# Amazon Announces 70% Royalty Option for Kindle DTP



## srmalloy (Mar 3, 2009)

Amazon is setting up a higher royalty rate for Kindle books, as long as the publisher meets their standards for the new rate.

DTP authors and publishers will be able to select the royalty option that best meets their needs. Books from authors and publishers who choose the 70 percent royalty option will have access to all the same features and be subject to all the same requirements as books receiving the standard royalty rate. In addition, to qualify for the 70 percent royalty option, books must satisfy the following set of requirements:


The author or publisher-supplied list price must be between $2.99 and $9.99
This list price must be at least 20 percent below the lowest physical list price for the physical book
The title is made available for sale in all geographies for which the author or publisher has rights
The title will be included in a broad set of features in the Kindle Store, such as text-to-speech. This list of features will grow over time as Amazon continues to add more functionality to Kindle and the Kindle Store.
Under this royalty option, books must be offered at or below price parity with competition, including physical book prices. Amazon will provide tools to automate that process, and the 70 percent royalty will be calculated off the sales price.

The 70 percent royalty option is for in-copyright works and is unavailable for works published before 1923 (a.k.a. public domain books). At launch, the 70 percent royalty option will only be available for books sold in the United States.

Looking at the conditions, the requirement to support text-to-speech will be welcome to a lot of readers annoyed with the way publishers have been flagging it off on books. The last condition takes the price of the book out of the publisher's control to some degree, though; the way it's written, it looks as if another bookstore drops its price on a book, Amazon will automatically discount its offering to match, whether or not it's something like a special promotion. There's nothing in the Business Week article that would indicate whether, if a book gets automatically discounted by Amazon because of a promotion by another bookseller, the price would be returned to the original price when the promotion ends, or kept at the lower price.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

WOW! I can see many authors Cheering over this. 70% is unheard of.


----------



## scottder (Jun 26, 2009)

Indeed, good for authors and publishers will hopefully mean more books and better prices. The publishing industry REALLY needs to not make the same mistakes the music industry did in 'going digital'.

Maybe DRM can go next....

Scott


----------



## vermontcathy (Feb 18, 2009)

And this applies to self-published authors, as well? Someone who just writes a story and wants to publish it on Amazon?


----------



## Karen_McQ (Aug 9, 2009)

Have you seen this?

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1376977&highlight=

According to Publishers Lunch, these are the conditions:

*...priced between $9.99 and $2.99--and the digital list price has to be "at least 20 percent below the lowest physical list price for the print book"

* It has to be available for sale in all territories in which the author or publisher has rights

* It has to be available for text-to-speech, and whatever other new features Kindle adds

* "Books must be offered at or below price parity with competition, including physical book prices. Amazon will provide tools to automate that process, and the 70 percent royalty will be calculated off the sales price."

This applies to both authors and publishers, from what I understand. Definitely something to mull over...


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

There are many changes in the new contract. This structure isn't scheduled until June.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

I hadn't seen it--that sure sounds like good news (although my books are priced below that, it does match where I intended to set my next novel.)   I don't have print books, but those clauses don't cover that case.   

I think this may be in reaction to the apple rumor that they would be giving publishers a 70/30 split.

Very much something to think about!!!


----------



## Karen_McQ (Aug 9, 2009)

MariaESchneider said:


> I think this may be in reaction to the apple rumor that they would be giving publishers a 70/30 split.


I think you're right, Maria! I didn't make the connection.

We're in the middle of an emerging industry and it seems like there's something new every week.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

It's very exciting!!


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Amazon claims that their motive is to provide incentives to keep Kindle book prices low. Obviously they also have an unstated motive to keep the minimum price up a bit. The parity clause needs some examination for those who offer books at lower prices on other sites via coupons.


----------



## AnnaM (Jul 15, 2009)

It looks like they are trying to front-run the Apple device that is scheduled to be announced next week. Word is Apple will be giving authors/publishers 70%, the same royalties they give on music and apps.

Will we see a run on books less than 2.99 just before June 30th?  I know I'll be scooping up those on my list.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

I wonder that as well.  Does not having a physical book to compare the price to take self-published Kindle version only authors out of the running by default?


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

There's good news and bad news in this. It means that those who keep their books in the Blue_Goddess sweet price zone of  $ 3.99 get a great royalty percentage. I mean my $ 3.99 books now get a higher royalty than the same books in paper at $21.00. The tepid news is that many Indie authors may move off the reader incentive price of $ .99 for the chance of making $ .70 on a sale as opposed to $ .35. Those authors that are in it for the Moolah might even go for the gusto of $ 9.99 getting rich and buying a condo in Dubai, because every reader will rush to their doors and demand multiple copies. 

All kidding aside, unlike the CreateSpace expansion deal which extends distribution of DTB's to the 4 points of the globe and requires a spike in pricing on books that few people buy anyway, the Kindle 70% may not prove to be a keen incentive for Indie authors who want to be read and not want to pass along greedy tendencies to the reader, because readers will not assume it. It's not a pig in the poke, however, because a 70% royalty is unprecedented and does poke a hole in the entire publishing universe. 

We all have until June to decide --- more readers or more packs of gum, but I have books and will always have books in both price ranges, and in the SELECT range (that is FREE) and have little incentive to trade off readership for that penthouse apartment overlooking the Gulf of Aden.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

It makes it real hard to hold at the 99 cent price point.

They're really giving you a dramatic incentive to raise your price.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> ... a keen incentive for Indie authors who want to be read and not want to pass along greedy tendencies...


There's growing pressure from small eBook sites to raise prices so that they can make a little money. If I understand it correctly, their percentage of the sales price is 10% and their cost for listing a book on their web site is more than 9 cents. Agreeing to raise prices to include more retailers might be increasing readership rather than greedy.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

tbrookside said:


> It makes it real hard to hold at the 99 cent price point.
> 
> They're really giving you a dramatic incentive to raise your price.


Well unless the books don't sell at the higher price. 

I'm with Ed on this. I think having books in a price range will work pretty well. People that want to sample the writing can still buy the cheaper books (if available.)


----------



## TC Beacham (Nov 23, 2009)

The times sure are changing - hard to keep up with it all!


----------



## HaemishM (Dec 9, 2009)

As someone who's been selling my first novel for $.99 cent to attract readers, I think this is a great thing. If I'm able to choose per title pricing, I can leave the first novel (since it's first in a series) at $.99 cents to attract readers and price the subsequent novels at the higher price point. Either way, something that gives indie authors more money is a good thing. This puts the Kindle Store on par with Smashwords, which gives 60% royalties minus a transaction fee.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

All hail Steve Jobs!!!


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

This is definitely phenomenal news.

I think they are, in effect, setting minimum and maximum prices for eBooks. And I'm OK with that. While my own books are just 99 cents, to be honest, that's a very, very low price for a novel (hey, a novel isn't a song or ringtone or phone wallpaper -- and even those tend to go for $1.99 now). If pretty much everyone sets their price at $2.99 or more, those of us who keep it at just $2.99 will be the most inexpensive game in town... while getting SIX times the royalty per sale. And it makes sense for Amazon, who has costs relating to giving away wireless service, customer support costs, etc. I'm excited.


----------



## David J. Guyton (Jan 6, 2009)

I won't be raising my price to anything above 99 cents. I get far more sales when my price is low.

If they try to make us all raise prices above the 99 cent minimum, I'll pull my book from Amazon and publish totally through smashwords. At least there I can offer coupons and even offer books for free.

I don't write for money. It's too hot in Dubai anyway.


----------



## PhillipA82 (Dec 20, 2009)

Nice


----------



## scottder (Jun 26, 2009)

I say the more options for publishers of any size the better, key word is options. I think we'll be seeing a lot of this as the ebook market grows and changes (dare I say like the App mark for things like the iPhone).

Scott


----------



## Raffeer (Nov 19, 2008)

Amazon boosts Kindle royalties to build support

By Dan Gallagher, MarketWatch

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Amazon.com Inc. said Wednesday that it has raised the royalty rate for authors and publishers on books published for its Kindle e-reader, which is coming under fresh competition from rival devices and possibly a forthcoming tablet device from Apple Inc.

In a statement, Amazon (AMZN) said it will now give authors and publishers an option of a 70% royalty rate on each Kindle book sold, net of delivery costs. This is well above the current 35% royalty rate offered to most publishers for the device.

The option is available for those who use the company's Digital Text Platform. To qualify, the price on the Kindle version of the book must fall between $2.99 and $9.99 and be at least 20% below the lowest price for the physical book. Publishers also must allow the Kindle version to make use of features such as text-to-speech.

"Today, authors often receive royalties in the range of 7% to 15% of the list price that publishers set for their physical books, or 25% of the net that publishers receive from retailers for their digital books," said Russ Grandinetti, vice president of Kindle Content, in the statement. "We're excited that the new 70% royalty option for the Kindle Digital Text Platform will help us pay authors higher royalties when readers choose their books."

Analysts say the move is clearly designed to make the Kindle more attractive to publishers, as the device faces more competition in the growing e-book market.

"We believe Amazon's top priority for e-books is to maintain low prices, which help to drive consumer adoption of Kindle readers and fortify Amazon's leadership position in a nascent digital market," wrote Colin Sebastian of Lazard Capital Markets in a report.

Sebastian also said the move may be a "shot across the bow" on publishers by Amazon, which is trying to lure authors to consider more "self-publishing" options that can bypass publishers entirely for e-books.

The Kindle has the leading market share in the digital-book market, followed by Sony Corp. (SNE), according to an analysis by Forrester Research.

But the device is facing a growing list of competitors. At the Consumer Electronics Show earlier this month, several companies introduced new e-reader devices, including electronics giant Samsung. Read full story on e-readers at CES.

Also, the Kindle may face pressure from the anticipated tablet device expected to be announced next week by Apple Inc. (AAPL) Apple reportedly has been in discussions with publishers over content for the device, which is expected to play media files such as music and video, as well as serve as a platform for reading books and magazines. Read full story about Apple's reported talks with publishers.
more headlines


----------



## brainstorm (Dec 8, 2009)

_This_ should please people. Thanks for posting.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

David J. Guyton said:


> I won't be raising my price to anything above 99 cents. I get far more sales when my price is low...


Psst. You're advertising your book at 99 cents for a "limited time only" in your signature box.


----------



## MLPMom (Nov 27, 2009)

I really hope this means more books/authors will be available sooner/faster for the Kindle. It does sound like a good incentive.


----------



## Randolphlalonde (Sep 12, 2009)

Now they just have to let us Canadians use the DTP. Right now I'm using Mobipocket to list my books on Kindle, and I don't see them changing their 35% royalty now that sales seem to be dwindling down site wide. 

They'll have to open DTP up eventually... right? (Stares hopefully...)


----------



## JennaAnderson (Dec 25, 2009)

I was very happy to see this news. I may continue to price my novellas at $0.99 and longer work at $2.99.

Of course I have NOTHING close to being done. 

Since this goes live June 30th I now have an incentive to finish another story.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Randolphlalonde said:


> Now they just have to let us Canadians use the DTP. Right now I'm using Mobipocket to list my books on Kindle, and I don't see them changing their 35% royalty now that sales seem to be dwindling down site wide.
> 
> They'll have to open DTP up eventually... right? (Stares hopefully...)


What was the recent announcement about DTP now being open to publishers in other countries? I only read the headline - are Canadian authors and publishers excluded?


----------



## Liam (Nov 27, 2009)

This is terrific . . . I think it really opens up the possibilities for indie authors with a following and three or more titles to be able to devote themselves to writing (and promoting) full-time.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

I think what they did was get rid of the restriction that you had to have a US bank account (this was for all international.)   There is still a bit of a problem with the SS number/IRS reporting, but I think they are working on that as well.  That part wasn't clear from the announcement I read, but I believe that was the other sticking point.


----------



## Ricky Sides (Sep 16, 2009)

Hi there,

This _could_ mean that the common $.99 - $1.99 books will become rare in July.

As to not having a physical book, one need only use createspace, and you'll have a physical book. If you don't go pro plan, you'll reap more off the ebooks, but less off the paperbacks. It sounds good. But there may be a problem for indpendents.

Edit: You'll have to go pro or price yourself out of the Kindle market.

I'll use my soon to be released book as an example. I wanted a paperback for _The Ultimate in Women's Self-Defense,_ because I didn't think many customers would want to risk their Kindles in a workout environment. The paperback will sell for $6.57. I plan to sell the Kindle version for $1. But if I wanted to qualify for the 70% royalty I'd have to sell the Kindle version for $5.25. That's too high for most reader's tastes.

And that is the situation for a Kindle book that has a paperback version priced low. The $6.57 price allows a one dollar profit per copy at Amazon. By listing it at the minimum price I could sell the paperback for $4.89 with zero profit at Amazon, but the Kindle version could then be listed at $3.91. That would give me a profit of $2.74 per Kindle copy sold.

That does bring it within range of Ed's golden price. Do you folks realize that this could cause a lowering of the prices of paperback books? LOL. Times they are a changing. I know that I've sold hundreds of ebooks, but only a handful of paperbacks. This could level the playing field a bit. Those who resist the temptation to go for the higher revenues may find their books more popular because of the lower price point. Then again, they may not.

There's a lot to ponder.

Have a great night,
Ricky


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

Ricky, I think you misunderstood. The eBook must be AT LEAST 20% less than the physical book, not exactly 20% less.


----------



## Ricky Sides (Sep 16, 2009)

Lol yes David. I misunderstood. You're right, and that changes everything for the better, but there is still the minimum price of $2.99

Thank you for clarifying that for me. 

Have a great night.
Ricky


----------



## Randolphlalonde (Sep 12, 2009)

Side point: I really don't think a price around $5.00 - $9.99 is outside of what most buyers consider reasonable. I've sold thousands of books over the last two years for $7.99-$9.99 and haven't heard a single person complain about price even though I get emails from readers all the time.

Great news about the DTP though, I'll look into the Canadian / international end of it more and report back.

For now, I have another 8,000 words to critique before bedtime....


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

$0.99 was great to introduce things. I can't deny that. However, I don't think asking $2.99 for a novel is out of the question. Off the newstand, magazines cost $4.99. Comic books sell for $3.99.

My guess is that Amazon is trying to get ebooks to a more reasonable price and out of the gutter. Besides, it's good for them too. On a $0.99 book, they currently make $0.65. On a $2.99 book, even with only a 30% fee, they will earn $0.90. So it's kind of win/win all the way around. Unless, of course, there are those who steadfastly remain at $0.99, which could make a lot of people stay away from the $2.99 books.

Of course, looking at the other side of the coin from Amazon's point-of-view, they probably don't like seeing the bestseller lists filled with free and low priced books most people haven't heard of. It's possible their research shows less $2.99 books will sell, and thus King and Grissom and Evanovich, etc. will be back on top of the charts. To get us to change our prices _looks_ like a great incentive, but will it be?


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Here's a bit more paranoia for you suspicious types: Wasn't it possible at one time to offer indie novels for free for the Amazon Kindle? But they banned that and made 99 cents the minimum? So now they obviously want us to raise prices to $2.99, and if we indies don't for some reason, don't en masse, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if $2.99 became the new minimum price for indie novels come later this year.

But I'm doubting a significant portion of indie authors will end up willfully refusing to make more money. Under Amazon's new incentive scheme, change your book's price from 99 cents to $2.99 and you'd only have to sell 17.5% as many books to break even.

Some books, of course, won't make that 17.5% cut-off, due to the increased choosiness of readers--driven by the new, higher pricing--and those authors will in many cases lower their prices back down to 99 cents, and the books that exceed the percentage will likely stay at $2.99 and thus by the end of the year the lower price will be ghetto-ized or stigmatized when readers have caught on that price predicts quality (which isn't the case now, in my estimation).

I could be wrong, but at least it's fun to make predictions in such uncertain and such interesting times!


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Eric C.

Not true. My first published Kindle book went up in the first wave (November 18, 2007). $ .99 was the minimum thren as it is now, and will probably remain so. The only way you could go below this was through Mobipocket and that presents more headaches that it is worth, in most cases.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up, Ed. Someone had told me free was once doable. I didn't know it meant the mobipocket loophole.


----------



## Thumper (Feb 26, 2009)

My brain is royally fried and I'm so tired words are swimming in front of me so I'm not even going to try to really digest everything about this yet...but it would be nice to get 70%. Not sure I'll raise the prices on my books or not, but to have the option...nice...


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

As a reader, I have no problem paying $2.99 for an indie book, as long as it's reasonably well done.


----------



## Randolphlalonde (Sep 12, 2009)

I can verify personally that the DTP works perfectly for international users. I just finished setting up my account (it was stuck at the ENTER US BANK ACCOUNT HERE portion for about a year), and it's asking for content.

Looks like I'll have to migrate everything from Mobipocket to Amazon before June, or whenever they decide to completely shut the poor site down... The 70% royalty does make it worthwhile though. 

Now, to find out how people are getting their work on iTunes...


----------



## kusanagi (Jan 27, 2017)

So only seven years ago, Amazon offered 35% royalties regardless of price? And here's me thinking it'd always been like that. Seven years passing is nothing. I'm even more amazed they established the 99c minimum, otherwise who knows how low the basement would have dropped (except for permafree.)


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)




----------



## Lu Kudzoza (Nov 1, 2015)

Jim Johnson said:


>


Is that a picture of the Threadcromancer?


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Seven years is like, what, seventy in Digital Years?


----------



## *DrDLN* (dr.s.dhillon) (Jan 19, 2011)

I assume all my books qualify for 70%. But not sure if that's what I am getting. I need to check....


----------



## kusanagi (Jan 27, 2017)

I personally found it fascinating to understand that only seven plus years ago Amazon only offered 35%.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Aeryn Leigh said:


> So only seven years ago, Amazon offered 35% royalties regardless of price? And here's me thinking it'd always been like that. Seven years passing is nothing. I'm even more amazed they established the 99c minimum, otherwise who knows how low the basement would have dropped (except for permafree.)


Why have you dug up a seven year old thread to say what? I don't even know what you are talking about. Any information on this thread is irrelevant now, so why resurrect it?


----------



## Eugene Kirk (Oct 21, 2016)

Man what a necro! I got all excited thinking Amazon was offering 70% for all book prices now or something =P


----------



## kusanagi (Jan 27, 2017)

Doglover said:


> Why have you dug up a seven year old thread to say what? I don't even know what you are talking about. Any information on this thread is irrelevant now, so why resurrect it?


Why? Is their some tax I must pay? I personally found it fascinating to understand that only seven plus years ago Amazon only offered 35%. It is a remarkable insight into what beliefs were held at that time on KBoards in regards to what their predictions would be, what the group at the time thought. I decided to get into and dig down into this boards foundations and read what was originally posted. Rookie mistake obviously. But thanks, yeah it's a reason I don't bother contributing to sites when one gets attacked like this.

Have a wonderful day.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

kusanagi said:


> Why? Is their some tax I must pay? I personally found it fascinating to understand that only seven plus years ago Amazon only offered 35%. It is a remarkable insight into what beliefs were held at that time on KBoards in regards to what their predictions would be, what the group at the time thought. I decided to get into and dig down into this boards foundations and read what was originally posted. Rookie mistake obviously. But thanks, yeah it's a reason I don't bother contributing to sites when one gets attacked like this.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.


Attacked? It was an honest question. I think seven years ago the expectation of an author was the 10% offered by trad publishers if one could be found. 35% then was a vast improvement. Now we expect more.

I just don't see why you couldn't have posted a new thread on the subject and not get people all excited thinking Amazon were putting up their royalty cut.


----------



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

Doglover said:


> Attacked? It was an honest question. I think seven years ago the expectation of an author was the 10% offered by trad publishers if one could be found. 35% then was a vast improvement. Now we expect more.
> 
> I just don't see why you couldn't have posted a new thread on the subject and not get people all excited thinking Amazon were putting up their royalty cut.


It's a natural mistake, though. A comparative newbie wouldn't realize we'd look at the subject line and think royalties had just changed.

I've noticed a similar problem on the KDP forum. Posters frequently scold newbies for asking a question that's already been asked and answered numerous times (which a newbie wouldn't know). The same posters are then surprised when the newbies resurrect necro threads, which they do in that forum with some regularity, having drawn the wrong message from the suggestion to check out old threads. It takes a while to learn how to navigate the maze.

(That's not intended as a criticism of you in any way. It's just another one of those teacher flashbacks I have from time to time. You know how often a teacher gets asked the same question repeatedly. )


----------



## Goulburn (May 21, 2014)

Don't forget that you can get 70% royalties for 99cent priced books sold on Amazon, now, by publishing them via Pronoun. 
I also make that through a private store that I love running.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Bill Hiatt said:


> It's a natural mistake, though. A comparative newbie wouldn't realize we'd look at the subject line and think royalties had just changed.
> 
> I've noticed a similar problem on the KDP forum. Posters frequently scold newbies for asking a question that's already been asked and answered numerous times (which a newbie wouldn't know). The same posters are then surprised when the newbies resurrect necro threads, which they do in that forum with some regularity, having drawn the wrong message from the suggestion to check out old threads. It takes a while to learn how to navigate the maze.
> 
> (That's not intended as a criticism of you in any way. It's just another one of those teacher flashbacks I have from time to time. You know how often a teacher gets asked the same question repeatedly. )


Actually, yes. I was a driving instructor for 20 years and the times I had to repeat the same thing over and over had me dreaming about it. Glad I don't do that any more.


----------



## Queen Mab (Sep 9, 2011)

Kind of random, but I'm glad they changed the name from DTP. I arrived on the scene just as that was happening.


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

I'm not liking the math at all. If your ebook is $2.99, the paperback would have to be $14.99. If you price higher, at say $5.99, the print book would have to be priced at $29.95 to get the 70% royalty.


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

Bill Hiatt said:


> It's a natural mistake, though. A comparative newbie wouldn't realize we'd look at the subject line and think royalties had just changed.


Sucked me in. I never even noticed the date of the thread.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> I'm not liking the math at all. If your ebook is $2.99, the paperback would have to be $14.99. If you price higher, at say $5.99, the print book would have to be priced at $29.95 to get the 70% royalty.


The 70% royalty doesn't apply to print editions, only to the kindle editions. I'm not sure how they work out the royalty for print books, but they take their printing costs then let you price over and above that. What percentage you get depends on the difference.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Sigh.

Can we take it a little easier on new members? I see complaints that they don't look for existing threads, and then complaints when they do. Be kind to each other, folks.


----------



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

I like a blast from the past now and then. In fact, there are some really good dead threads out there that deserve some love... let's go look


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> I like a blast from the past now and then. In fact, there are some really good dead threads out there that deserve some love... let's go look


Zombies are in at the moment.


----------



## notjohn (Sep 9, 2016)

BTackitt said:


> WOW! I can see many authors Cheering over this. 70% is unheard of.


I love it that this thread reappeared just as I was advising people not to sign up for Kindle Select.

Actually, going back to 2010 and even 35 percent wouldn't be all bad, because it was a whole lot easier to sell ebooks then. Of course Jeff would have to remove 5,500,000 Kindle editions from his store to make it work.


----------



## kusanagi (Jan 27, 2017)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Can we take it a little easier on new members? I see complaints that they don't look for existing threads, and then complaints when they do. Be kind to each other, folks.


Thanks Betsy.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> I love it that this thread reappeared just as I was advising people not to sign up for Kindle Select.


But, you've been doing that for years, so? No Select, no free, it was easier in the day, fill in the blank.

I don't think anyone attacked the newbie, it was a relevant question. A learning moment, if you will.

It's one thing to look back through old threads, but when you start getting beyond a month or so, and there have been no new posts, it's pointless to resurrect the thread. Stuff changes so fast that while there may be something to take from the thread, there's no use bringing it back. In fact, it would be nice if something with no posts in say, a week, would get automatically locked.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I've removed a couple comments that were personal. Not allowed, folks.



she-la-ti-da said:


> It's one thing to look back through old threads, but when you start getting beyond a month or so, and there have been no new posts, it's pointless to resurrect the thread.


Well, a month back, there wouldn't be any new posts? . I need more coffee...



> Stuff changes so fast that while there may be something to take from the thread, there's no use bringing it back. In fact, it would be nice if something with no posts in say, a week, would get automatically locked.


I'll point out that for vendor threads and author book threads, the OP is prohibited from making back-to-back posts sooner than seven days apart. Seven-day auto-lock is not going to happen...though we will discuss prohibiting bumping zombie threads at some point in the smoke filled caves.

Personally, I think a better solution which would allow more flexibility across the forum would be for members to kindly point out that information in a thread is probably no longer valid and move on. Your mileage may vary.

Betsy


----------



## notjohn (Sep 9, 2016)

> I personally found it fascinating to understand that only seven plus years ago Amazon only offered 35%.


It is certainly interesting, and something for everyone to bear in mind: when Amazon succeeds in driving B&N and Apple out of the ebook business, the 35 percent royalty will be back.

That's one of the reasons why I don't enroll any of my books in Kindle Select.

(It's also worth remembering that when Apple broke Amazon's monopoly on ebook pricing, it was APPLE that got beat up by the trust busters in Washington. No good deed goes unpunished.)


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)




----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

Welcome kusanagi, Rainbow Dash is my favorite as well.  

I think it's cool you are digging into the history of things. I also wish more people did this.... it's all here. Somewhere...  

If you find any other cool gems, like I know many authors don't know 70% wasn't always there, just like preorders for indies without a rep didn't come until July 2014. . . . maybe start a keyword like "Indie Recent History: When did things come?" and you can link to old threads. 

In this case, yeah no real issues, but some things like marketing tactics etc. if the threads are resurrected without a close reading, engaging in the tactics will put the author at risk because Amazon has already adjusted for whatever it is, and might even be punitive. Like people are expected to know now about misleading keywords for example, you can't do them... but for a time people were putting Kindle Unlimited as a keyword for example to make their book pop. Or puting Kindle Unlimited in a subtitle. Can't do that anymore, either.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> I like a blast from the past now and then. In fact, there are some really good dead threads out there that deserve some love... let's go look


Yes, this.

There is gold to be mined in Kboards, and some stuff is evergreen. If you go looking down the mine, you find some things best left in the past, but also some gems.

I'm listening to the audio book of Write Publish Repeat at the moment, which was written in 2013. But a lot of the stuff is just good sense and a lot of it still feels fresh to me.

What Elizabeth says is true, some stuff is so out-of-date as to be wrong. But it's still fun to see. Maybe zombie threads could be marked somehow, but even old threads sometimes get brand new life breathed in.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Evenstar said:


> Maybe zombie threads could be marked somehow, but even old threads sometimes get brand new life breathed in.


Easy enough for a mod to do. Just add [Zombie] to the front of the title on the first post.


----------



## kusanagi (Jan 27, 2017)

Thank you Elizabeth and Evenstar. From now on I will do what you suggest and create a new thread keyword title and then link to way-old posts. To everybody I apologize for creating confusion. Lesson learned.

Now thread, return to the dark depths upon which you came...


----------

