately end up with. So I like the anime RH idea of one woman surrounded by a bunch of sexy men who are loyal to her, but when it comes to romance/sex, I still want there to be one guy she has an HEA with by the end. Which I suppose is the source of the disconnect when I go looking for RH books and they're so different from RH anime. I'll definitely still give the genre a look, though. I guess it's good to know what the genre expectations are, though, and that they're explicitly different from RH anime.


Yep, it's definitely a very different thing. The term was first used by one of the first popular authors in the genre, CL Stone, who (as I understand it) used it because it was the closest existing term that came close to describing the type of relationship in her series, not because it was following those tropes exactly. I'm not sure exactly how the genre evolved, because I've only been part of it for about a year and by that time reader tastes had gotten quite solidified, but the idea of one woman having multiple love interests who end up fully committed to her is a huge part of the appeal for that readership.

Personally, I find it an enjoyable counterpoint to the trope of "possessive alpha man who can't stand anyone even looking at his woman in a slightly flirty manner" that's pretty prevalent in a lot of M/F romance subgenres.  There's something very sexy about a man who is willing to share if that's what makes his partner happiest!

But if it doesn't feel romantic to you for a character to end up with more than one partner for her HEA, then RH fiction isn't going to be the best fit. Which is totally fine. The great thing about there being all these subgenres is that everyone can find something they like.


----------



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

TimothyEllis said:


> Two charts, with both on the product page gives the book which sells well, and KU reads well a boost for both.
> 
> At the moment, people who buy cant tell if a book sells well, or if the rank is all KU, and KU rank for them is not relevant. Likewise, KU readers cant tell if the book ranks high in KU, or if it actually sells well.
> 
> ...


I'm conflicted on this issue. Having read your arguments, as well as those of Amanda and Eva on the other side, I'm not sure which makes more sense.

I do see a couple of potential problems with your argument. The one that sticks out to me is your description of KU and sales as two separate markets. If that's entirely true, then how do KU borrows cannibalize sales, as you've indicated on other occasions? I think the problem there is more that we don't know the extent to which borrowers and buyers overlap. Some authors have seen increases in sales when they left KU; others have not. Like so many other issues, we don't have enough data to get a complete picture.

I'm also looking at your last statement about the reasons authors come and go from KU. I would imagine the first motivator is the amount of money one can make in KU. Authors who find they do better in KU than in wide tend to stick with KU, though, as with everything else, there are exceptions. However, the second-biggest reason is probably the visibility bump provided by borrows. Far from losing sales, I actually gained sales when I joined KU, and I think that has to be why.

We don't know what effect having two lists would produce, but if KU authors saw a decline in sales as a result, there would certainly be more of a tendency to leave KU. (And if sales didn't decline as a result, in what way would having two lists discourage scammers?)


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

***********

Comment removed to protect content and data from the over-reaching TOS of new forum owner VerticalScope.

VerticalScope claims rights to any content posted to this site as theirs to disseminate beyond this site in any way they see fit.

Read the Terms of Service, both before AND after you've registered. At the time of this post, the new, more egregious TOS is available to read only after you've registered.

KBoards was purchased by VerticalScope 7.5 years and 4000 posts after I joined. VerticalScope will not allow that existing content to be permanently deleted, despite the fact I did not and do not agree to granting the new owners the rights to my content. 

***********


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

PhoenixS said:


> ETA: ...and I would be watching the poplists both unfiltered AND filtered for KU.


How do we find the poplist?

ETA: Ha, cross-posted with kw3000. GMTA.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Diane Patterson said:


> How do we find the poplist?
> 
> ETA: Ha, cross-posted with kw3000. GMTA.


Just go to the front page of the Kindle ebook store. The categories listed in the column down the left-hand side of the page are the pop lists. If you click on one of those categories, you'll get a page with a bunch of personalized recommendations at the top and the pop list beginning a ways down. If you want to drill down, the sub lists to the one you're looking at will be listed in the page's left column.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

TwistedTales said:


> FYI for people tracking the mystery penname - it's been taken down and all I get is the cute puppy.
> 
> It suggests Amazon are paying attention. It's kind of a relief to see some semblance of sanity in the game. I hope it continues because I'd given up expecting anything to change.


He's going to keep trying. I honestly don't get it. Why not just move on?


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

The "debut" book by Author X's pen name that was re-released under a new ASIN* (and, I assume, a new account) has now been doggied. Last rank I saw was right at #300. Amazon is on its game.

*The one noted here: https://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,265071.msg3705087.html#msg3705087


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2018)

PhoenixS said:


> The "debut" book by Author X's pen name that was re-released under a new ASIN* (and, I assume, a new account) has now been doggied. Last rank I saw was right at #300. Amazon is on its game.
> 
> *The one noted here: https://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,265071.msg3705087.html#msg3705087


I saw that book before I was aware of the suspicion about it. At one point it hit #100 paid.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

TwistedTales said:


> Just because people don't think they're doing anything wrong doesn't mean they aren't. People often blindside themselves to the truth and paint themselves as the victim and not the perpetrator.
> 
> I've been around this business long enough to have heard every blessed argument people have to justify what is effectively cheating. Authors have baldface lied on forums and attacked others for tactics I've tracked them playing out themselves. And what I've seen is the tip of the iceberg. There is an extraordinary level of bad behavior by so-called authors in this business.
> 
> But I leave people to it and get on with the things I can do in this business.


That's true ... but in some of these cases I think that they know they've done wrong, but they don't care. Many sociopaths* don't care about rule breaking. It's a thrill to them, and if it's profitable, more so.

Sociopaths also have no problem lying to try to gain sympathy. If you're not a sociopath, it can be hard to believe that anyone can be so brazen. They count on that.

*Sociopathy is a spectrum, and some sociopaths have ethical codes that keep them on the straight and narrow. Having outcomes that reward the straight and narrow is helpful, though.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too (Feb 13, 2014)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

WasAnn said:


> There are a whole slew of personality disorders and other conditions besides sociopathy that do this. Sometimes talking to the scammers is like a walk through the DSM-V. I've got some chats saved that should be used in textbooks.


I had to look up DSM-V! From a psychological perspective, this has been interesting to watch. Definitely story fuel for villains.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Lynn Is A Pseudonym said:


> There's this book I keep meaning to read all the way through called The Sociopath Next Door. The little bit I've skimmed is interesting reading for sure.


I've read it. It is a really good book.


----------



## shermp (Jul 21, 2018)

kw3000 said:


> Are you sure the pen name is down? I'm seeing books in those categories with extremely similar covers in style, typography (actually the typography on a few is identical), etc to the ones xxx had on his covers. Maybe they have more than one pen name or maybe it's just other authors following a trend and nothing nefarious is going on?


I didn't know for certain which pen name people were talking about, but I think I had figured it out from the clues given.

That pen name no longer shows up on an Amazon search, and when I went back through my browser history to the book entry, it is now gone. So I must have been correct.

(Note, talking about x, not xxx)


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

***********

Comment removed to protect content and data from the over-reaching TOS of new forum owner VerticalScope.

VerticalScope claims rights to any content posted to this site as theirs to disseminate beyond this site in any way they see fit.

Read the Terms of Service, both before AND after you've registered. At the time of this post, the new, more egregious TOS is available to read only after you've registered.

KBoards was purchased by VerticalScope 7.5 years and 4000 posts after I joined. VerticalScope will not allow that existing content to be permanently deleted, despite the fact I did not and do not agree to granting the new owners the rights to my content. 

***********


----------



## Catherder (Aug 26, 2018)

TwistedTales said:


> It's hard to tell if these books were apparently successful in KU because...
> 
> 1. KU readers are some weird subset of real readers and they mindlessly read any old thing.
> 2. The books were "scammed" in KU and therefore never truly successful.
> ...


IMHO, I think KU has its own subset of readers, and the banned authors were successful in catering to their specific tastes. Frankly, if I have to make a prediction right now, their wide sales will be in the 10-20% of their former Amazon sales.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 26, 2018)

TwistedTales said:


> I've also always been somewhat skeptical of the claim that the KU reader is a "special" sort or "whale reader" as I've heard them described (ugly sounding name for them). I do think they're often prolific readers, otherwise why join KU? I'd describe myself as a prolific reader capable of devouring a book a day, but I don't lose my mind and not care about what I'm reading or not know who I'm reading. Volume doesn't equate to stupidity.
> 
> I'm prepared to accept KU has a decent percentage of high volume readers aka "whales" (still don't like that term), but that doesn't mean most of them are swimming the seas sucking up books as if they are as interchangeable as plankton. Out of say a 100,000 unique readers, I would expect to see a higher level of social media interaction and a lot of upset readers if the author was banned, otherwise who is writing all those glowing, "I wuv you" reviews? Everyone knows 98% of readers don't leave reviews, so those that do went out of their way to write one.


I'm one of those KU whales you mentioned. Between KU and non-KU titles, I've read ~20 books this month, plus another 2 dozen samples. Personally, I was upset that the authors were banned outright rather than having their royalties cut, but it is what it is and the authors will have to suck it up and move on.

That being said, most KU readers don't leave reviews (if they do bother, it would be a one-sentence liner), so I wouldn't take the lack of outrage as "proof" that their readerships were illusory. If you follow author X's FB group, you will learn that some readers HAVE rage quit KU in protest over the author bans. But they don't visit the KBoards and have no interest in doing so. That's why you haven't heard of it until I informed you.

The point I'm making with this post is that I caution people here against being in an echo chamber.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 26, 2018)

TwistedTales said:


> ***
> 
> 1. Without wanting to start an argument about whether KU books are lower quality or not, let's assume the writing, editing, cohesion and content can be measurably weaker and still appear to be successful in KU. (I'll also add that beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.)
> 
> ...


Please allow me to give an example (without mentioning name). This is a real life American writer who publishes a LONG running space opera series, with 50+ installments already. He writes specifically for KU, publishes one ~100 pg installment per month. He gets about $2-3k per month off KU. That's how he makes his living. Without KU, he will be screwed.

The series isn't all that great, frankly. I tried the sampler and couldn't finish. But somehow, he managed to gain a large enough readership on KU to continue publishing his monthly serial.

I'm sure there are many writers in this situation, lucky enough to make a living writing specifically for KU. As long as the monthly KU royalties is fat enough, the writer I cited could conceivably continue his serial for years to come.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 26, 2018)

RPatton said:


> Very scary thought. That demo is perfect for one of the tactics I think some of the terminated accounts used. But that's a total sidebar, so table it for a later discussion.
> 
> That audience is exactly why these authors wouldn't be able to compete in a wide market. The readers who are reading them in KU can't follow them to other storefronts. Or if they did, it would be at a much lower volume. So, they can either spend their whatever they spend on KU a month on buying books, or they can just find another author to read. Anyone wanna bet what they'd likely do?


Definitely. Even the lingo/terminology used in the banned authors' works appealed to male teenage hormones. I agree being forced to go wide will hurt the authors for this reason.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 26, 2018)

WasAnn said:


> There are a lot of "small presses" that are just single authors...they can use their own SSN to sign up via KDP. Small presses that are popping up as a way to get around bans...well...let's see them get through the publishers account setup process.


Just adding to this point--it is VERY easy (if you're an American) to apply for an EIN (Employer Identification Number) from IRS to set up your small press. Once you got your EIN, you can get a business bank account, too. So a banned author could simply use the small press to publisher his new works, and Amazon won't be the wiser.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Catherder said:


> Just adding to this point--it is VERY easy (if you're an American) to apply for an EIN (Employer Identification Number) from IRS to set up your small press. Once you got your EIN, you can get a business bank account, too. So a banned author could simply use the small press to publisher his new works, and Amazon won't be the wiser.


Except, Amazon tracks IPs. It's a little harder than just getting an EIN and a new bank account. Are some of these folks doing it? I'm sure they are. Someone will eventually figure it out, and they'll be gone again.



> I agree being forced to go wide will hurt the authors for this reason.


No one is being forced to do anything. These authors, if they really care about writing and not just scamming money from KU, will go wide for all those fans they keep moaning about. I suspect most won't. They're more likely to try to get in again with another account, or some work around like finding someone else to publish them (happened already to a certain person who can not be named, probably others).

You seem to have a lot of sympathy for these folks, as if they're being punished for no reason. Be assured, there are reasons, and they weren't blindsided and kicked off Amazon and don't know why, despite their protestations. They aren't like some authors, who innocently made a mistake, but put concerted efforts into breaking TOS, even Federal laws, over and over again, for years. They knew full well what they were doing.

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


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

While it’s possible it’s a chicken and egg scenario, perhaps borne from desperation, personally I think the very act of  trying to sneak back into KU is very telling of how much respect for the rules someone has - proclamations of innocence aside. If, upon being banned by Amazon, one’s first inclination is “how do I get back in without them noticing” and not  “Let’s see if I can make this work wide”, well, personally I think that says a lot


----------



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

DragonCon had a guest cancellation... I guess someone didn't want to face the fans...


----------



## traineroflegend (Jul 4, 2018)

........ said:


> DragonCon had a guest cancellation... I guess someone didn't want to face the fans...


Just want to chime in and say that it's been this way for some time (weeks, at least). I don't recall if it was that way before the incident. Still, it would be silly to deduce anything from it. If my main source of income was gone, I would want to scale back my marketing efforts too.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

traineroflegend said:


> Just want to chime in and say that it's been this way for some time (weeks, at least). I don't recall if it was that way before the incident. Still, it would be silly to deduce anything from it. If my main source of income was gone, I would want to scale back my marketing efforts too.


On the contrary. I would be doubling my marketing efforts and bringing to me and not to a store. Wide authors have been making a comfortable living for a while now where Amazon isn't even 50% of their income. To say you are lost without amazon hyperbole. And if someone is truly lost without Amazon, then I would question why Amazon is such a large portion of their revenue.


----------



## Andie (Jan 24, 2014)

So what do you guys want, exactly? For these writers to never write and publish again? That’s an awfully dark punishment for people who may or may not have manipulated reads. All this over formatting to get more pages read? Is anything else proven?

I’m all for cleaning up KU for real scams, but these writers seemed to have a bunch of fans. The punishment (hunting down new pens, reporting, etc.) seems like chopping off someone’s head for stealing your stereo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Andie said:


> So what do you guys want, exactly? For these writers to never write and publish again? That's an awfully dark punishment for people who may or may not have manipulated reads. All this over formatting to get more pages read? Is anything else proven?
> 
> I'm all for cleaning up KU for real scams, but these writers seemed to have a bunch of fans. The punishment (hunting down new pens, reporting, etc.) seems like chopping off someone's head for stealing your stereo.


Except nobody is asking for their hands to be chopped off or anything even remotely close to that.

Amazon banned these accounts, and then upheld the bans. These people are no longer welcome in the Amazon store .... because Amazon claims they manipulated sales unfairly. So yes, I do think it is fair they they - including any future pen names - remain banned, if Amazon continues to uphold that ban. I'm not sure why this is overly harsh. If I get caught shoplifting from WalMart, they have every right to post my picture and tell security to keep their eyes open for me ... and no, sneaking back in with a false mustache does not make me in the right.

However, these authors are free to publish elsewhere or find a legitimate publisher to publish their wares for them. Nobody is saying they can't.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Andie said:


> So what do you guys want, exactly? For these writers to never write and publish again? That's an awfully dark punishment for people who may or may not have manipulated reads. All this over formatting to get more pages read? Is anything else proven?
> 
> I'm all for cleaning up KU for real scams, but these writers seemed to have a bunch of fans. The punishment (hunting down new pens, reporting, etc.) seems like chopping off someone's head for stealing your stereo.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't think it matters what's fair or not. Amazon's ToS say they can close your account at any time, for any reason, and, so long as they pay you, you have absolutely no recourse.

Is that a fair ToS? Eh... it's not the best. But it's the one we agreed to, so if our accounts are closed, we're SOL. We should be aware of that.


----------



## Maia Sepp Ross (May 10, 2013)

C. Gockel said:


> I've read it. It is a really good book.


Agreed.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

........ said:


> DragonCon had a guest cancellation... I guess someone didn't want to face the fans...


Not until the new pen names were up, anyway. I suspect there were warnings issued, and once it was clear the KU shenanigans weren't going to be allowed to continue, it was time to fall back and regroup.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> While it's possible it's a chicken and egg scenario, perhaps borne from desperation, personally I think the very act of trying to sneak back into KU is very telling of how much respect for the rules someone has - proclamations of innocence aside. If, upon being banned by Amazon, one's first inclination is "how do I get back in without them noticing" and not "Let's see if I can make this work wide", well, personally I think that says a lot


Even if the reason they were banned wasn't as nefarious as suspected, the _appeal of the money _would be incentive enough.

I doubt that the majority of authors who leave KU for _any_ reason really increase their income going wide. I've read too many posters here who state they make a majority of their writing revenues in KU, stating how important KU has been to their writing careers -- and posts bemoaning the other platforms -- to think otherwise.

Money itself is a terrific incentive to do all kinds of things, especially if you have bills to pay, mouths to feed, etc.

If these banned authors had enough success, however, in KU, they should be able to make _some_ money wide.

I'm not saying what these guys did was good or right, by the way. Just sayin'. As grandpa used to say: where there's money, there's cheatin'.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

jb1111 said:


> I doubt that the majority of authors who leave KU for _any_ reason really increase their income going wide. I've read too many posters here who state they make a majority of their writing revenues in KU, stating how important KU has been to their writing careers -- and posts bemoaning the other platforms -- to think otherwise.


You can't say that the majority of authors leaving KU don't increase income going wide. What you can says is that those who are active on Kboards, who have left KU and then posted about it don't seem to increase their revenue. I would also argue that they probably aren't focusing on building readers in other storefronts. Going wide isn't just about uploading a book to a store, hitting publish, and crossing your fingers while hoping it works. You have to nurture those books along. The big difference between Amazon and the other stores is that a good book can stick for a long time and isn't at risk of being pushed down with the brand new book by SoasndSo who's spending tens of thousands of dollars in ad spends.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Folks, a reminder to please avoid name-calling. A post has been deleted.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

RPatton said:


> You can't say that the majority of authors leaving KU don't increase income going wide. What you can says is that those who are active on Kboards, who have left KU and then posted about it don't seem to increase their revenue. I would also argue that they probably aren't focusing on building readers in other storefronts. Going wide isn't just about uploading a book to a store, hitting publish, and crossing your fingers while hoping it works. You have to nurture those books along. The big difference between Amazon and the other stores is that a good book can stick for a long time and isn't at risk of being pushed down with the brand new book by SoasndSo who's spending tens of thousands of dollars in ad spends.


Yes. Although it's tricky figuring out how to market to those other stores. I went wide last October and still trying to figure this out.


----------



## RPatton (May 28, 2017)

Rose Andrews said:


> Yes. Although it's tricky figuring out how to market to those other stores. I went wide last October and still trying to figure this out.


Not saying it's easy at all. Just that there seems to be this underlying belief that you just need to throw a book up and watch the sales come in and when the sales don't come up, there's shout that they can't make money wide.

There are a handful of wide authors on this board, and they are but a small percentage of all the wide authors. To base any assumption about the rate of success of authors going wide upon a small population that isn't a representative sample is faulty.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

RPatton said:


> Not saying it's easy at all. Just that there seems to be this underlying belief that you just need to throw a book up and watch the sales come in and when the sales don't come up, there's shout that they can't make money wide.
> 
> There are a handful of wide authors on this board, and they are but a small percentage of all the wide authors. To base any assumption about the rate of success of authors going wide upon a small population that isn't a representative sample is faulty.


I agree. What is also helpful to consider when going wide is that it takes time. It seems like a lot of authors are in a rush to just make money, money, money and disregard that building a stable audience is what supports a writing career over the long haul. Being unable to easily or feasibly reach the smaller retailers is part of what makes wide more challenging. Interesting that we're seeing this here with the banned Amazon authors. If it's really about the writing then why not try to build an audience on other retailers and not just Amazon? What is the desperation with staying on Amazon if you've been kicked off anyway?


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> If it's really about the writing then why not try to build an audience on other retailers and not just Amazon? What is the desperation with staying on Amazon if you've been kicked off anyway?


Because it's not really about the writing, or pleasing the fans, it's about using the system Amazon put in place with KU to practically mint their own money. As noted, going wide requires time and money for no immediate return (or a small one, for most). But putting a book into KU, running some promo -- and in a lot of cases, kicking in the click farm and other nefarious schemes -- and the return is almost immediate, and huge. In 60 days, a lot of money can be scammed in KU, while on other platforms it might take twice that, or even longer, to get a fraction of the money. And there's the bonuses. Possible to earn them per book, _and_ per pen name. That's a whole lot of temptation for these folks. Amazon needs to make sure they've locked the gate to the money farm.


----------

