# KDP Post about All-Stars



## Guest (Sep 15, 2014)

https://kdp.amazon.com/community/ann.jspa?annID=554

Somehow, I doubt I'll ever see these bonuses, but nice if you can get 'em:

Announcement: KDP Select Global Fund Updates
Posted By: kdpadmin
Created in: System: Global Announcement
Posted: Sep 15, 2014 12:47 PM
Hello,

We have continued to see significant early trial response from customers to Kindle Unlimited (KU). Similar to what we've done in the past around holiday spikes in borrowing activity, we are adding a bonus of $2.7 million in August on top of the regular base fund amount of $2 million.

To further highlight the KDP Select books and authors that are most popular with customers, we are introducing a new element to the program: "KDP Select All-Stars". Based on what KDPS titles are being read the most during the month, we will identify each All-Star author and title on each applicable KDPS title's detail page. In addition, KDP Select All-Stars will earn financial bonuses. Anyone with titles in KDPS--even a debut author with a single title--can qualify if their work becomes a customer favorite.

For August, we will pay out All-Star bonuses to the top 100 most-read authors and, separately, the top 100 most-read titles. We will calculate 'most-read' by combining books sold plus qualified borrows from KU and the Kindle Owners' Lending Library (KOLL) during the month. Calculations only include sales and qualified borrows for titles enrolled in KDPS. Recipients will be contacted in the next few days.

The top 100 most-read KDPS authors will each be awarded the following amounts:

Authors 1 through 10 will receive $25,000
Authors 11 through 20 will receive $10,000
Authors 21 through 30 will receive $5,000
Authors 31 through 50 will receive $2,500
Authors 51 through 100 will receive $1,000

Authors of the top 100 KDPS titles will each earn the following amounts:

Titles 1 through 10 will receive $2,500
Titles 11 through 50 will receive $1,000
Titles 51 through 100 will receive $500

Denoting All-Stars on detail pages is a new element of KDPS and we expect our approach to this will evolve over time. We hope it adds a little fun and adventure to the program!

Finally, many authors outside the U.S. derive most of their qualified borrows from the KOLL and have not been able to benefit from the growth of KU. This has meaningfully altered their ability to compete within the wider pool of KDPS loans. To adjust for this, we are adding an additional bonus of $80,000 to be paid out on all KOLL loans outside of the U.S.

Best regards,
The Kindle Direct Publishing Team

(and they had to make Aug. $4.7m just to pay $1.54 per borrow. I hope they plan to round up Sept.'s $3m)


----------



## Midnight Whimsy (Jun 25, 2013)

tunskit said:


> Finally, many authors outside the U.S. derive most of their qualified borrows from the KOLL and have not been able to benefit from the growth of KU. This has meaningfully altered their ability to compete within the wider pool of KDPS loans. To adjust for this, we are adding an additional bonus of $80,000 to be paid out on all KOLL loans outside of the U.S.


Newbie here. I don't understand this paragraph. Can anyone explain what they're talking about here?

Thanks!

M.W


----------



## AgnesWebb (Jan 13, 2013)

This is cool! I wonder if they'll post the All-Star authors and titles publicly so we can see.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

AgnesWebb said:


> This is cool! I wonder if they'll post the All-Star authors and titles publicly so we can see.


Agree! This is a great add on. I don't expect to reach all-star status any time soon, but it will be great for those who do.


----------



## Onedayatatime (Oct 14, 2012)

Yeah, I wonder if we will get to see who they are!!


----------



## Tara Shuler (Apr 24, 2011)

I think they may post some names publicly, but others might not make it into the announcement if they write stuff that the mainstream might not exactly be keen on.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)




----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Huh, pretty cool. Hey, prolific author with one or more popular series in a given month, enjoy some nice bank. Double-dip on the popular author and several titles in the top 100.

Also, nice way to make going Select a little more appealing.


----------



## Lefevre (Feb 1, 2014)

Quite clever..

Amazon is using Seth Godin's "marketing funnel" technique to get authors to join select.


----------



## VEwoodlake (Jul 11, 2014)

No wonder they are trying to destroy Cassandra Zara's backlist. They probably don't want to see her as an All-Star.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I don't expect to ever be an 'all-star' but taken altogether that's a fair bit of change. It's good that they're giving something extra to the non-US authors as well.


----------



## SarahWritesSometimes (Aug 18, 2014)

I've got to give it to Amazon - they are working hard to make this program seem indispensable to authors.


----------



## bonde (Feb 12, 2014)

I highly doubt the "all stars" are going to be a public list.


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

I wanna know who the All Stars are so I can oggle their books.


----------



## Queen Mab (Sep 9, 2011)

Well, it says they're going to put "All Stars" on the book title pages; that's the way I read it...


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

It would seem that this is another invitation for authors to pump more shorts into Select, so maybe that is where Amazon wants the program to go.
I doubt I can compete with 5000-word tentacle porn or whatever gets the mass dl's these days.  

Aren't there trads who got pulled into KU without having to go Select? I'd expect them to sport that All-Star label right quick. So what's the point here?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Quiss said:


> It would seem that this is another invitation for authors to pump more shorts into Select, so maybe that is where Amazon wants the program to go.
> I doubt I can compete with 5000-word tentacle porn or whatever gets the mass dl's these days.
> 
> Aren't there trads who got pulled into KU without having to go Select? I'd expect them to sport that All-Star label right quick. So what's the point here?


It does say it's Select-specific, so I doubt they're in the running.


----------



## SarahWritesSometimes (Aug 18, 2014)

I think it will be mostly very well known authors that will make that top 100.  Since I'm a cynic, I agree with the forum member that posted above that Amazon does not want a bunch of erotica authors on that list.  And that's not knocking on erotica, I just published today (not in Select though.)  Just a reality that I don't think dear Aunt Edna wants to see a list of erotica authors, and Amazon knows this.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

I'm wondering if the totals will be accrued per KDP account or per pen name.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Robert Reade said:


> Quite clever..
> 
> Amazon is using Seth Godin's "marketing funnel" technique to get authors to join select.


I'm not sure about that. It would seem to be a way for Amazon to further promote the Top 100. So if that is where more of the sales are going, authors 101 and down are going to start looking at other venues, I think.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

swolf said:


> I'm wondering if the totals will be accrued per KDP account or per pen name.


That's a very interesting question.

Also "pumping more erotica shorts into it" makes me giggle.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Also, it looks like that bonus money is coming out of the pool, which will mean a reduced per-borrow amount.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

swolf said:


> Also, it looks like that bonus money is coming out of the pool, which will mean a reduced per-borrow amount.


I highly, highly doubt they'd pull the All-Star money from the Global Fund. It makes no sense, as they already find themselves having to feed millions into the GF every month to keep the payout from dropping precipitously.

Besides, All Star will always be a known number. It will be static forever while the GF fluctuates.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> I highly, highly doubt they'd pull the All-Star money from the Global Fund. It makes no sense, as they already find themselves having to feed millions into the GF every month to keep the payout from dropping precipitously.


Makes sense to me. And it doesn't say anything about it being a separate fund. The only money mentioned is the 2.7 million added to the pot.



Vaalingrade said:


> Besides, All Star will always be a known number. It will be static forever while the GF fluctuates.


Not sure how that matters. It would be a fixed number taken from a fluctuating pot.

I'm not saying it is or isn't part of it, but I haven't seen any evidence either way.


----------



## Amber Rose (Jul 25, 2014)

tunskit said:


> Finally, many authors outside the U.S. derive most of their qualified borrows from the KOLL and have not been able to benefit from the growth of KU. This has meaningfully altered their ability to compete within the wider pool of KDPS loans. To adjust for this, we are adding an additional bonus of $80,000 to be paid out on all KOLL loans outside of the U.S.


I second Midnight Whimsy. What does the above mean? very confused....


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

They're adding an extra 80K split between all the non-US Select authors. Which means in theory, KOLL payments to non-US authors are going to be slightly higher.


----------



## Darren Wearmouth (Jan 28, 2013)

As a British author, I like the initiative. But, like other posters, I'm confused.

"Finally, many authors outside the U.S. derive most of their qualified borrows from the KOLL *and have not been able to benefit from the growth of KU*. This has meaningfully altered their ability to compete within the wider pool of KDPS loans."

My book are available for Kindle Unlimited in the US store. I just can't use the program myself.


----------



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

Darren Wearmouth said:


> As a British author, I like the initiative. But, like other posters, I'm confused.
> 
> "Finally, many authors outside the U.S. derive most of their qualified borrows from the KOLL *and have not been able to benefit from the growth of KU*. This has meaningfully altered their ability to compete within the wider pool of KDPS loans."
> 
> My book are available for Kindle Unlimited in the US store. I just can't use the program myself.


My guess is that Amazon are assuming that most of your borrows are on .co.uk and so you aren't getting a lot of borrows in KU. This is a false assumption for many of us. My UK sales and borrows are pitiful compared to my US ones. I have never done well at home.


----------



## Jash (Apr 4, 2013)

It's for stuff like French and German authors writing in their native language. They're getting less per borrows without the benefit of increased borrows (or negligible benefit) from KU.


----------



## Lyndawrites (Aug 7, 2011)

I'm not sure what they are getting at either, but it does explain the discrepancy on my August report.

The borrow rate is $1.54 on dot com. It's £1.26 in the UK - equivalent (at _current_ exchange rates) to $2.03.

I'd be interested in knowing what the UK borrow rate is for US authors. The same? Different?


----------



## jc3000 (Mar 4, 2014)

Can anyone guess what it would take to be #100 on the authors all-star list? Would you have to have 10,000 total books borrowed or even more to be #100? or could it be even less like 1,000 total books borrowed? I'm just wondering so I know if I have any shot at all at getting in the top 100 and letting any of us lesser known authors have a shot at getting the bonuses.


----------



## rosclarke (Jul 12, 2013)

Let's be honest about what this is: another bribe by Amazon to persuade authors not to sell books through any of Amazon's competitors.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

rosclarke said:


> Let's be honest about what this is: another bribe by Amazon to persuade authors not to sell books through any of Amazon's competitors.


That's pretty much how I see it. A sparkly bit to keep us dazzled. So far I'm seeing a lot of "wow, Amazon did another great thing," and not a lot of "oh, the payout is down to $1.54."


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

rosclarke said:


> Let's be honest about what this is: another bribe by Amazon to persuade authors not to sell books through any of Amazon's competitors.


Right. A business incentive. Nothing evil or underhanded about it. Go with Select, for whatever reason, or don't, for whatever reason.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Onedayatatime said:


> I'm am all-star!! Can't quite believe it. The emails got sent out this morning!!


Congratulations!


----------



## Jash (Apr 4, 2013)

Congratulations Onedayatatime! Be careful not to get arrested for accepting a bribe 

One thing worth mentioning based on a few posts in this thread is that according to the initial email it's based on Sales, KOLL borrows and KU borrows combined. A lot of people seem to think it's just borrows and it's a KU specific thing.

Also... where's my email Amazon?


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

I think this is an absolutely terrible idea.

With the fall in borrow payouts, it should be clear to everyone that the money for this fund is coming from the pot. As such, it takes a system which already has a pretty steep power curve, and makes it more extreme.

Because visibility in the KOLL/KU charts is a function of the Popularity List, and the Pop List has an extreme tilt towards consistent sellers, it means that borrows already predominantly go towards those doing extremely well. The All Stars bonuses just add another layer of cream to those at the top, and pay for it out of the pot meant for all.

Anyone that knows me or has read my posts here knows that I have a generally positive disposition towards Amazon, but I think this is a really bad move for authors in general. There will be some winners (100 of 'em) and good for them. But it's bad for everyone else who isn't one of those 100, because borrow payouts will be lower to fund this. And it also puts pressure on authors to go all in with Select instead of mixing and matching.

Congrats to anyone who does well out of this. I don't begrudge them at all. But for the rest: are you really saying you prefer a system with $1.54 borrows and a bonus for the Top 100, rather than a system with $2 borrows? I know I don't.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

dgaughran said:


> Congrats to anyone who does well out of this. I don't begrudge them at all. But for the rest: are you really saying you prefer a system with $1.54 borrows and a bonus for the Top 100, rather than a system with $2 borrows? I know I don't.


Yeah, I got to agree with that.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2014)

dgaughran said:


> Congrats to anyone who does well out of this. I don't begrudge them at all. But for the rest: are you really saying you prefer a system with $1.54 borrows and a bonus for the Top 100, rather than a system with $2 borrows? I know I don't.


I agree. That was exactly my thought as soon as I read the letter from Amazon.


----------



## Jash (Apr 4, 2013)

dgaughran said:


> Congrats to anyone who does well out of this. I don't begrudge them at all. But for the rest: are you really saying you prefer a system with $1.54 borrows and a bonus for the Top 100, rather than a system with $2 borrows? I know I don't.


I should be getting some of the all-star pie. But I'd prefer $2 borrows. Although some quick and dirty maths suggests that this would add about 20p a borrow if it was thrown in the pool instead. Based on the number of borrows I'd actually come out ahead with $1.74 borrows.

Then again, I'm not sure I agree that it's clear this is coming out of the "pot", only because I don't really think the pot exists as such. Amazon is just throwing money at Select. If they wanted a $2 borrow rate it would be a $2 borrow rate and if they wanted to have a $2 borrow rate _and_ the all star incentive, then they'd do that. That's my take anyway. It's not a finite pool being split up. It's just whatever the hell they decide to do to incentivice the program.

I think you're spot on with "And it also puts pressure on authors to go all in with Select instead of mixing and matching" though. I also agree that it's going to set up a rich getting richer feedback loop, but then again that loop is pretty much part of their infrastructure already through charts and also-boughts... so, sames as it ever was.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

A diamond of an idea if all the facets gleam in the way Amazon hope. Attract 'big' authors from trad: those will pull other big authors with them. Trad will steadily weaken until it's too sick to continue: the only place readers can access big authors is Amazon - massive boost in KU subs.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Jash said:


> I'm not sure I agree that it's clear this is coming out of the "pot", only because I don't really think the pot exists as such. Amazon is just throwing money at Select. If they wanted a $2 borrow rate it would be a $2 borrow rate and if they wanted to have a $2 borrow rate _and_ the all star incentive, then they'd do that. That's my take anyway. It's not a finite pool being split up.


I agree with you except for this bit. Borrows have averaged pretty close to $2 since KOLL/Select launched. Amazon added or subtracted money from the pot every month (once they saw borrow levels) to ensure that it stayed around that. To me, it's like the way Amazon makes a profit of between $50m and -$150m (almost) every quarter. You can say it's variable and not controlled by Amazon, but they can decide to invest more or less to hit what they clearly see as the sweet spot to keep investment high but shareholders not too skittish.

Since KU launched, borrow payouts have been lower. I wondered at the launch of KU whether Amazon would maintain that ~$2 level or if they would drive it down, hoping that increased borrows by customers would keep indies in the program. It's still early days, but it seems the latter is the strategy.

The reason why I think that's bad: as more and more customers avail of KU, that will cannibalize our sales more and more. It's really important (IMO) to set firm limits about what is acceptable compensation as more book consumption moves from purchasing to subscription.

For me at least, I'm very glad I decided not to enroll a couple of titles a few weeks back. It makes the program much less attractive for me. (Although I may eventually be forced back in through lost visibility - jury is out on that so far.)


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2014)

I've been nothing but a KDP Select author since I started self-publishing.  But I was told by an author that Apple has big plans for authors.  Apparently, someone from the Apple "inside" told her this.  Even though I'm currently a KDP Select author, I would like to see Amazon get some decent competition.


----------



## N. Gemini Sasson (Jul 5, 2010)

I had a similar reaction to you, David. You're so much better at organizing your thoughts and putting them into words, though. I'd rather see that money get spread around.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Let me just add this:

*I could be totally wrong.* Maybe the level of borrows this month caught Amazon by surprise. Maybe they will tweak it so that it returns to ~$2 from next month on. That's entirely possible.

But I do think borrow payment levels are something we should keep a very close eye on, and that we need to keep thinking of the bigger picture - i.e. envisaging a future where 25% (or more) of the market is sub-services, and how we might be compensated under same. If ~$1.50 (or lower) is the new normal then we need to make are displeasure known and, preferably, vote with our feet by leaving the program.


----------



## Jash (Apr 4, 2013)

dgaughran said:


> The reason why I think that's bad: as more and more customers avail of KU, that will cannibalize our sales more and more. It's really important (IMO) to set firm limits about what is acceptable compensation as more book consumption moves from purchasing to subscription.


I agree to an extent, but I don't think you can set those limits by comapring pre and post KU borrow payouts. The playing field has changed to the extent where I just don't think what happened prior to KU is a relevant part of the equation. Maybe I should say it's not part of _my_ equation. Before just isn't relevant when my borrows have increased by a factor of 15 and sales really don't appear to have suffered (again this is my own experience... but that's what I base decisions on).

FWIW I wouldn't be surprised if they engineered a little increase in the borrow rate next month. Nothing major, back to $1.75 or so. Just to say "hey look, the rate can go up as well as down", because a lot of people will be coming to the end of their first term and they won't want people to leave in drove before the run up to Christmas.



dgaughran said:


> But I do think borrow payment levels are something we should keep a very close eye on, and that we need to keep thinking of the bigger picture - i.e. envisaging a future where 25% (or more) of the market is sub-services, and how we might be compensated under same. If ~$1.50 (or lower) is the new normal then we need to make are displeasure known and, preferably, vote with our feet by leaving the program.


Absolutely.

It's also a big part of why the kiddie table rhetoric trying to cast this as being about people loving or hating Amazon gets so tedious. Everyone trying to frame the narrative like that, whatever side they think their bread is buttered on, is as bad as each other. BOOMTIME FOR INDIES is no different to "people in Select are docile". It might as well be people arguing about Playstation and Xbox. It's all noise. Smart, informed, professional, self-published authors need to look to the bigger picture when making these decisions.

p.s. I'm a big fan and it's hard not to gush because LGD and LGV have been massive influences on me. So thanks for that!


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

I think that's a pretty fair comment Jash. My post is more about highlighting areas of concern/stuff we should keep an eye on, rather than whipping up a pitchfork army for a march on Seattle!

It is still early days. I remember the first KOLL payout was one of the lowest out of all those that came over the next 2+ years. It could easily rise next month and continue to do so. And I totally get that authors should be looking to their own bottom line as the #1 priority, and if you are getting 15X the borrows under KU, well, that's fantastic.


----------



## Matthew.Iden (Nov 6, 2011)

dgaughran said:


> I think this is an absolutely terrible idea.
> 
> ...
> 
> Because visibility in the KOLL/KU charts is a function of the Popularity List, and the Pop List has an extreme tilt towards consistent sellers, it means that borrows already predominantly go towards those doing extremely well. The All Stars bonuses just add another layer of cream to those at the top, and pay for it out of the pot meant for all.


^This.

The people who were already raking it in on borrows will now get additionally rewarded. Midlist authors can do nothing that they're not already doing (i.e., promoting themselves) to get readers to join Kindle Unlimited, so all this does is encourage a lottery mentality ("I sure do hope more people borrow me than buy me!" *sits with fingers crossed*) instead of a more democratic "anyone can succeed."

Not impressed.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

swolf said:


> Also, it looks like that bonus money is coming out of the pool, which will mean a reduced per-borrow amount.


Yeah, I wondered about that too, so this All-Star announcement isn't all that exciting to me. I know I'll never be in the running and so it just means a slightly reduced rate on the books I do have borrowed.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

dgaughran said:


> I think this is an absolutely terrible idea.
> 
> With the fall in borrow payouts, it should be clear to everyone that the money for this fund is coming from the pot. As such, it takes a system which already has a pretty steep power curve, and makes it more extreme.
> 
> ...


There is not a single word of this I disagree with.

This is a total b.s. move by Amazon and anybody who stays all-in in Select after this is just bending over and grabbing their ankles.

Ridiculous. And it doesn't take a genius to see how this harms everybody but the top 100. Why on Earth would anybody applaud this? You're applauding your own 25% pay cut. Wake up, people.


----------



## Will C. Brown (Sep 24, 2013)

swolf said:


> Also, it looks like that bonus money is coming out of the pool, which will mean a reduced per-borrow amount.


The wording was a little different in the email I received this morning which states:


> In addition, KDP Select All-Stars will earn financial bonuses paid separately from the $2.7M bonus


----------



## Gerald Hartenhoff (Jun 19, 2010)

There are a couple of top authors whose books are in KU but not exclusive who are going to love this.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

dgaughran said:


> Let me just add this:
> 
> *I could be totally wrong.* Maybe the level of borrows this month caught Amazon by surprise. Maybe they will tweak it so that it returns to ~$2 from next month on. That's entirely possible.
> 
> But I do think borrow payment levels are something we should keep a very close eye on, and that we need to keep thinking of the bigger picture - i.e. envisaging a future where 25% (or more) of the market is sub-services, and how we might be compensated under same. If ~$1.50 (or lower) is the new normal then we need to make are displeasure known and, preferably, vote with our feet by leaving the program.


October will be the month that will be most important for Amazon. I bet a lot of authors put books in Select in July when KU rolled out. Their 90 day contract expires about mid-October--just about the time September reports roll out. I know I'm already thinking of pulling at least one of my books out of Select. As a stand-alone romantic suspense, it has taken a nosedive in Select, and I was getting a few sales on BN and Apple.

So, keep an eye on the total number of books in Select, and see if it plummets about Oct. 20th or so.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

> In addition, KDP Select All-Stars will earn financial bonuses paid separately from the $2.7M bonus.


That can be read two different ways.

Are they paid separately from the other royalties, but from the $2.7M bonus?

Or are paid from an account separate from the $2.7M bonus?


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2014)

Quite crazy amazon sending emails to everyone about the BS prizes for already rich authors.

Who is on the border here? Oh I was ranked author number 115, now, I'll use KU and be author 93 and reap the rewards. Madness.

I didn't think though it was coming out of the fund. Like, never considered. Now that I have, Amazon should be disgusted with themselves for pushing the lowest payout ever in conjunction with this. 

No more KU for me.


----------



## Tara Shuler (Apr 24, 2011)

ElHawk said:


> There is not a single word of this I disagree with.
> 
> This is a total b.s. move by Amazon and anybody who stays all-in in Select after this is just bending over and grabbing their ankles.
> 
> Ridiculous. And it doesn't take a genius to see how this harms everybody but the top 100. Why on Earth would anybody applaud this? You're applauding your own 25% pay cut. Wake up, people.


Sorry, I didn't get a 25% pay cut. I got a huge increase. Since KU, my sales and borrows have shot up like a rocket. My income is higher than it has been in months.

Am I happy with $1.54 vs. $1.81? Not entirely, obviously. I'd prefer getting $1.81 or higher all the time. Who wouldn't? But I have SO MANY more sales/borrows that my income has gone way up. And I'm good with that.


----------



## Jash (Apr 4, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> ...anybody who stays all-in in Select after this is just bending over and grabbing their ankles


How can you not realize how incredibly offensive that is to many of your fellow authors?

My income has increased exponentially since KU started. I'm a pretty smart guy. A so-so author, but working on it. I do a lot of research and spend a lot of time staying on top of developments in this industry. Pulling my books from select right now would be idiotic. But, none of that matters because it's easier to paint everyone who doesn't agree with you with a broad brush and an anal sex analogy better suited to the playground.

Seriously... what the hell is going on in this place? Whatever, I'm out. Straw/camel's back etc. I wish everyone success beyond the wildest dreams, but try and get over the "us versus them" mentality, it holds you back.


----------



## Tara Shuler (Apr 24, 2011)

GeraldG said:


> There are a couple of top authors whose books are in KU but not exclusive who are going to love this.


All I can say is that I hope they aren't eligible, because it's already a bit unfair that they get to be in KU without being exclusive. That would just be going overboard.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

dgaughran said:


> I think this is an absolutely terrible idea.
> 
> With the fall in borrow payouts, it should be clear to everyone that the money for this fund is coming from the pot. As such, it takes a system which already has a pretty steep power curve, and makes it more extreme.
> 
> ...


I would agree with this if you were right about where the money comes from, but my reading of the email matches Will C. Brown's. These bonuses sound like extra money infused. I think the drop to $1.54 comes from the number of borrows going up, not from bonuses being pared out.

Edited to add: I also don't think Amazon's primary goal here is to lure authors into KDP Select. I think the goal is to get authors to go out and promote their KU works to readers to get more Amazon customers to sign up for KU. We tend to look at everything from the author's perspective, but Amazon makes their decisions first and foremost by looking at their customer's perspective.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Only authors with books in Select (exclusive) are eligible.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Before I knew I was getting a (small) bonus, and when I thought the bonuses would be going to the big-selling non-Select folks, I wrote these things on another board. 

1) Viewed another way, KDP is trying to keep bigger-name authors in the program, which would keep subscribers in the program. So their putting more money in to keep them there is positive for all concerned. And there's a reason for the heavy weighting at the top. The top 10 Select authors (of which I'm not one) are making enough that a $5k bonus is pretty negligible. You have to make the reward for staying in Select significant, at $1.35 a borrow. 

2) if the money is going to non-exclusive authors (which it turns out it isn't): those people weren't handed that for nothing. They've figured out how to write books folks want to read, and to sell a whole lot of them. They earned that spot. All I have to do to earn a spot like that is write more and figure out how to sell better.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Rosalind James said:


> Only authors with books in Select (exclusive) are eligible.


Are you sure about this? Did someone from Amazon confirm it?


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Deanna Chase said:


> Are you sure about this? Did someone from Amazon confirm it?


The email read: "Calculations only include sales and qualified borrows for titles enrolled in KDPS."

KDPS = Kindle Direct Publishing *Select*


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Lynn McNamee said:


> The email read: "Calculations only include sales and qualified borrows for titles enrolled in KDPS."
> 
> KDPS = Kindle Direct Publishing *Select*


Yeah. I saw that. But I don't know the terms the authors who were included in KU but are not required to be exclusive. Are they considered in Select but don't have to meet the exclusivity clause? Or not? I don't know. I'm just wondering if anyone else knows for sure or if we're just speculating here.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Deanna Chase said:


> Yeah. I saw that. But I don't know the terms the authors who were included in KU but are not required to be exclusive. Are they considered in Select but don't have to meet the exclusivity clause? Or not? I don't know. I'm just wondering if anyone else knows for sure or if we're just speculating here.


My understanding was that most of those authors were not published through KDP at all. They are published through larger publishers.

Also, even if they were through KDP, that doesn't mean they are in Select if Amazon made their books available through KU.

Those authors already get the royalties of a sale when they get a borrow, so I can't imagine Amazon rewarding them even more for choosing not to be in the program.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

"Calculations include only titles that were enrolled in KDP Select during the period." Seemed pretty definitive to me.  And I confess it made me feel better.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Because of the payment structure of the bonuses, I'm inclined to believe that Amazon is encouraging authors to put _all _of their books in Select, instead of just one or two.

The most money goes to the authors with the most sales + borrows, not the titles.

So if you're an author with 30 titles, and those 30 books only get a mediocre amount of borrows, you might still get in on the big bonuses because you could beat out an author with one title and a lot of borrows.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Lynn McNamee said:


> My understanding was that most of those authors were not published through KDP at all. They are published through larger publishers.
> 
> Also, even if they were through KDP, that doesn't mean they are in Select if Amazon made their books available through KU.
> 
> Those authors already get the royalties of a sale when they get a borrow, so I can't imagine Amazon rewarding them even more for choosing not to be in the program.


Lynn, I'm talking about indie authors who were invited to the Select program but did not have to take their books off other retailers. Bella Andre, Liliana Hart, Marie Force, etc, etc. My question is are they eligible for this bonus system? Not the traditionally published authors.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Deanna Chase said:


> Lynn, I'm talking about indie authors who were invited to the Select program but did not have to take their books off other retailers. Bella Andre, Liliana Hart, Marie Force, etc, etc. My question is are they eligible for this bonus system? Not the traditionally published authors.


They were invited into KU, not into Select.

I don't think they can possibly be eligible, or I wouldn't have made it to my spot on the list. Plus the wording suggests otherwise, to me.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Deanna Chase said:


> Lynn, I'm talking about indie authors who were invited to the Select program but did not have to take their books off other retailers. Bella Andre, Liliana Hart, Marie Force, etc, etc. My question is are they eligible for this bonus system? Not the traditionally published authors.


Ah, now I understand. Well, I really have no idea. He, he

If they are posting some sort of thing on the book pages of those top books, I guess we can go look at the book pages of those authors to see if anything appears.

Does anyone have a link to a book page that shows it made the top 100?


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> Nothing major, back to $1.75 or so.


I suspect it isn't done falling yet. Eventually it will stabilize, but I'm expecting $1.45 for September. I also think the days of $2 borrows are over, especially with addition of the All Stars program. But I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong.



> This is a total b.s. move by Amazon and anybody who stays all-in in Select after this is just bending over and grabbing their ankles.


Except many who have stayed in the program are earning more borrows (and money) than ever.

We only have two months of data, people. Chill.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

My big question:

The top 100 most-read KDPS authors will each be awarded the following amounts: 
•	Authors 1 through 10 will receive $25,000
•	Authors 11 through 20 will receive $10,000
•	Authors 21 through 30 will receive $5,000
•	Authors 31 through 50 will receive $2,500
•	Authors 51 through 100 will receive $1,000


Do they award that by KDP account, assuming that all books under that account, regardless of author name, were by one person?

Or is this done by actual author name listed on the book?

If it's the first, the accounting is going to be a real pain for small publishers like RAP. I guess I would have to divide the bonus up by a percentage method of which books received the most borrows. Of course, I wouldn't complain about getting the money.


----------



## CfaE (Jul 25, 2014)

I'm wondering what this means in terms of lists. Is there going to be a new 'top 100' list for KU borrows only? The 'All Star' thing sounds as if it's going to be a badge on the book to me. They've been rolling out bestseller badges, so I can see All Star ones appearing. The accolade is kinda cool for the people who get it, but I can't see it benefitting the authors who actually need some help.

I don't think this is going to make a change for me one way or the other. I can't see my whopping 7 borrows a month getting much impact from it either way. There's only one thing that would make me sign up for Select on all my books, some visibility! The first book store that puts my books in people's faces will win for me. So far, all my books are still in the invisible stock room.

This will be a nice bonus for people who don't need any help selling their books anyway. I can't see it being beneficial to anyone who doesn't have a massive marketing budget though.


----------



## Michelle Hughes (Dec 12, 2011)

My issue with going select is still the same.  My goal is to make it to the USA Today Bestsellers list before I die ... so that's impossible to do if you're only on Amazon.


----------



## Bob Stewart (Mar 19, 2014)

As an author out on the long tail, this is obviously negative to my interests. It's bound to make an already very steep sales curve a little steeper. But I don't consider it in anyway unfair, as fairness has absolutely nothing to do with it. Amazon's success as a business will never be measured by the happiness of self-published authors, and certainly not mine in particular. Likewise, it would be naive to think what's good for Amazon is necessarily good for me.



Hugh Howey said:


> I would agree with this if you were right about where the money comes from, but my reading of the email matches Will C. Brown's. These bonuses sound like extra money infused. I think the drop to $1.54 comes from the number of borrows going up, not from bonuses being pared out.


I doubt it's important, but this seems a fallacious argument to me. Since the dollar amount in the pot for any given month is (as far as we're concerned) is an arbitrary number, whether Amazon announces a smaller number that doesn't include these bonus payouts, or a larger number that does, is pretty meaningless.

What matters to each of us is whether we make more or less giving exclusivity to Amazon, and there won't be any universal, or permanent, answer to that. Having a small business means taking advantage of opportunities, and then rolling with the punches. But at least we're not working in cubicles in a building where you can't open a window.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

I keep seeing references to $2 borrows. I realize that's a nice round number and easy to remember, but it's wrong.

The actual average payout for the 31 months of KOLL (pre-KU) was $2.16. That's 8% higher than the oft-repeated erroneous figure of $2.

If you think 8% doesn't sound like much, there are loads of lenders and credit card companies that would love to hear from you.  

Yes, I know that $1.54 (the lowest payout ever and nearly 29% less than the KOLL historical average) can still raise your income if you get enough KU downloads. And no, I'm not judging whether KU is good or bad. My only point is that we should use the real actual number available to us.

$2.16.

Carry on.


----------



## Will C. Brown (Sep 24, 2013)

Bob Stewart said:


> As an author out on the long tail, this is obviously negative to my interests. It's bound to make an already very steep sales curve a little steeper. But I don't consider it in anyway unfair, as fairness has absolutely nothing to do with it. Amazon's success as a business will never be measured by the happiness of self-published authors, and certainly not mine in particular. Likewise, it would be naive to think what's good for Amazon is necessarily good for me.
> ...
> What matters to each of us is whether we make more or less giving exclusivity to Amazon, and there won't be any universal, or permanent, answer to that. Having a small business means taking advantage of opportunities, and then rolling with the punches. But at least we're not working in cubicles in a building where you can't open a window.


^^^This.
We may or may not be happy with the changes and incentives Amazon comes up with, but as author-preneurs we need to be agile and ready to adjust our business models as the companies we work with evolve---for better or for worse.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2014)

Michelle Hughes said:


> My issue with going select is still the same. My goal is to make it to the USA Today Bestsellers list before I die ... so that's impossible to do if you're only on Amazon.


This is something I've been thinking about, as well. I'll never hit this in my lifetime if I stay in Select.


----------



## S.A. Mulraney (May 20, 2011)

Drew Smith said:


> It appears that they are basing the math on the actual author name on the books.
> 
> Just a rough idea of the lay of the land: 2,000 sales and 4,800 borrows will get you on the list. Barely.


Do you think freebies factor into this at all?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Michelle Hughes said:


> My issue with going select is still the same. My goal is to make it to the USA Today Bestsellers list before I die ... so that's impossible to do if you're only on Amazon.


Something to think about: if you sell a lot of books due to being in Select (and/or have them borrowed), you may be invited to join a big-name box set with which you can hit those lists. So there ya go.

For me, I don't care too much other than that extra little bit of cachet which will be cool if all goes as hoped and it works out--because it'll help with sales, at least a little. But mainly, it's more about getting to share what I've written with readers, and, OK, money's nice too.  Mostly because it means I don't have to get a day job after all!

(I quit the day job one big week into my "writing career" at age 50+ when I started writing my first book and told hubby, "This is all I want to do," and he said, "Do it." *Side note: married to the Official Best Guy in the World.* The deal was that I would do it for the next year and we'd see where we were and if I had to go get a job again. Huge sigh of relief that I don't. Everything else is just a--yeah. A bonus.)


----------



## lostagain (Feb 17, 2014)

Rosalind you're my idol.  I started this at 51


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

VioletVaughn said:


> Rosalind you're my idol. I started this at 51


Hey, that's how we know enough about "how people are" to write about it!


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> The top 100 most-read KDPS authors will each be awarded the following amounts:
> 
> Authors 1 through 10 will receive $25,000
> Authors 11 through 20 will receive $10,000
> ...


So this is interesting ... It seems like this is to sweeten the deal for folks who are heavy hitter and are going to lose money if the $/borrow drops.

I guess my one big takeaway is maybe people in niche genres like sci-fi and fantasy should steer clear of KDP?
It is possible to hit the top 100 with those categories, but a lot rarer, rarer still if you're in a subgenre ... unless you have perhaps an enormous backlist in KDP? (I know Hugh and Geary are both in the top sellers in these genres, but most of the other authors at the top are traditionally published).


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

C. Gockel said:


> So this is interesting ... It seems like this is to sweeten the deal for folks who are heavy hitter and are going to lose money if the $/borrow drops.
> 
> I guess my one big takeaway is maybe people in niche genres like sci-fi and fantasy should steer clear of KDP?
> It is possible to hit the top 100 with those categories, but a lot rarer, rarer still if you're in a subgenre ... unless you have perhaps an enormous backlist in KDP? (I know Hugh and Geary are both in the top sellers in these genres, but most of the other authors at the top are traditionally published).


Yes, I think basically it makes up the "difference" between $1.54 and $1.84 at the # of borrows those authors are getting.

And I need to amend something I said earlier. Turns out that people who were "invited" into KOLL who are NOT exclusive WERE eligible for the bonus. Which makes me feel a whole lot better about my spot on the list.

(As I said in an earlier thread--nobody "gave" those authors anything they didn't earn. They got invited because they've figured out how to write books people want to buy, and to get people to buy them. All I have to do to be one of them is write and market better. I'm doing my very best to get there. If I don't, that's on me, not on KDP or anybody else. Doesn't mean I'm bad or lazy or that I should write different books if I don't want to, just that I didn't get there.)


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> Something to think about: if you sell a lot of books due to being in Select (and/or have them borrowed), you may be invited to join a big-name box set with which you can hit those lists. So there ya go.
> 
> For me, I don't care too much other than that extra little bit of cachet which will be cool if all goes as hoped and it works out--because it'll help with sales, at least a little. But mainly, it's more about getting to share what I've written with readers, and, OK, money's nice too.  Mostly because it means I don't have to get a day job after all!
> 
> (I quit the day job one big week into my "writing career" at age 50+ when I started writing my first book and told hubby, "This is all I want to do," and he said, "Do it." *Side note: married to the Official Best Guy in the World.* The deal was that I would do it for the next year and we'd see where we were and if I had to go get a job again. Huge sigh of relief that I don't. Everything else is just a--yeah. A bonus.)


My husband and I were vacationing in Vegas last week, and I met my pole dancing instructor and her accountant husband there. I was telling him about some of the people I encountered at Kboards who are making huge amounts of cash every month.

His response? "I hope they're saving their money."

Someday I hope to make very good money every month with this fiction gig, but I have to realize that nothing is guaranteed. You can hit it big, and then you can lose it. So if I reach my goals, I need to be smart about it.

Hitting the USA Today list is a goal of mine, and I would be lying if I said it wasn't. You can't accomplish that unless you're making good money with this, but if I make good money with this, I need to be smart and realize that nothing is forever except death and taxes.

No matter what happens, I want to be humble, keep a level head and just enjoy this. If I hit it big, I don't want to be somebody who thinks she can sail along forever without anything bad happening.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

You can lose any job. This job feels a lot better than the corporate jobs I had before, where so many things were out of my control. 

But, yeah. I save the absolute max in my retirement account (and pay my quarterly taxes, you betcha), and save on top of it. All I care about is that I make enough not to have to get a real job. Luckily, that's a modest figure.


----------



## 75910 (Mar 16, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> Something to think about: if you sell a lot of books due to being in Select (and/or have them borrowed), you may be invited to join a big-name box set with which you can hit those lists. So there ya go.


Just an aside note, I've been told that the NYT bestseller list won't be including those multi-author box sets after January 1. As far as I know, USA Today will still be including them.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Olivia Jaymes said:


> Just an aside note, I've been told that the NYT bestseller list won't be including those multi-author box sets after January 1. As far as I know, USA Today will still be including them.


Good to know. Thanks! Like I said, not one of my goals, so it's OK by me. 
Note same thing if you're published by an Amazon imprint. But I don't think Tracy Brogan is complaining.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2014)

Olivia Jaymes said:


> Just an aside note, I've been told that the NYT bestseller list won't be including those multi-author box sets after January 1. As far as I know, USA Today will still be including them.


I made a mistake and wrote NYT, but I meant USA Today. That's the one I think about.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Olivia Jaymes said:


> Just an aside note, I've been told that the NYT bestseller list won't be including those multi-author box sets after January 1. As far as I know, USA Today will still be including them.


I'm curious where you heard this.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> And I need to amend something I said earlier. Turns out that people who were "invited" into KOLL who are NOT exclusive WERE eligible for the bonus. Which makes me feel a whole lot better about my spot on the list.


Rosalind, you have nothing to feel bad about! You write books that people love to read!

(I do too, just not as many people!  ).

I'm just feeling out this KDP Select thing. I don't have any aspirations of a best seller list. I do have aspirations of making this my main gig at some point, and so I have to look very carefully into how I go about it.

I know people who say you should write to market, and to some extent I think it's true. But I do worry about longevity. I've done the whole make tons of money thing doing something you're not particularly keen on ... and it got old pretty fast. I want writing to continue to be something I love. I have a day job I like well enough.


----------



## Avis Black (Jun 12, 2012)

It does look like the bonus money is intended to lure away best-selling indies from Barnes & Noble and Kobo by compensating them for the financial loss they'd face from dropping those outlets.  But keep in mind that if you write in a less popular genre than the big sellers in Romance or Thrillers or Paranormal or whatever, you don't have a chance of seeing those bonuses.  If you're an author with an established fanbase in a smaller genre, you may be better off financially by sticking with those other distributors.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> If you're an author with an established fanbase in a smaller genre, you may be better off financially by sticking with those other distributors.


Yes! That is exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## Gerald Hartenhoff (Jun 19, 2010)

Rosalind James said:


> (As I said in an earlier thread--nobody "gave" those authors anything they didn't earn. They got invited because they've figured out how to write books people want to buy, and to get people to buy them. All I have to do to be one of them is write and market better. I'm doing my very best to get there. If I don't, that's on me, not on KDP or anybody else. Doesn't mean I'm bad or lazy or that I should write different books if I don't want to, just that I didn't get there.)


Well said. I agree.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

C. Gockel said:


> Rosalind, you have nothing to feel bad about! You write books that people love to read!
> 
> (I do too, just not as many people!  ).
> 
> ...


So appreciate the truth of this. I started writing because I had a story in my head and I LOVED writing it down. Then I found out that some other people liked entering that lovely little world I had created and living there for a while. Both of those things were a huge thrill.

BUT--I am lucky, so lucky, that what I like to write is romance. All the same, I agonize and second-guess plenty about my decisions. I remind myself constantly that nothing is really do-or-die. We're all just going along, trying stuff, seeing what works and what doesn't. Sales rise and fall--at least mine do. We all have to try our best to figure out how to move forward, and the landscape is constantly changing, which makes it tougher.


----------



## 75910 (Mar 16, 2014)

Deanna Chase said:


> I'm curious where you heard this.


It was in a conversation at RT in May. Several people talking about putting together box sets and it was mentioned. Not sure who brought it up first honestly.


----------



## Avis Black (Jun 12, 2012)

If you want to calculate if you have a fair chance of getting an author bonus, just look at your rank in Author Central.  If you're nowhere near 100, it's not realistic.


----------



## Melly Mack (Jan 2, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I would agree with this if you were right about where the money comes from, but my reading of the email matches Will C. Brown's. These bonuses sound like extra money infused. I think the drop to $1.54 comes from the number of borrows going up, not from bonuses being pared out.


Right, but consider if the extra $2.7 million had been added to the general fund instead of going to ~200 elites. Then the amount per borrow would have been well over $3.00. Now it's a two-tiered system, with much more money going to the top ~200 than all the other thousands of KDP select authors COMBINED. Amazon can do whatever it wants, but this is big-5 style publishing behavior.

Edited to add additional thought: Amazon asks authors to take a leap of faith by joining select -- a program paying an amount that is unspecified at the time you sign up. Could be $2.25, could be $1.50 -- who knows! And now they retroactively added bonuses for a very few. It's a slap in the face to (all but a few) authors would locked themselves into Amazon exclusivity for 3 months.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2014)

C. Gockel said:


> Rosalind, you have nothing to feel bad about! You write books that people love to read!
> 
> (I do too, just not as many people!  ).
> 
> ...


I'm reading three books this month that are top sellers and are on subjects I wouldn't mind writing about, giving them my unique twist.

You're saying there's nothing "to market" that you're interested in? Have you come to the conclusion that NONE of the top selling genres are worth writing about?

Fortunately, that's not my conclusion. There's certain types of romance I have zero interest in writing about, but there's plenty of other stuff out there that sells that I wouldn't mind writing about. I may even return to erotica. Who knows what I'll do.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Melly Mack said:


> Right, but consider if the extra $2.7 million had been added to the general fund instead of going to ~200 elites. Then the amount per borrow would have been well over $3.00. Now it's a two-tiered system, with much more money going to the top ~200 than all the other thousands of KDP select authors COMBINED. Amazon can do whatever it wants, but this is big-5 style publishing behavior.


Actually, the bonus fund is only about 500K. Whether it comes out of the 2.7 million or is separate, it's not that big a percentage of that figure. Most of the 2.7 million (if indeed the 500K came out of that) is going to the big pool.


----------



## jackiegp (May 18, 2013)

Two questions: 

First question: Does this include trad pubbed authors. And if it does. Does that mean author's like John Green, Stephen King and James Patterson, will be sucking up giant bonuses for their work, from Amazon directly each month, along with their publishers, and is this a way for Amazon to try and steal those authors away from their traditional publishing houses? You know, to eventually sink trad publishing for good? Publishing World Domination? I know, I know, supposedly the big names are not included, and its only anyone who is not KDPSelect. But then again, they waved a wand for certain individuals (big sellers) to be in KDP but be exempt from exclusivity....so yeah...that also seemed preposterous at one time, right? Personally, I think this really sets up a system, that pits Indie against Indie in fight for the bonus at the top...(sadness...hope not) just like the age-old every-writer-against-another mentality of the trad world. (huge breathy sigh) Amazon has just launched the fight for the big competitive bonus drop that the big houses have dangled in front of authors for YEARS. Writers are going to jump in with stars in their eyes...hoping to be that one grain of sand that drops through the magic top 100 selling hourglass, just like dream of landing on of those elusive 6 figure contracts trad pub likes to waves around. (another sigh...) (Okay, so that fell into sort of a rant...but...)

Second question: Who's doing the bookkeeping on this, and how will anyone every know if it's valid? How will Amazon disclose this, and will it be transparent? How will anyone know if it's valid? It's just like the new fund, how much will author's be getting paid? Who will know if that's the right portion? Who does the bookkeeping? Who gets to see that? Hmmmmm....


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Rosalind James said:


> Actually, the bonus fund is only about 500K. Whether it comes out of the 2.7 million or is separate, it's not that big a percentage of that figure. Most of the 2.7 million (if indeed the 500K came out of that) is going to the big pool.


If the All-Stars money were in the main pool instead, August borrows would have paid $1.74 rather than $1.54. Another way to phrase that: for every borrow you made in August, $0.20 was deducted from your payment and given to the bestselling 100-200 Select authors instead.

I know I know, the pools are separate. And you could make the argument that, by creating this separate All-Star fund, Amazon is helping bolster the health of KU, which will be better in the long-term for everyone involved.

Even so, that sounds so weird!


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> Have you come to the conclusion that NONE of the top selling genres are worth writing about?


No, I don't believe that. Romance in particular reflects the collective consciousness of our culture's musings on the most important decision anyone makes in their lifetime: who they marry. On the personal level, there can't be anything more important than that.

But I like my romance to have spaceships and or dragons zipping by in the background. Preferably both.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

Ed has it right. By my math, if the $590,000 in total bonus money had been put in the general Select pool, the payout would have been around $1.73 per borrow (within ~.01 because I didn't track down the actual # of borrows, just divided based on money.)

Arguing whether or not Amazon created a totally separate reward system is mere semantics-- the de facto effect is that $590,000 went to people who probably aren't most of us. I've also heard but have not verified personally that participants in KU but NOT in Select were eligible for the bonus money. I don't care, because I never expected life to be fair, and I don't believe in the word "deserves." 

Objectively, it's a great move for Amazon, because saying "Hey, we created an awesome new bonus pool!" is a much better press release than, "The program was so successful that we only had to cut payouts by 25 percent over two months!" I don't blame them. it's a stroke of genius, and makes sense, because people don't sign up to read a book from the average Select indie, they want to read the 1 percent.

Most writers will now make less because the top is making more, plus the algorithms already favor the bestsellers (and best-borrowers) more than the ordinary Select member's books, so ever more of a dwindling reward is shifting to the top--and pity the non-Select books.

I think Amazon has been an incredible gift for writers, but let's not kid ourselves about what has happened.  No matter what your personal situation, the cost for someone to read your book just dropped (even if you are in the 1 percent). If you want to call that "a win for indies everywhere," fine with me.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2014)

C. Gockel said:


> But I like my romance to have spaceships and or dragons zipping by in the background. Preferably both.


I gotcha!  (Sounds awesome, by the way!)


----------



## Melly Mack (Jan 2, 2011)

Rosalind James said:


> Actually, the bonus fund is only about 500K. Whether it comes out of the 2.7 million or is separate, it's not that big a percentage of that figure. Most of the 2.7 million (if indeed the 500K came out of that) is going to the big pool.


Okay, my mistake, thanks for the correction. I just went and added up all the money for the All Star bonuses, and it seems to be $600,000. So if I understand the email right (and not sure I do!) $2.7 million was added to the original $2 million originally announced--for a total of $4.7 million. Of that, $0.6 million went to the All Star bonuses, meaning $4.1 million was the amount that comes out to $1.54 per sale? If this is so, September's announced $3 million will result in lower payouts per borrow still. I do feel bamboozled, as I based my decision to join KDP Select on historical payouts of about $2.16 per borrow.

My sale to borrow ratio last month was about 1:2. On the face of it that sounds like a good incentive to stick with the program. However, I don't know how many of those borrows cannibalized sales on Amazon, and overall I estimate that the borrows earned me just about as much as I lost by having pulled my titles down everywhere else. Not much of an incentive to restrict myself perpetually to Amazon and penalize readers who use some other platform. Fortunately, my renewal date is on Oct 16th, so I will have September's numbers before I have to decide. Instead of this funds and bonuses, Amazon could take a professional approach and come up with a program that gives a valid estimate of what each borrow will earn, provide that number in advance of the month, and not treat this whole program like a lottery. Oyster and Scribd are able to.


----------



## jackiegp (May 18, 2013)

I think Amazon has been an incredible gift for writers, but let's not kid ourselves about what has happened. No matter what your personal situation, the cost for someone to read your book just dropped (even if you are in the 1 percent). If you want to call that "a win for indies everywhere," fine with me.
[/quote]

Here. Here. Like any good pyramid scheme, it's always good for those who get in at the top.


----------



## Twizzlers (Feb 6, 2014)

So forgive me if I didn't read it right (it's been a long day): this isn't just for August right? This'll be a regular thing going forward?


----------



## Melly Mack (Jan 2, 2011)

Drew Smith said:


> All this moaning about being treated "fairly" by Amazon smacks of Communism.


Who said anything about being treated fairly -- or even "fairly"? Certainly not me. In fact, I noted that Amazon can do what it wants. The point is they offer incentives to get authors to go exclusive with them. This discussion should be about sharing information and analyzing those incentives to decide what they are worth. The way you refer to yourself as a peon, it sounds like you will be quite happy to accept whatever scraps from Amazon's table they decide to leave you. Well, good for you.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

scottnicholson said:


> Ed has it right. By my math, if the $590,000 in total bonus money had been put in the general Select pool, the payout would have been around $1.73 per borrow (within ~.01 because I didn't track down the actual # of borrows, just divided based on money.)
> 
> Arguing whether or not Amazon created a totally separate reward system is mere semantics-- the de facto effect is that $590,000 went to people who probably aren't most of us. I've also heard but have not verified personally that participants in KU but NOT in Select were eligible for the bonus money. I don't care, because I never expected life to be fair, and I don't believe in the word "deserves."
> 
> ...


I suspect the bonus has as much to do with the bad publicity continuing to swirl around the Hachette issue as it does the drop in KU/KOLL payout. In fact, even more. If all they wanted to do was temper the disappointment at the lower payout, then why not just simply add that half mil to the pool and raise everyone's payout to $1.74? There'd be a heck of a lot more celebrating and practically no griping then. By doing this, they're able to say to Authors United and all the naysayers out there that they love their authors so much they're giving them bonuses, even if they're Stephen King and they sign AU's letter.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

C. Gockel said:


> But I like my romance to have spaceships and or dragons zipping by in the background. Preferably both.


There's plenty of room for that! Romantic Fantasy and Sci-Fi Romance are both pretty good-sized genres with nice, juicy audiences.


----------



## komura 420 (Aug 25, 2013)

The program has caused me to abandon the typical math calculations approach and ask myself questions of ethics/politics (read my name again and quickly abandon this reply if you know whats good for you).

With my komrade hat on I must ask myself if I really want to cooperate with the monopolistic behavior that rests at the core of KDP Select. 
Am I that easily purchased? 

If I answer 'yes' then am I nothing more than the prevalent modern sociopathic organization, the corporation? Gimme, gimme, gimme as much as possible.

Should I aim higher for myself?

No, I would not be in the 100. Not sure that is relevant ethically. Am certain this is not a 'pride of the poor' reaction.

But I do recognize the organization of a class structure when it happens before my very eyes as this event is.
Yes, I am a leftist, but with your best Orwellian imagination think of the potential effects. (Close your eyes if it helps):

Those that are successful get a nice bonus check, for the rest we only get what we earn from the market.  Objectivists (Ayn Rand devotees and other idiots) would argue that it is the privilege of successful and natural selection. To the victor goes the spoils...or something like that. 

However, I sell a book for 2.99 and I get about 2.10 for my efforts. Others will get about 2.10 for their efforts PLUS the value of the bonus spread across the quantity of books sold. Does this cross a line of fairness...kinda smells that way to me. Capitalists should agree with me on this as it moves from being a free market to one where the most successful are subsidized. (apologies, might have forgotten my own name for a moment there in my appeal to capitalist sentiments...but you get the drift). 

Raising the renumeration percentages for everyone would have been money more ethically spent in my opinion and the only response I can think of that is fair for everyone. 

Now I appreciate Amazon letting me sell books with them. Just can't do this one. At its heart is a trade of monopoly power for the prospect of higher earnings via an institutional subsidy.  

But I only make decisions for myself...and am only required to defend them with komrade wife. So if this leftist rant has offended you, apologies, but you chose your reaction. Choose differently.

komrade komura
enemy of the fate


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Melly Mack said:


> Instead of this funds and bonuses, Amazon could take a professional approach and come up with a program that gives a valid estimate of what each borrow will earn, provide that number in advance of the month, and not treat this whole program like a lottery. Oyster and Scribd are able to.


I agree!


----------



## Fredster (Apr 11, 2011)

I would be more excited if the bonus funds were for the lowest 100 sellers. 

Maybe call it "Fail Stars".


----------



## komura 420 (Aug 25, 2013)

Fredster said:


> I would be more excited if the bonus funds were for the lowest 100 sellers.
> 
> Maybe call it "Fail Stars".


Good one...thanks for the chuckle.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

When Select first came out, tons of people went all in with it (and let's be fair, plenty still do). But a lot, and I mean a *lot* of people, have pulled out. Or they've only put in a few. Or they only do it for the first few months, then pull it. Amazon doesn't want this. Amazon doesn't like this. Select was meant to give it more books and more content than its competitors, but now all these indies are *gasp* selling elsewhere? Seeing Bookbub results giving bumps elsewhere? Getting promos and box sets to take off elsewhere? Well. What do we do about that?

Let's make it so that the sum total of all borrows by an author in Select can give you a bonus if you're in the top 100. This is, very plainly, a bribe by Amazon to the bigs of the self-publishing world. Amazon wants everything. They don't want people dipping toes in, or just being in for a while, or only using a few titles. Go all in. Take your shot at this nice bonus. You top 100 people who have books selling elsewhere? Here's a check for 25k, or 15k or 5k. Time for you to start doing math at how much you're making in those other channels, and see if it's worth the gamble. Because that's what this is, a gamble, and it's one being put on a program already tainted with accusations of fraud, abuse, and manipulation. You think the 1-star shenanigans and downvoting happening right now are bad? Just wait until the rallying cry of "we're not competing against each other!" gets smashed to pieces by a ranking system with thousands of dollars on the line. God forbid you be #10 and be targeted by unscrupulous #11 who is staring at you with dollar signs in their eyes. And I don't even want to think about all the 1-page garbage that might start flooding the system in attempts to win by sheer volume.

If you think that this money couldn't be put into the general fund instead...if you say "oh but it isn't the same pool" you're in denial. That money could have easily been in there. But it isn't. It's being offered to all the people already doing well, and dear lord, don't listen to people who ARE in that top 100 who try to argue "but it's good for everyone!" Stop it. It's not. It's good for exactly 100 people, and bad for thousands and thousands of others. And if you're sitting near the bottom of the totem pole saying "I don't mind forking over twenty cents a borrow to all you people already raking it in", then I don't really know what else to say to you other than good luck, have fun, hope I'm wrong.


----------



## CEMartin2 (May 26, 2012)

Do you have to hold that top 100 spot for the whole month? Is the bonus prorated based on how many days you remain in place? What if you bump up a tier part way through the month? (Not that I'll do this. Only my latest is in select, and it only sells a few copies a day)


----------



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

CEMartin2 said:


> Do you have to hold that top 100 spot for the whole month? Is the bonus prorated based on how many days you remain in place? What if you bump up a tier part way through the month? (Not that I'll do this. Only my latest is in select, and it only sells a few copies a day)


It's all the numbers added up for the month. The top ten sellers for the entire month.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2014)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> When Select first came out, tons of people went all in with it (and let's be fair, plenty still do). But a lot, and I mean a *lot* of people, have pulled out. Or they've only put in a few. Or they only do it for the first few months, then pull it. Amazon doesn't want this. Amazon doesn't like this. Select was meant to give it more books and more content than its competitors, but now all these indies are *gasp* selling elsewhere? Seeing Bookbub results giving bumps elsewhere? Getting promos and box sets to take off elsewhere? Well. What do we do about that?
> 
> Let's make it so that the sum total of all borrows by an author in Select can give you a bonus if you're in the top 100. This is, very plainly, a bribe by Amazon to the bigs of the self-publishing world. Amazon wants everything. They don't want people dipping toes in, or just being in for a while, or only using a few titles. Go all in. Take your shot at this nice bonus. You top 100 people who have books selling elsewhere? Here's a check for 25k, or 15k or 5k. Time for you to start doing math at how much you're making in those other channels, and see if it's worth the gamble. Because that's what this is, a gamble, and it's one being put on a program already tainted with accusations of fraud, abuse, and manipulation. You think the 1-star shenanigans and downvoting happening right now are bad? Just wait until the rallying cry of "we're not competing against each other!" gets smashed to pieces by a ranking system with thousands of dollars on the line. God forbid you be #10 and be targeted by unscrupulous #11 who is staring at you with dollar signs in their eyes. And I don't even want to think about all the 1-page garbage that might start flooding the system in attempts to win by sheer volume.
> 
> If you think that this money couldn't be put into the general fund instead...if you say "oh but it isn't the same pool" you're in denial. That money could have easily been in there. But it isn't. It's being offered to all the people already doing well, and dear lord, don't listen to people who ARE in that top 100 who try to argue "but it's good for everyone!" Stop it. It's not. It's good for exactly 100 people, and bad for thousands and thousands of others. And if you're sitting near the bottom of the totem pole saying "I don't mind forking over twenty cents a borrow to all you people already raking it in", then I don't really know what else to say to you other than good luck, have fun, hope I'm wrong.


David, I've only been in Select, but no argument from me. I'm not into kissing the butts of the authors on top and acting like this is all hunky dory. I'm about *me,* not the authors on top. I don't care about the authors on top.

When Select no longer benefits *me,* I'm out. Period.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

I haven't decided if I'll renew my books in Select. Between this news today, and the fact that Amazon screwed up my free promo today, with nothing except, Whoops. Sorry! I'm not a happy camper with them right now. All I asked for was my free day to be canceled since it was so late, and the day returned to my bank to be rescheduled. Not only did they not do that, they ignored the request entirely by not addressing it at all. 

I may renew in Select, but just to give myself the option, I just went an unchecked all the auto-renew check boxes.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2014)

MaryMcDonald said:


> I may renew in Select, but just to give myself the option, I just went an unchecked all the auto-renew check boxes.


I did that today, also.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> When Select first came out, tons of people went all in with it (and let's be fair, plenty still do). But a lot, and I mean a *lot* of people, have pulled out. Or they've only put in a few. Or they only do it for the first few months, then pull it. Amazon doesn't want this. Amazon doesn't like this. Select was meant to give it more books and more content than its competitors, but now all these indies are *gasp* selling elsewhere? Seeing Bookbub results giving bumps elsewhere? Getting promos and box sets to take off elsewhere? Well. What do we do about that?
> 
> Let's make it so that the sum total of all borrows by an author in Select can give you a bonus if you're in the top 100. This is, very plainly, a bribe by Amazon to the bigs of the self-publishing world. Amazon wants everything. They don't want people dipping toes in, or just being in for a while, or only using a few titles. Go all in. Take your shot at this nice bonus. You top 100 people who have books selling elsewhere? Here's a check for 25k, or 15k or 5k. Time for you to start doing math at how much you're making in those other channels, and see if it's worth the gamble. Because that's what this is, a gamble, and it's one being put on a program already tainted with accusations of fraud, abuse, and manipulation. You think the 1-star shenanigans and downvoting happening right now are bad? Just wait until the rallying cry of "we're not competing against each other!" gets smashed to pieces by a ranking system with thousands of dollars on the line. God forbid you be #10 and be targeted by unscrupulous #11 who is staring at you with dollar signs in their eyes. And I don't even want to think about all the 1-page garbage that might start flooding the system in attempts to win by sheer volume.
> 
> If you think that this money couldn't be put into the general fund instead...if you say "oh but it isn't the same pool" you're in denial. That money could have easily been in there. But it isn't. It's being offered to all the people already doing well, and dear lord, don't listen to people who ARE in that top 100 who try to argue "but it's good for everyone!" Stop it. It's not. It's good for exactly 100 people, and bad for thousands and thousands of others. And if you're sitting near the bottom of the totem pole saying "I don't mind forking over twenty cents a borrow to all you people already raking it in", then I don't really know what else to say to you other than good luck, have fun, hope I'm wrong.












And I also unchecked the auto-renew box for the few books i have in Select. I doubt the Zon will care, but that's my weeny little protest.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> all the stuff that was said












ETA: I just want to be super-clear here on my feelings about all of this. Like Rosalind, I don't begrudge any author for getting up to that point. It's amazing and awesome that they're selling so well, and they ABSOLUTELY got there by writing books people want to read and having a killer strategy, too. That's fantastic, and I'm genuinely glad for that part of it. I'm psyched for any author who works their way up to that level of success.

However, I don't see how diverting funds from lower-selling authors and paying out bonuses to a small number who are already on top benefits anybody but those people on top. People can use whatever strategy they feel benefits their business the most, but subsidizing the further wealth of already-very-successful authors at no benefit to myself is not something I'm interested in doing.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2014)

ElHawk said:


> However, I don't see how diverting funds from lower-selling authors and paying out bonuses to a small number who are already on top benefits anybody but those people on top. People can use whatever strategy they feel benefits their business the most, but subsidizing the further wealth of already-very-successful authors at no benefit to myself is not something I'm interested in doing.


Word to the mutha. 



Drew Smith said:


> I suppose if you believe in yourself and your own possibilities, it's easier to support those who are already doing well. If you never think you're going to make enough sales to get onto the list, I would guess it's easy to feel bitter and to resent them. I don't.


Dude, speak for yourself; speak for someone else, but DON'T speak for me.


----------



## Pamela (Oct 6, 2010)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> When Select first came out, tons of people went all in with it (and let's be fair, plenty still do). But a lot, and I mean a *lot* of people, have pulled out. Or they've only put in a few. Or they only do it for the first few months, then pull it. Amazon doesn't want this. Amazon doesn't like this. Select was meant to give it more books and more content than its competitors, but now all these indies are *gasp* selling elsewhere? Seeing Bookbub results giving bumps elsewhere? Getting promos and box sets to take off elsewhere? Well. What do we do about that?
> 
> Let's make it so that the sum total of all borrows by an author in Select can give you a bonus if you're in the top 100. This is, very plainly, a bribe by Amazon to the bigs of the self-publishing world. Amazon wants everything. They don't want people dipping toes in, or just being in for a while, or only using a few titles. Go all in. Take your shot at this nice bonus. You top 100 people who have books selling elsewhere? Here's a check for 25k, or 15k or 5k. Time for you to start doing math at how much you're making in those other channels, and see if it's worth the gamble. Because that's what this is, a gamble, and it's one being put on a program already tainted with accusations of fraud, abuse, and manipulation. You think the 1-star shenanigans and downvoting happening right now are bad? Just wait until the rallying cry of "we're not competing against each other!" gets smashed to pieces by a ranking system with thousands of dollars on the line. God forbid you be #10 and be targeted by unscrupulous #11 who is staring at you with dollar signs in their eyes. And I don't even want to think about all the 1-page garbage that might start flooding the system in attempts to win by sheer volume.
> 
> If you think that this money couldn't be put into the general fund instead...if you say "oh but it isn't the same pool" you're in denial. That money could have easily been in there. But it isn't. It's being offered to all the people already doing well, and dear lord, don't listen to people who ARE in that top 100 who try to argue "but it's good for everyone!" Stop it. It's not. It's good for exactly 100 people, and bad for thousands and thousands of others. And if you're sitting near the bottom of the totem pole saying "I don't mind forking over twenty cents a borrow to all you people already raking it in", then I don't really know what else to say to you other than good luck, have fun, hope I'm wrong.


I wish we had a 'like' button. David always hits it on the nail.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

ElHawk said:


> However, I don't see how diverting funds from lower-selling authors and paying out bonuses to a small number who are already on top benefits anybody but those people on top. People can use whatever strategy they feel benefits their business the most, but subsidizing the further wealth of already-very-successful authors at no benefit to myself is not something I'm interested in doing.


Exactly my feelings. Am I happy with where I am now? Absolutely. Would I like to do better? Of course. This is not sour grapes...it's merely thinking that contributing to a fund that isn't going to help me at all is unappealing at best.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2014)

Drew Smith said:


> I'm not sure why you would think I was speaking for you. Sorry if I gave that impression. I was talking about people who seem bitter and resentful because they aren't doing as well as others are doing. I would think you would have every reason to think you'll make it on that list eventually. What am I missing?


Understood.

Look, I've only been a self-published author since May. Anyone who has only been a self-published author since May doesn't have anything to complain about.

I'm patient, but I'm also smart. So as I said, if Select isn't good for me, I'm out.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Contrary to what other people have said I don't think the 'Zon wants us all in Select. They are losing money with Select--think about it, the service appeals to hyper readers. Even if a hyper reader only reads 99 cent books (unlikely) at 4 books a week the Zon makes about 10.40 on them--less than the cost of one month of KU. They HOPE that readers come in for KU and buy other stuff. 

I've heard Kindle sales are leveling off--a lot of the newer generation are quite happy to read on their phones, tablet, or even computer. Most phones, tablets, etc. support all the ebook formats--and scribd and oyster (have you tried scribd's interface? I love it. It makes me want to pitch my paper white and get a different eReader). 

The 'Zon is a slave to change as much as we are. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

This... this is not an issue worth getting upset over. It's a non-event.

Amazon isn't robbing Peter to pay Paul here, the Global Fund is, as someone else said, completely arbitrary and if Amazon intended to pay out the 2.16, they would have. They didn't let it drop to 1.54 because of All Stars, they did it to see if indies would take it and lo and behold a ton of them did. And it'll get lower until they see a mass exodus.

As to All-Star, good for the people getting it. At least someone is getting recompensated for the lost royalties they're taking by being forced into KU if they want to be in Select. And that's what this is. Any author for whom it would take $25,000 a month to lure them off other sales channels isn't going to want to weather the hit of cutting out the $25,000 worth fo readers they'll be pissing off by abandoning their chosen platform, so that's not it. All-Stars is Amazon's way of giving top performers an analog of the 'we'll pay you your actual royalty' thing they give yo trad pubs.

The only negative is the lottery aspect, which is basically KU in a nutshell, and the possibility that the big-name authors maintained might slow this thing's demise. Otherwise, there's really no reason for anyone to care unless they're getting paid from it.

At least _someone_ is going to be making money off KU in the long term. Again, good for them. Can I borrow a G for a Book Bub?


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

I'm not convinced that the funds for this did not come out of the Global Fund. I'd need to see very clear language from Amazon in order to believe that. I've seen something rather ambiguous so far and nothing else. If I've missed something crucial here, please do point me in the right direction, as I do not want to continue to believe that the Global Fund was skimmed to subsidize the top players, but that's what it looks like so far.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

C. Gockel said:


> Contrary to what other people have said I don't think the 'Zon wants us all in Select. They are losing money with Select--think about it, the service appeals to hyper readers. Even if a hyper reader only reads 99 cent books (unlikely) at 4 books a week the Zon makes about 10.40 on them--less than the cost of one month of KU. They HOPE that readers come in for KU and buy other stuff.


Amazon does not give a single bowel movement about profit. They've already happily announced they plan to lose more money than every single person on this forum combined is worth in the coming quarter.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

ElHawk said:


> I've seen something rather ambiguous so far and nothing else. If I've missed something crucial here, please do point me in the right direction, as I do not want to continue to believe that the Global Fund was skimmed to subsidize the top players, but that's what it looks like so far.


Yep.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> I'm not convinced that the funds for this did not come out of the Global Fund. I'd need to see very clear language from Amazon in order to believe that. I've seen something rather ambiguous so far and nothing else. If I've missed something crucial here, please do point me in the right direction, as I do not want to continue to believe that the Global Fund was skimmed to subsidize the top players, but that's what it looks like so far.


Does it really matter though? The number they say is the Global Fund is routinely a complete lie and they dump a wad of cash into it at the end of the month regardless. Skimming only really hurts if it's reducing a set amount.

And even if they were skimming, letting the Fund fall to a 1.54 payout is still a conscious choice on Amazon's part. They could have easily topped it off to $1.80 again or $2 or $2.16, All-Stars or no All-Stars, but they didn't.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> Does it really matter though? The number they say is the Global Fund is routinely a complete lie and they dump a wad of cash into it at the end of the month regardless. Skimming only really hurts if it's reducing a set amount.
> 
> And even if they were skimming, letting the Fund fall to a 1.54 payout is still a conscious choice on Amazon's part. They could have easily topped it off to $1.80 again or $2 or $2.16, All-Stars or no All-Stars, but they didn't.


Exactly. Amazon "topped off" the pot with an additional $2.5 mil, thus bringing the payout UP to $1.54, which tells me that's where they think they can get away with it. Authors will grumble but take it. They could've just as easily added $3M, bringing the payout to $1.71. Or $3.5M and $1.88. We're talking about cushion change, folks. But they didn't. They probably looked at the top x% of earners and calculated what the payout would need to be in order for borrows earnings to still exceed what was lost (if anything) in sales. The bottom y% of earners they really couldn't care less about what happened to them, because those aren't the ones bringing in the customers. I'm a fan of Amazon, and I have half of my 40+ titles in Select. I've earned more this month already than in July and August combined because of it. But that doesn't mean I'm not skeptical about what they're doing here.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Saul Tanpepper said:


> Exactly. Amazon "topped off" the pot with an additional $2.5 mil, thus bringing the payout UP to $1.54, which tells me that's where they think they can get away with it. Authors will grumble but take it. They could've just as easily added $3M, bringing the payout to $1.71. Or $3.5M and $1.88. We're talking about cushion change, folks. But they didn't. They probably looked at the top x% of earners and calculated what the payout would need to be in order for borrows earnings to still exceed what was lost (if anything) in sales. The bottom y% of earners they really couldn't care less about what happened to them, because those aren't the ones bringing in the customers. I'm a fan of Amazon, and I have half of my 40+ titles in Select. I've earned more this month already than in July and August combined because of it. But that doesn't mean I'm not skeptical about what they're doing here.


I've worn my Amazon cheerleader outfit for months . . . but I'm not an idiot. Am I skeptical right now? You bet.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> And even if they were skimming, letting the Fund fall to a 1.54 payout is still a conscious choice on Amazon's part. They could have easily topped it off to $1.80 again or $2 or $2.16, All-Stars or no All-Stars, but they didn't.


Precisely this. Amazon should give borrows a certain value, and just stick with that. And they should tie it to the length of the story, the pages read, or some metric that doesn't reward gaming the system. If they are going to arbitrarily fund to some amount, just come up with an amount already.

The one thing I do like about their programs is that they tinker until they get it right. If anyone thinks this is how KU will look a year from now, they're out of their minds. What are we, two months in? Everyone is screaming about every little thing that happens. Which is fine, if it'll help guide Amazon in making this fair for reader and writer alike, but acting like anything they do is how it'll be set in stone for all of time is crazy. That hasn't been their M.O.

In another month, we'll see how many people pull out of their 90 day run, how many more (or fewer) go in, whether Amazon can get any of the Big 5 to participate, and what the borrow rate looks like after more free month KU trials run out. My guess is that the pool of funds is growing on the back end as people start paying for KU rather than riding along on their trial. What will that mean for the pool allocated to borrows? Time will tell.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

ElHawk said:



> However, I don't see how diverting funds from lower-selling authors and paying out bonuses to a small number who are already on top benefits anybody but those people on top.


It's not to benefit the people at the top. It's to pay them to stay in Select because their books are the ones that are shown to be the most attractive and are most likely to make the greatest number of customers think Prime is a good deal.

Amazon is basically paying for 100 promotions for their product: The Everything Store.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

MaryMcDonald said:


> I haven't decided if I'll renew my books in Select. Between this news today, and the fact that Amazon screwed up my free promo today, with nothing except, Whoops. Sorry! I'm not a happy camper with them right now. All I asked for was my free day to be canceled since it was so late, and the day returned to my bank to be rescheduled. Not only did they not do that, they ignored the request entirely by not addressing it at all.
> 
> I may renew in Select, but just to give myself the option, I just went an unchecked all the auto-renew check boxes.


Mary, it might help to ask again. I received this answer about an hour ago:

I'm sorry to hear about the delay in starting the free promotion for your book "Twittermas - A Christmas Short Story".

I've checked and can see that we experienced a temporary issue which caused a delay in starting your free promotion on time. I'm sorry for any inconvenience this caused.

However, I see that the free promotion is now running without any issues. You can verify this using the below link:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HAUT27K

And I've credited your account with a replacement promotional day for "Twittermas - A Christmas Short Story" that was scheduled to be free on September 16, 2014.

I hope this helps. Thanks for using Amazon KDP.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Saul Tanpepper said:


> Exactly. Amazon "topped off" the pot with an additional $2.5 mil, thus bringing the payout UP to $1.54, which tells me that's where they think they can get away with it. Authors will grumble but take it. They could've just as easily added $3M, bringing the payout to $1.71. Or $3.5M and $1.88. We're talking about cushion change, folks. But they didn't. They probably looked at the top x% of earners and calculated what the payout would need to be in order for borrows earnings to still exceed what was lost (if anything) in sales. The bottom y% of earners they really couldn't care less about what happened to them, because those aren't the ones bringing in the customers. I'm a fan of Amazon, and I have half of my 40+ titles in Select. I've earned more this month already than in July and August combined because of it. But that doesn't mean I'm not skeptical about what they're doing here.


Yeah, this is the point I think the dissenters (and certainly I) are trying to make. Skepticism. I am giving this major, huge side-eye.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> When Select first came out, tons of people went all in with it (and let's be fair, plenty still do). But a lot, and I mean a *lot* of people, have pulled out. Or they've only put in a few. Or they only do it for the first few months, then pull it. Amazon doesn't want this. Amazon doesn't like this. Select was meant to give it more books and more content than its competitors, but now all these indies are *gasp* selling elsewhere? Seeing Bookbub results giving bumps elsewhere? Getting promos and box sets to take off elsewhere? Well. What do we do about that?
> 
> Let's make it so that the sum total of all borrows by an author in Select can give you a bonus if you're in the top 100. This is, very plainly, a bribe by Amazon to the bigs of the self-publishing world. Amazon wants everything. They don't want people dipping toes in, or just being in for a while, or only using a few titles. Go all in. Take your shot at this nice bonus. You top 100 people who have books selling elsewhere? Here's a check for 25k, or 15k or 5k. Time for you to start doing math at how much you're making in those other channels, and see if it's worth the gamble. Because that's what this is, a gamble, and it's one being put on a program already tainted with accusations of fraud, abuse, and manipulation. You think the 1-star shenanigans and downvoting happening right now are bad? Just wait until the rallying cry of "we're not competing against each other!" gets smashed to pieces by a ranking system with thousands of dollars on the line. God forbid you be #10 and be targeted by unscrupulous #11 who is staring at you with dollar signs in their eyes. And I don't even want to think about all the 1-page garbage that might start flooding the system in attempts to win by sheer volume.
> 
> If you think that this money couldn't be put into the general fund instead...if you say "oh but it isn't the same pool" you're in denial. That money could have easily been in there. But it isn't. It's being offered to all the people already doing well, and dear lord, don't listen to people who ARE in that top 100 who try to argue "but it's good for everyone!" Stop it. It's not. It's good for exactly 100 people, and bad for thousands and thousands of others. And if you're sitting near the bottom of the totem pole saying "I don't mind forking over twenty cents a borrow to all you people already raking it in", then I don't really know what else to say to you other than good luck, have fun, hope I'm wrong.


Boom! +1

I am out of this KU box in mid-October. If I had any doubt about that decision it has erased by this move today by Amazon. Where do I start? The 10% read shenanigans when my books are all over 100K reads and all these "authors" putting in short books and getting paid for the 10% read throughs for their stuff which sometimes equals exactly a paragraph.

Oh but the plot thickens... because what I haven't seen mentioned here is that Ms. H.M. Ward put her lucrative 16-book serial The Arrangement into this program about ten days ago. http://blog.demonkissed.com/?p=1757 And most recently, The Proposition is now there too as of her latest blog post from yesterday.

I, for one, was wondering why she would do that and now I'm thinking this is why--the bonus will be good. This is what will probably make her whole on that front and oh she doesn't have to be exclusive either. She states that right at the bottom of her post. Still, I could be wrong but it will be interesting to see if all the authors in KU get to see who made the top 100 and who got all those bonus dollars.

Nice move, Amazon. I'm out of KU in October and my strategy in terms of marketing dollars and where they will point to will be other than Amazon in 2015.


----------



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

Katherine Owen said:


> Boom! +1
> 
> I am out of this KU box in mid-October. If I had any doubt about that decision it has erased by this move today by Amazon. Where do I start? The 10% read shenanigans when my books are all over 100K reads and all these "authors" putting in short books and getting paid for the 10% read throughs for their stuff which sometimes equals exactly a paragraph.
> 
> ...


I think you're missing the point, though. The authors who are allowed to double dip and put their books in KU AND put them on other venues are not in Select. Only Select authors get the bonuses. So, people who get to double dip but who aren't in Select do not get the bonuses.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

I've seen claims on both sides of this. In fact, I don't think anyone can say with complete certainty who's correct. Until the authors are announced, we can only speculate. After that, the whole world will know, and then we'll all be able to make an educated decision about whether to be indignant, pleased, or indifferent.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

kward said:


> If it turns out that Amazon is funding the All Star incentives through the Global Fund - that would equate to unknown authors paying a fee to keep the top dogs hanging around and all the extra eyeballs they bring - you could look at it as a marketing cost for your otherwise unseen works instead of deciding it's the apocalypse.


The idea that they're effectively making people pay a marketing cost without asking permission or even giving a new escape clause like they did with the advent of KU is actually WORSE.

You might not want to lead with this notion.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

We received no email, so sent one to KDP:

KDP Customer Service:

We entered Kindle Select with two books to see what would happen with Kindle Unlimited, despite being UK based and excluded from using the service. We now understand that you have materially altered the system with your All Stars announcement. We only found out about this announcement through online author discussions as while many have been sent an email about this, we were not sent one.

As you have materially changed the deal for Kindle Select we want an immediate exit such as you offered to those who where in Kindle Select when you announced Kindle Unlimited. You did not deign us worthy of an announcement email, but we expect a speedy response by email to this request. If we have not heard from you by 12:00 Pacific Time on 20th September 2014 we will deem the contract breached and will begin to reload our Select registered books to other retailers.

Mercia McMahon
Proprietor
MMMporium


----------



## D-C (Jan 13, 2014)

I don't think they sent an email (?) It was announced on their KDP forum.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

ElHawk said:


> ETA: I just want to be super-clear here on my feelings about all of this. Like Rosalind, I don't begrudge any author for getting up to that point. It's amazing and awesome that they're selling so well, and they ABSOLUTELY got there by writing books people want to read and having a killer strategy, too. That's fantastic, and I'm genuinely glad for that part of it. I'm psyched for any author who works their way up to that level of success.
> 
> However, I don't see how diverting funds from lower-selling authors and paying out bonuses to a small number who are already on top benefits anybody but those people on top. People can use whatever strategy they feel benefits their business the most, but subsidizing the further wealth of already-very-successful authors at no benefit to myself is not something I'm interested in doing.


^This, exactly.
It's the first I've heard of it, and it wants me want to opt out of select immediately.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> When Select first came out, tons of people went all in with it (and let's be fair, plenty still do). But a lot, and I mean a *lot* of people, have pulled out. Or they've only put in a few. Or they only do it for the first few months, then pull it. Amazon doesn't want this. Amazon doesn't like this. Select was meant to give it more books and more content than its competitors, but now all these indies are *gasp* selling elsewhere? Seeing Bookbub results giving bumps elsewhere? Getting promos and box sets to take off elsewhere? Well. What do we do about that?
> 
> Let's make it so that the sum total of all borrows by an author in Select can give you a bonus if you're in the top 100. This is, very plainly, a bribe by Amazon to the bigs of the self-publishing world. Amazon wants everything. They don't want people dipping toes in, or just being in for a while, or only using a few titles. Go all in. Take your shot at this nice bonus. You top 100 people who have books selling elsewhere? Here's a check for 25k, or 15k or 5k. Time for you to start doing math at how much you're making in those other channels, and see if it's worth the gamble. Because that's what this is, a gamble, and it's one being put on a program already tainted with accusations of fraud, abuse, and manipulation. You think the 1-star shenanigans and downvoting happening right now are bad? Just wait until the rallying cry of "we're not competing against each other!" gets smashed to pieces by a ranking system with thousands of dollars on the line. God forbid you be #10 and be targeted by unscrupulous #11 who is staring at you with dollar signs in their eyes. And I don't even want to think about all the 1-page garbage that might start flooding the system in attempts to win by sheer volume.
> 
> If you think that this money couldn't be put into the general fund instead..if you say "oh but it isn't the same pool" you're in denial. That money could have easily been in there. But it isn't. It's being offered to all the people already doing well, and dear lord, don't listen to people who ARE in that top 100 who try to argue "but it's good for everyone!" Stop it. It's not. It's good for exactly 100 people, and bad for thousands and thousands of others. And if you're sitting near the bottom of the totem pole saying "I don't mind forking over twenty cents a borrow to all you people already raking it in", then I don't really know what else to say to you other than good luck, have fun, hope I'm wrong.


^ And this.
Amazon's move is almost biblical.

If anyone here in the forums is in the top 100 for KU borrows, I'm raising my glass (of OJ) to you 

But in relation to Amazon, what would have been good, instead, is for them to provide ways for KU authors to get their work seen. That would be amazing and positive. This really should have been the first move, ahead of bonus payments. I'm going to take a stab and say that there must be deep problems with the KU program for Amazon to have done this.


----------



## Amber Rose (Jul 25, 2014)

But why SHOULDN'T Amazon reward the top authors? Why can't it simply say...hey, thanks for helping us make Select work, and hey! congrats on your brilliance. 

Where is our feeling of entitlement coming from? What gives us the right to say "Whoa! There is MORE money to give out? Gimme!". 

The protest that Amazon is rewarding those who are already doing well, is like saying that bookshops shouldn't give grade A space to displaying John Grishams, but should rather give that space to the self published author, because, hey, Grisham is *already* doing well.  Unfortunately, that is not quite how business works. 

Amazon is a business, and (like it or not) they are out to dominate the market. If that means that they are going to bribe authors to help them grow their KU program, ummm... ok. Well done, and good luck to them.  

Use the old analogy of a real library. A library that stocks your books does not pay you for each borrow! Are you going to stomp your feet in frustration? Are you going to start a class action suit that forces libraries to give you the option of whether they are going to stock your book or not? What Amazon has done is taken the library model and turned it on its head. Readers can borrow books, for free of for $10pm. Authors can then BE COMPENSATED for those borrows. What? You don't like that? No problem Your book won't be part of the library. 

How is this a problem for anyone? You have a choice. Go exercise it. 

And if your objection is that Amazon is too big of a market leader, and it's holding you hostage because it has most of the customers/readers, then I ask you to take a minute to think about that. Because that is the business they are in.  And they seem to be good at it. And HENCE! You can be a self-published author and make some money. Or not. Guess whose choice that is? YOURS. 

As a reader,  I am thrilled that AZ is rewarding top authors. As a reader, I cannot imagine how that can hurt me. As a writer, I am equally thrilled, because a)it gives me something to strive for and b)makes KU a better place for readers. Happy readers is happy me. 

Top 100 titles are going to be rewarded each month, that opens up 1200 slots for YOUR book to be there. Go make that happen. Or, if you crunch the numbers and figure out that it won't be worth your while to sacrifice potential sales for borrows, then don't. It's perfectly okay. What that does is simply open up a slot for an author who does not have your level of sales/dominance/confidence to be compensated (and promoted). Good for him.


----------



## boo4321 (Nov 21, 2013)

Amber Rose, I don't think people on this thread are acting entitled. You're right--Amazon made a decision that was probably the very best decision for them, and people are realizing that that decision was NOT the best decision for most indie authors involved in KU. Discussing what WOULD keep them happy in the program isn't about entitlement, nor is expressing negative feelings toward the latest development in the ever-shifting payment terms of KU. It's about business from this end, too--what's working (or lacking) in this program for authors. It's up to each person whether or not KU is a smart business decision for themselves and their readership, and spelling out their problems with this development is less about Amazon "owing" anyone anything and more about everyone trying to figure out their personal limits with changes like this.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

EmberC said:


> Amber Rose, I don't think people on this thread are acting entitled. You're right--Amazon made a decision that was probably the very best decision for them, and people are realizing that that decision was NOT the best decision for most indie authors involved in KU. Discussing what WOULD keep them happy in the program isn't about entitlement, nor is expressing negative feelings toward the latest development in the ever-shifting payment terms of KU. It's about business from this end, too--what's working (or lacking) in this program for authors. It's up to each person whether or not KU is a smart business decision for themselves and their readership, and spelling out their problems with this development is less about Amazon "owing" anyone anything and more about everyone trying to figure out their personal limits with changes like this.


100 percent agree.

Amber, I've been an author with traditional publishers, and now I'm a self-published author. I've been a self-published author since May. As a new self-published author, I'm pleased with the sales and borrows for my two books, and as I continue to write and publish books I will do even better, and better, and better.

It is *OFFENSIVE* for you to call me or any other author who is skeptical of the program "entitled."

I've always been one of the first people to jump up and down with enthusiasm for Amazon, and I hope to continue to do that. Don't worry be happy? Yeah, that's usually my motto.

But I want to know what pot this fund is coming out of. Until I know, this All Star funding is sketchy at best.


----------



## scottmarlowe (Apr 22, 2010)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> When Select first came out, tons of people went all in with it (and let's be fair, plenty still do). But a lot, and I mean a *lot* of people, have pulled out. Or they've only put in a few. Or they only do it for the first few months, then pull it. Amazon doesn't want this. Amazon doesn't like this. Select was meant to give it more books and more content than its competitors, but now all these indies are *gasp* selling elsewhere? Seeing Bookbub results giving bumps elsewhere? Getting promos and box sets to take off elsewhere? Well. What do we do about that?
> 
> Let's make it so that the sum total of all borrows by an author in Select can give you a bonus if you're in the top 100. This is, very plainly, a bribe by Amazon to the bigs of the self-publishing world. Amazon wants everything. They don't want people dipping toes in, or just being in for a while, or only using a few titles. Go all in. Take your shot at this nice bonus. You top 100 people who have books selling elsewhere? Here's a check for 25k, or 15k or 5k. Time for you to start doing math at how much you're making in those other channels, and see if it's worth the gamble. Because that's what this is, a gamble, and it's one being put on a program already tainted with accusations of fraud, abuse, and manipulation. You think the 1-star shenanigans and downvoting happening right now are bad? Just wait until the rallying cry of "we're not competing against each other!" gets smashed to pieces by a ranking system with thousands of dollars on the line. God forbid you be #10 and be targeted by unscrupulous #11 who is staring at you with dollar signs in their eyes. And I don't even want to think about all the 1-page garbage that might start flooding the system in attempts to win by sheer volume.
> 
> If you think that this money couldn't be put into the general fund instead...if you say "oh but it isn't the same pool" you're in denial. That money could have easily been in there. But it isn't. It's being offered to all the people already doing well, and dear lord, don't listen to people who ARE in that top 100 who try to argue "but it's good for everyone!" Stop it. It's not. It's good for exactly 100 people, and bad for thousands and thousands of others. And if you're sitting near the bottom of the totem pole saying "I don't mind forking over twenty cents a borrow to all you people already raking it in", then I don't really know what else to say to you other than good luck, have fun, hope I'm wrong.


Spot on. Well said.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> But why SHOULDN'T Amazon reward the top authors? Why can't it simply say...hey, thanks for helping us make Select work, and hey! congrats on your brilliance.
> 
> Where is our feeling of entitlement coming from? What gives us the right to say "Whoa! There is MORE money to give out? Gimme!".
> 
> ...


I couldn't have said it better myself.

Amazon has given us something to strive for. That's how I'm taking it.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

DaCosta said:


> I don't think they sent an email (?) It was announced on their KDP forum.


I received an email titled "KDP Select Global Fund Updates."


----------



## Amber Rose (Jul 25, 2014)

EmberC said:


> Amber Rose, I don't think people on this thread are acting entitled. You're right--Amazon made a decision that was probably the very best decision for them, and people are realizing that that decision was NOT the best decision for most indie authors involved in KU. Discussing what WOULD keep them happy in the program isn't about entitlement, nor is expressing negative feelings toward the latest development in the ever-shifting payment terms of KU. It's about business from this end, too--what's working (or lacking) in this program for authors. It's up to each person whether or not KU is a smart business decision for themselves and their readership, and spelling out their problems with this development is less about Amazon "owing" anyone anything and more about everyone trying to figure out their personal limits with changes like this.


I hear you, but I am not equating the *discussion as a whole* with feelings of entitlement, but rather specifically the argument that the All-Stars money was taken out of the Fund (directly or not). Some posters seem to think that AZ should not have rewarded the top authors, but should rather have topped up the Fund, and paid more per borrow (see quotes below as an example). But, as has also been said here by people much smarter than me: if Amazon wanted to pay $2 a borrow, it simply would have. Thus, the All-Stars and the per borrow payout are unrelated, and to think that they are (or should be) seems like a form of entitlement to me.



> If you think that this money couldn't be put into the general fund instead...





> However, I don't see how diverting funds from lower-selling authors and paying out bonuses to a small number who are already on top benefits anybody


----------



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

Donald Rump said:


> I couldn't have said it better myself.
> 
> Amazon has given us something to strive for. That's how I'm taking it.


The truth is that Amazon have decided that most authors will stay in at the 26% reduction in royalty (compared to its historic best), and then they've used that little saving to help pay a bonus to the best selling (or borrowing I guess) authors. There's nothing wrong with Amazon brains. They'll reduce the amount per borrow until they notice people pulling out, then they'll raise it a little and call it done. It's an experiment, similar to our price experiments. They'll find the sweet spot (for them) and then move on to the next thing. The thing is, the sweet spot for authors who usually sell at $0.90 is anything over $0.30 right? For those selling at $2.99 its $2 or thereabouts, so where will Amazon decide to stop? Only they know.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Amber Rose said:


> Where is our feeling of entitlement coming from? What gives us the right to say "Whoa! There is MORE money to give out? Gimme!".


I have zero sense of entitlement. Less than zero. 
This is the picture:

1. Many authors are reporting loss of sales since KU started. There is never a guarantee of sales and Amazon can do as they please. But, authors want to discuss and weigh up their options.
2. Those who opted into select weren't aware of what was coming and cannot get out for 3 months (or whatever time period). We don't have a choice. It's hard to make an informed decision on tying yourself up for 3 months when you don't have the full picture.

It's simply about business decisions, not entitlement in the least. From my perspective, this thread is a discussion about business decisions and not a whinge.


----------



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

Amber Rose said:


> I hear you, but I am not equating the *discussion as a whole* with feelings of entitlement, but rather specifically the argument that the All-Stars money was taken out of the Fund (directly or not). Some posters seem to think that AZ should not have rewarded the top authors, but should rather have topped up the Fund, and paid more per borrow (see quotes below as an example). But, as has also been said here by people much smarter than me: if Amazon wanted to pay $2 a borrow, it simply would have. Thus, the All-Stars and the per borrow payout are unrelated, and to think that they are (or should be) seems like a form of entitlement to me.


It doesn't matter where the money was taken from really when you think about it. Amazon could have kept the per borrow rate at any number it likes. The number they chose to add to the fund isn't a lucky/unlucky guess. They chose the number per borrow they wanted to try, and then added the exact amount of funds to achieve that. As for the bonus money, it all comes out of the Zon's bank account one way or the other. They don't have to physically take money from Peter to pay Paul. They just don't pay Peter in the first place.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Amber Rose said:


> I hear you, but I am not equating the *discussion as a whole* with feelings of entitlement, but rather specifically the argument that the All-Stars money was taken out of the Fund (directly or not). Some posters seem to think that AZ should not have rewarded the top authors, but should rather have topped up the Fund, and paid more per borrow (see quotes below as an example). But, as has also been said here by people much smarter than me: if Amazon wanted to pay $2 a borrow, it simply would have. Thus, the All-Stars and the per borrow payout are unrelated, and to think that they are (or should be) seems like a form of entitlement to me.


Thank you for explaining yourself. I'll consider your point.



Mark E. Cooper said:


> It doesn't matter where the money was taken from really when you think about it. Amazon could have kept the per borrow rate at any number it likes. The number they chose to add to the fund isn't a lucky/unlucky guess. They chose the number per borrow they wanted to try, and then added the exact amount of funds to achieve that. As for the bonus money, it all comes out of the Zon's bank account one way or the other. They don't have to physically take money from Peter to pay Paul. They just don't pay Peter in the first place.


Mark, I'll consider your point, too.


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

EmberC said:


> Amber Rose, I don't think people on this thread are acting entitled. You're right--Amazon made a decision that was probably the very best decision for them, and people are realizing that . Discussing what WOULD keep them happy in the program isn't about entitlement, nor is expressing negative feelings toward the latest development in the ever-shifting payment terms of KU. It's about business from this end, too--what's working (or lacking) in this program for authors. It's up to each person whether or not KU is a smart business decision for themselves and their readership, and spelling out their problems with this development is less about Amazon "owing" anyone anything and more about everyone trying to figure out their personal limits with changes like this.


I wish this had started the thread. Might be a little more civil around here. I would edit one part. "...SOME people are realizing that the decision was NOT the best decision for SOME indie authors involved in KU."

Call the infusion of bonus money what you will, but it will hopefully accomplish one of/or two things. 1.) Keep/Attract popular authors to the program 2.) Incentivize Select authors to spread the word about KU (like Hugh Howey theorized). If their strategy works, KU may continue to be a profitable landscape for authors. I'm mostly in Select, so I hope it succeeds. If this ship starts to heel uncomfortably to one side, I'll consider my options. I'm a former surface navy deck officer...I'm used to heavy rolls. Not everyone can stand them, so you must do what is comfortable for YOU.

Observation: I've read some fairly insulting comments from some typically level headed people.

I've been told to "bend over and grab your ankles." Nice. I'll pick up my KU paycheck while I'm down there. Kill two birds with one stone.

I've been called a "moron" for believing (based on reading the All-Star policy) that the All-Star bonus couldn't be put in the general fund. I suppose it could have been put in the general fund...anything is possible I suppose. Pardon me for not speculating.

Finally, Amazon is a business, and KU is one of their products. Heaven forbid they infuse cash (at a loss) in order to give it a chance to succeed, or accomplish the goals intended by the program. Does success for KU mean profitability in a company as large and diverse as Amazon? I don't know the answer. I suspect the answer is no. Here's the way I look at it. AS LONG AS KU MEANS PROFITABILITY FOR ME, I'll stick around. Call me crazy...or a moron. The check cashes either way. Out.


----------



## Amber Rose (Jul 25, 2014)

Joliedupre said:


> 100 percent agree.
> 
> Amber, I've been an author with traditional publishers, and now I'm a self-published author. I've been a self-published author since May. As a new self-published author, I'm pleased with the sales and borrows for my two books, and as I continue to write and publish books I will do even better, and better, and better.
> 
> ...


First of all, I did not call everyone who is "skeptical of the program" as "entitled". I am specifically referring to people who feel that that money should have gone to them, instead of to Amazon's marketing drive. But if you feel offended, sorry.

Secondly, I think that different authors have different interpretations of "The Fund". I see it as completely fluid, and thus with no meaning what so ever. If AZ announces what the size of the Fund is, or doesn't, it does not in ANY way affect the payout. For example, what if next month the Fund was $10million but the borrows still $1.00? What would that mean to you as an author? Or if the Fund was $1million, and the borrows $1?

Or, to be clearer, what if Amazon had said that they have TWO funds. One for borrows, one for awards. Why does that matter to you? It still comes out of the same pocket (hint: not yours). Amazon can distribute its cash where and how it sees fit, while (hopefully) setting strategy in place to maximise future revenue.

I have a feeling that if the boys at the top looked at this month's payout, and felt it was too low at $1,54, they would simply have topped it up. They can make those decisions, no problem. (Hence their last minute decision to compensate for reads of less than 10% last month by topping up the fund with more money). They have room for leeway, and thus the size of the Fund should never even come up in conversation.

Thus, you should have no more objection to them rewarding top authors than you should for them throwing a lavish Christmas party.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Steven Konkoly said:


> AS LONG AS KU MEANS PROFITABILITY FOR ME, I'll stick around. Call me crazy...or a moron. The check cashes either way. Out.


KU has been profitable for many of us. That's not the point. Just because some of us are questioning the program doesn't mean it hasn't been profitable for some of us.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Amber Rose said:


> First of all, I did not call _anyone_ who is "skeptical of the program" as "entitled". I am specifically referring to people who feel that that money should have gone to them, instead of to Amazon's marketing drive. But if you feel offended, sorry.


Thanks for making that clear. You didn't before.



> Secondly, I think that different authors have different interpretations of "The Fund". I see it as completely fluid, and thus with no meaning what so ever. If AZ announces what the size of the Fund is, or doesn't, it does not in ANY way affect the payout. For example, what if next month the Fund was $10million but the borrows still $1.00? What would that mean to you as an author? Or if the Fund was $1million, and the borrows $1?
> 
> Or, to be clearer, what if Amazon had said that they have TWO funds. One for borrows, one for awards. Why does that matter to you? It still comes out of the same pocket (hint: not yours). Amazon can distribute its cash where and how it sees fit, while (hopefully) setting strategy in place to maximise future revenue.


You make a valid point.



> I have a feeling that if the boys at the top looked at this month's payout, and felt it was too low at $1,54, they would simply have topped it up. They can make those decisions, no problem. (Hence their last minute decision to compensate for reads of less than 10% last month by topping up the fund with more money). They have room for leeway, and thus the size of the Fund should never even come up in conversation.
> 
> Thus, you should have no more objection to them rewarding top authors than you should for them throwing a lavish Christmas party.


Again, you make a valid point, and these opinions help me to better understand what's going on.

BTW, in my life, 95% of the goals I've set for myself I've achieved. I'm doing well as a self-published author, and I fully intend on becoming a top author in my future writing life. So I'm happy you explained what you meant by "entitled." I have no bitterness or resentment toward top authors, especially since I intend on becoming one.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

kward said:


> If it turns out that Amazon is funding the All Star incentives through the Global Fund - that would equate to unknown authors paying a fee to keep the top dogs hanging around and all the extra eyeballs they bring - you could look at it as a marketing cost for your otherwise unseen works instead of deciding it's the apocalypse.


I could... or I could look at it as what it actually is: Amazon reducing the payout to me to make already very wealthy authors even wealthier.



> Amazon obviously wants to keep the big names around, and while of course that is self-serving, it also nourishes the ecosystem unknown indies need to flourish and to have any hope of gaining wide(r) readership.


It doesn't nourish the ecosystem. It reduces the competitive power of other retailers, which makes for a more closed, less advantageous ecosystem where it is increasingly harder for "midlist" indies to better their circumstances. It makes it less of a level playing field (if competition doesn't remain healthy on other sites, that is.)

But still, it's no shock that Amazon is striving toward that goal. I probably would be, too, if I ran it. However, they can fund incentives for the big guys to stay exclusive (not that all the authors who received these payouts were exclusive anyway...) without reducing the incentive for the little guys to play along. Don't tell me they can't afford it; they're AMAZON.



> Don't worry - be happy.


I prefer to be a smart businesswoman. Accepting a nearly-25% reduction in my pay in order to bribe the top sellers to remain (mostly) exclusive, without any benefit to my own business, and with a very obvious long-term harm to my business (and yours) on the horizon, is not smart.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Amber Rose said:


> I have a feeling that if the boys at the top looked at this month's payout, and felt it was too low at $1,54, they would simply have topped it up. They can make those decisions, no problem. (Hence their last minute decision to compensate for reads of less than 10% last month by topping up the fund with more money). They have room for leeway, and thus the size of the Fund should never even come up in conversation.
> 
> Thus, you should have no more objection to them rewarding top authors than you should for them throwing a lavish Christmas party.


I don't know who 'the boys at the top' are, but no one can say what their decisions were based upon. There is no comparison between a lavish Christmas party and the KU all-stars thing. None.
At the risk of offending any authors here who are in the all -stars (I haven't read the whole thread or any other thread that there might be on this topic) I'm going to bow out of this conversation.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

YodaRead said:


> I think you're missing the point, though. The authors who are allowed to double dip and put their books in KU AND put them on other venues are not in Select. Only Select authors get the bonuses. So, people who get to double dip but who aren't in Select do not get the bonuses.


You are 100% wrong about that. The authors who are allowed to double-dip have indeed received the bonuses.

That's part of why so many of us are so disgusted by this: because we committed to 90 days of EXCLUSIVITY with Select in good faith, and now the money we could have earned has been reduced to make those authors even more wealthy -- who already have the algorithms weighted heavily in their favor, who already got to breeze right by the exclusivity requirement.

This is nothing more than a tax on the little guys to subsidize the guys at the top. It's taking money out of smaller authors' pockets (and altering the algorithms, which is worse) to try to bribe bigger authors into exclusivity (they don't all have to commit to exclusivity yet, but that's precisely where this is headed.)

The most infuriating part of all is that the incentives aren't even a drop in the bucket to many of these authors, compared to what they're making on the other retailers' sites. So once Amazon finally tells them they have to be exclusive to continue getting their subsidies, most of them won't even do it! So that's a triple strike in the "How does this even benefit ME?" column. Long-term, it won't even have the effect Amazon is looking for.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

ElHawk said:


> I prefer to be a smart businesswoman. Accepting a nearly-25% reduction in my pay in order to bribe the top sellers to remain (mostly) exclusive, without any benefit to my own business, and with a very obvious long-term harm to my business (and yours) on the horizon, is not smart.


And that's my bottom line and what makes this so difficult. Do I stay in Select, or do I leave it based on what I know? If I want to be a smart businesswoman, I can't be Pollyanna. I need to look at the facts and come to a decision.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

ElHawk said:


> You are 100% wrong about that. The authors who are allowed to double-dip have indeed received the bonuses.
> 
> That's part of why so many of us are so disgusted by this: because we committed to 90 days of EXCLUSIVITY with Select in good faith, and now the money we could have earned has been reduced to make those authors even more wealthy -- who already have the algorithms weighted heavily in their favor, who already got to breeze right by the exclusivity requirement.
> 
> ...


So.

I wasn't crazy. Good to know.

Thank you.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Amber Rose said:


> But why SHOULDN'T Amazon reward the top authors? Why can't it simply say...hey, thanks for helping us make Select work, and hey! congrats on your brilliance.


So you don't feel that these authors' free pass to skip by the exclusivity requirement and join KU without committing to Select was already enough of a "thank you"? I was willing to go along with that; I didn't love it, but I could see how it made sense from a business standpoint.



> Where is our feeling of entitlement coming from? What gives us the right to say "Whoa! There is MORE money to give out? Gimme!".


I am in this business to make money. When I play by the rules (committing to exclusivity in order to use Select/join KU) and then the rules are bent for other authors so that they can make more money, that frustrates me. When Amazon then reduces what it will pay me so that they can further woo those authors, without providing any direct benefit to me, that infuriates me.

Call that entitlement if you will. I call it having my eyes open.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

This is one of those threads that makes me sad about kboards. I don't understand the furor over Amazon changing how Select works, other than it being the usual reactions to change. Their terms of service state clearly that they can change the system whenever they want. We're signing up for that potential constant change if we agree to the terms. If a writer doesn't like that, they shouldn't use the service. Right?

I sort of agree with Hugh in this...time will tell. Amazon's playing a long game, longer than a lot of writer-publishers who are looking at the now.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

ElHawk said:


> I am in this business to make money. When I play by the rules (committing to exclusivity in order to use Select/join KU) and then the rules are bent for other authors so that they can make more money, that frustrates me. When Amazon then reduces what it will pay me so that they can further woo those authors, without providing any direct benefit to me, that infuriates me.
> 
> Call that entitlement if you will. I call it having my eyes open.


Authors benefitting without having to be exclusive annoyed me, but I got over it. However, when things start to effect how much I'm paid, then I really get p*ssed.



Jim Johnson said:


> This is one of those threads that makes me sad about kboards. I don't understand the furor over Amazon changing how Select works, other than it being the usual reactions to change. Their terms of service state clearly that they can change the system whenever they want. We're signing up for that potential constant change if we agree to the terms. If a writer doesn't like that, they shouldn't use the service. Right?
> 
> I sort of agree with Hugh in this...time will tell. Amazon's playing a long game, longer than a lot of writer-publishers who are looking at the now.


Jim, why does this particular thread contribute to your being sad about KBoards? Yeah, there's lots of crappy threads, but why this one? Why is it wrong to question Amazon's tactics?

~~~~

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread. All comments - in favor of what Amazon is doing, as well as those who are skeptical - help me to come to decisions about my writing life.

We're authors, and if we're selling to the public, we're businessmen and businesswomen. It's perfectly sensible to discuss Amazon's tactics. We're not robots. Therefore, we're not all going to agree.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Joliedupre said:


> And that's my bottom line and what makes this so difficult. Do I stay in Select, or do I leave it based on what I know? If I want to be a smart businesswoman, I can't be Pollyanna. I need to look at the facts and come to a decision.


In my opinion, this is the only intelligent way to approach Select now, with the way things just changed.

1) If you have a ton of romance titles or short works that sell for under $2.99, it's still a smart business decision to stay in Select, as the KU borrow rate is still as good or better than you'll get by sales alone, and the visibility is obviously weighted in favor of KU-enrolled books.

2) If you don't write in romance or if your business model isn't built on 99-cent titles, staying "all in" with all or the majority of your titles will not increase your income. Your smartest move would be to diversify to Amazon's competitors now, start building up reach with readers there. This move has endangered competition, at least over the next 6 - 9 months, and the other retailers could probably use an infusion of sellers. Plus, Google Play has been taking off for a lot of authors and it's a good time to get in there to see a lift in your income.

3) I'd actually still advocate for rotating titles in and out of Select to take advantage of the b.s. they did to the algorithms this summer. But use stand-alone titles that will drive new eyes toward your non-Select, available-everywhere titles and series.

That seems like the only smart approach to this: all (or virtually all) OUT, unless you fit the narrow profile of a midlist author who can still actually benefit from this.

If your goal is to go for the All-Star bonuses, it actually seems, at this moment, that your smartest bet is to be OUT of Select. Develop enough sales on other channels that your books blow up with readers and demand for them becomes huge. Then you can breeze by the exclusivity requirement and still get an extra $25K per month from Amazon!


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Can anybody demonstrate a decrease in income due to your participation in KU? Is it even an available hypothesis?

I ask because we've seen plenty of data/anecdotes from folks whose income has risen, but I'm not sure we've seen any counterpoints. In fact, many of the people with concerns have said they're earning more money than they did before KU. The picture I'm getting so far is that Amazon is giving authors more money. Some people are getting more of it than others, but overall more money is passing from Amazon to authors. Call me crazy, but I'll happily loan out $4.99 books for a $1.54 royalty all day and all night if, in the end, the pay is better.



Mark E. Cooper said:


> The thing is, the sweet spot for authors who usually sell at $0.90 is anything over $0.30 right? For those selling at $2.99 its $2 or thereabouts, so where will Amazon decide to stop? Only they know.


Assuming that your number of sales and borrows correlate 1:1. And that readers never buy a book after borrowing it. And that those readers would've bought your book at full price if they hadn't been able to borrow it instead.

In reality, thus far I think we've seen that borrows far outpace sales, and may _lead_ to sales of KU books. Do not make the mistake of thinking that borrows must equal or exceed your per unit sale royalties in order for your earnings to remain static or increase. It simply is not true.

If we were to carry this sort of logic to its natural conclusion, we certainly couldn't do permafree books-how could we part with a book at less than the full royalty that we customarily expect? We would be losing revenue, right? Yet permafree works. Loss leaders work. Lending libraries work. Even piracy works, so there's no reason whatsoever to rule pricier works out of KU. If anything, indications are that KU rewards you for posting _higher_ priced work, not lower.

Please let us know if you can show a loss on this thing, folks. Otherwise I'm worried that the concerns come down to cognitive errors (such as loss aversion) and fairness, which generally aren't your friend in analyzing a business.



ElHawk said:


> I prefer to be a smart businesswoman. Accepting a nearly-25% reduction in my pay in order to bribe the top sellers to remain (mostly) exclusive, without any benefit to my own business, and with a very obvious long-term harm to my business (and yours) on the horizon, is not smart.


If your income has dropped by 25%, I'm sorry to hear it and would be interested in any data you'd be willing to share. If your income has remained the same or increased, despite one month's per unit royalties hitting a new low, I would suggest that you've reached entirely the wrong conclusions. Let's not couch this as a business decision unless there's evidence that the business is imperiled. H.M. Ward getting paid does not qualify-thousands upon thousands of authors have proven that it is possible to earn fabulous profits in a world where H.M. Ward does extremely well for herself. Nobody had to fail in order for her to succeed. Nobody took your cheese.

This is not a zero sum game. Show some respect for the game, and for your fellow players. Everybody's trying to get theirs. If they get it before you, applaud them, then get yours. I'll be delighted to participate in KU if it helps me towards that end.

[quote author=Gore Vidal, World Famous Hater]
Every time a friend succeeds, I die a little.
[/quote]


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

ElHawk said:


> So you don't feel that these authors' free pass to skip by the exclusivity requirement and join KU without committing to Select was already enough of a "thank you"? I was willing to go along with that; I didn't love it, but I could see how it made sense from a business standpoint.
> 
> I am in this business to make money. When I play by the rules (committing to exclusivity in order to use Select/join KU) and then the rules are bent for other authors so that they can make more money, that frustrates me. When Amazon then reduces what it will pay me so that they can further woo those authors, without providing any direct benefit to me, that infuriates me.
> 
> Call that entitlement if you will. I call it having my eyes open.


I never loved it and I saw it as a divide and conquer among the indies. And it is. They are splintering the group and paying the cheerleaders to espouse the program. "Get it for free with Kindle Unlimited."

So let's look at the business side of things. And I've met with one of these guys, and as I suspected, those working for Amazon tend to be siloed...widget makers. Okay, so they have this program and to be a part of it most Indie authors have to be in Select and have their books exclusive to Amazon for 90 days. That began in mid-July. All Indies who signed on or were swept in without asking (as some were in KDP Select already and not asked) and ninety days will be coming up for many who came in on day 1 or day 2 of the program in mid-October. Like me. So, they've messed with the payouts we've gone from a rounding of $2 for a borrow to a now a $1.54 and a bonus to the big players. What does that tell you? Stand back and look at the forest. I'm going to take a guess that the majority of borrows are with the big names and they have statistically analyzed who will opt out in mid-October and planned for that exodus because of which books are being borrowed and the rate at which those books are borrowed. They don't have to act like a library and stock everything.

Does it matter? _Yes, it matters_ because they continue to tweak those algorithms and are most certainly rewarding those books/authors in KU as well as Amazon's own published titles, those with pre-orders, Kindle First look. Go look at the bestseller lists. More and more of all top 100 spots are getting taken up with these kinds of books. Designated. Dominating. Rewarded.

So. Visibility? It isn't about just writing a great book and offering it for a fair price. They (Amazon) have arrived to the _you're either in with us or you're out_ point of view.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Dolphin said:


> Nobody had to fail in order for her to succeed. Nobody took your cheese.


Nobody needs to take my cheese in order for me to see that this is most likely a hellaciously bad thing for the majority of authors in the long-term.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

ElHawk said:


> In my opinion, this is the only intelligent way to approach Select now, with the way things just changed.
> 
> 1) If you have a ton of romance titles or short works that sell for under $2.99, it's still a smart business decision to stay in Select, as the KU borrow rate is still as good or better than you'll get by sales alone, and the visibility is obviously weighted in favor of KU-enrolled books.
> 
> ...


Excellent points!

~~~~

I'm receiving lots of borrows everyday with Kindle Unlimited and the Kindle Owners' Lending Library. So I'm still benefitting. Plus, my titles are not over $2.99.

But, I have a feeling other channels, especially Apple, would be good for me. I'll be publishing various 3-part series for the rest of my life. So what I'll probably do is test what it would be like for me to put a series on all the channels and not just Amazon.

I'll never know until I try it.


----------



## Amber Rose (Jul 25, 2014)

Joliedupre said:


> I have no bitterness or resentment toward top authors, especially since I intend on becoming one.


Me too! 

(You and I are going to giggle at this thread say six? ten? months from now when *WE* are the ones collecting the big checks  )


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Katherine Owen said:


> Go look at the bestseller lists. More and more of all top 100 spots are getting taken up with these kinds of books. Designated. Dominating. Rewarded.
> 
> So. Visibility? It isn't about just writing a great book and offering it for a fair price. They (Amazon) have arrived to the _you're either in with us or you're out_ point of view.


This is exactly my issue with it. The fact that they're paying out huge bonuses to many authors who in fact AREN'T in with them is just a jab in the eye on top of an already frustrating change in the landscape. In short, it's a dick move.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

I think I've keyed in on the source of bitterness regarding the All-Star bonuses. It's psychological. Let's say Amazon had announced that the payout would be $1.81 for August (same as it was for July). Then, let's say they announced the All-Star bonuses. My gut response would go something like this: "Phew, my payout didn't go down. Oh, and wow, bonuses for top performers! How cool!" Instead, my gut response is, "Dang, my payout went down. Oh, but they're throwing money at those who are already making bank."

Do I think I deserve to earn what the top performers are earning? Not until I sell as many units. But do I begrudge the bonus earners their windfall? Yeah, reflexively I do, because it comes at a time when I see my own per-book payout going down (the fact that my total income is climbing because of KU is immaterial). Do I believe life should always be fair or that there is anything inherently unethical or wrong about what Amazon's done? No. My point is, Amazon miscalculated how these paired announcements would be perceived by (dare I say) most authors. And I do believe, based on my discussions elsewhere, that most authors feel the same way (How could it not? Most authors _aren't _the top 100). There are strong personalities on this board and an environment which discourage individuals who don't unfailingly subscribe to some ideological high ground.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Amber Rose said:


> Me too!
> 
> (You and I are going to giggle at this thread say six? ten? months from now when *WE* are the ones collecting the big checks  )


LOL! You seem like the type who writes down your goals and who has a 5-year plan.

I'm a Type-A. So I absolutely do.

Where will I be in five years when it comes to my fiction writing? In a very good place.


----------



## Amber Rose (Jul 25, 2014)

Saul Tanpepper said:


> Amazon miscalculated how these paired announcements would be perceived by (dare I say) most authors.


+10
Surprised that they erred like this. You're absolutely right. If the timing had been different, so would the reaction (because the association of payout to All-Stars would be weaker)


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

ElHawk said:


> This is exactly my issue with it. The fact that they're paying out huge bonuses to many authors who in fact AREN'T in with them is just a jab in the eye on top of an already frustrating change in the landscape. In short, it's a dick move.


That's right, sister. _It is._

As to Dolphin's question...about being made whole. I'm breaking even 3:1 (sales to borrows) on my bestselling book TMIT. Having left direct with Apple, B&N, and Kobo. I'm making what I was before going into Select. HOWEVER, it's upsetting my readers. I have Nook readers looking for the first book in my Truth In Lies series and I have to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. So the whole exclusivity thing just burns me up because it doesn't apply to everyone participating in KU.

They don't have to do it this way. They have _chosen_ to do it this way. And the bonus to the top authors is a dick move to all those Indies that have to abide by the exclusivity rules.

I send all my FB advertising dollars Amazon's way. I'm going to start experimenting with that. I'm done. Oh and I put all my books at 99 cents for the duration (mid-Oct.) so for every borrow I'm making more $$. For some reason, I get more sales when I do this. I think they borrow it on KU and then decide they want to keep it. A silver lining. Albeit small.


----------



## Amber Rose (Jul 25, 2014)

ElHawk said:


> However, they can fund incentives for the big guys to stay exclusive (not that all the authors who received these payouts were exclusive anyway...) without reducing the incentive for the little guys to play along. Don't tell me they can't afford it; they're AMAZON.


I absolutely agree with this. It doesn't take *that* much money to keep the fund at $2 per borrow, and the rewards that that would reap for AZ would be more than worth it. I am really, really surprised that they are nickel-and-diming authors at this stage, just as KU is trying to take off.

Side question: What was the full size of the August Fund ie. how many borrows were there in August?


----------



## Amber Rose (Jul 25, 2014)

ElHawk said:


> You are 100% wrong about that. The authors who are allowed to double-dip have indeed received the bonuses.


What is your source for that conclusion?


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

To those who think it's wrong for the little guys to subsidize the All Stars - if you make it into the All Stars league, will you be refusing your bonus payments and instructing Amazon to share it among the little guys?


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

A.A said:


> But in relation to Amazon, what would have been good, instead,* is for them to provide ways for KU authors to get their work seen. T*hat would be amazing and positive. This really should have been the first move, ahead of bonus payments. I'm going to take a stab and say that there must be deep problems with the KU program for Amazon to have done this.


I bolded the part I think would have been so amazing. Right now, when I go to KU on my Kindle Fire, I see the SAME books on the page every time. Of course those books are going to get thousands of downloads as every eyeball that goes to KU via the library, can't help but see them. Most are traditionally published (The Giver, The Hunger Games) or an Amazon imprint.

What would be a cool lottery is if every week they rotated the books--give some of the other books a chance--without regard to ranking. There must be thousands of good books that haven't yet found an audience simply because the author doesn't have money for Bookbub. The more books you have in Select, the greater your chances of having one of them rotate through the front page for a few days.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Amber Rose said:


> But why SHOULDN'T Amazon reward the top authors? Why can't it simply say...hey, thanks for helping us make Select work, and hey! congrats on your brilliance.
> 
> Where is our feeling of entitlement coming from? What gives us the right to say "Whoa! There is MORE money to give out? Gimme!".
> 
> ...


It's coming from the fact that the payout for borrows was the lowest it has ever been. It gives the impression that the money going to the top authors came out of the pool of money we were told would be split evenly based on number of borrows. The reward for doing well is that those authors make more money because they had a ton of borrows.

Granted, those authors may have helped make KU a success, but Amazon also needs quantity. People aren't going to pay $10/month for a 5,000 book library--even if they are all bestsellers. People will look over at Scribd with their 400,000 titles and spend their money there.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Saul Tanpepper said:


> I think I've keyed in on the source of bitterness regarding the All-Star bonuses. It's psychological. Let's say Amazon had announced that the payout would be $1.81 for August (same as it was for July). Then, let's say they announced the All-Star bonuses. My gut response would go something like this: "Phew, my payout didn't go down. Oh, and wow, bonuses for top performers! How cool!" Instead, my gut response is, "Dang, my payout went down. Oh, but they're throwing money at those who are already making bank."


I think you're on to something there.



> Do I think I deserve to earn what the top performers are earning? Not until I sell as many units. But do I begrudge the bonus earners their windfall? Yeah, reflexively I do, because it comes at a time when I see my own per-book payout going down (the fact that my total income is climbing because of KU is immaterial). Do I believe life should always be fair or that there is anything inherently unethical or wrong about what Amazon's done? No. My point is, Amazon miscalculated how these paired announcements would be perceived by (dare I say) most authors. And I do believe, based on my discussions elsewhere, that most authors feel the same way (How could it not? Most authors _aren't _the top 100). There are strong personalities on this board and an environment which discourage individuals who don't unfailingly subscribe to some ideological high ground.


Very astute. I agree with all your statements above, too. But throw in the fact that so many of the authors who got the bonuses weren't required to be exclusive, and it adds an extra layer of unfairness (perceived or real) to the whole thing.

It was not very well thought out by Amazon.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Amber Rose said:


> What is your source for that conclusion?


I don't think I'm at liberty to disclose that on this forum, so since I can't point to anything for you to look at with your own eyes, feel free to not believe it.  But eventually, the truth will out.



Steeplechasing said:


> To those who think it's wrong for the little guys to subsidize the All Stars - if you make it into the All Stars league, will you be refusing your bonus payments and instructing Amazon to share it among the little guys?


No, probably not. I'm human just like they are. That doesn't make it ethical, though, and I'd know that even as I banked that money!


----------



## komura 420 (Aug 25, 2013)

This is beginning to remind me of the infamous 'trickle down' economic argument so prevalent since 1980.  Give the rich folks a tax cut and they will create jobs (they don't...they just get richer because their marginal propensity to save is higher). 

Give the best selling authors more royalties than the rest of us and it will bring more readers to all of us. In this case it is the marginal propensity to share readers.

Didn't work with Reagan, Bush, Bush then and it still doesn't work. But ideologues never let the facts get in the way of a chance for a good fleecing.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

This house belongs to Papa John:









And all the peons working at minimum wage for Papa John's Pizza don't mind because someday they're going to be rich too.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> The truth is that Amazon have decided that most authors will stay in at the *26% reduction in royalty* (compared to its historic best), and then *they've used that little saving to help pay a bonus to the best selling (or borrowing I guess) authors*. There's nothing wrong with Amazon brains. They'll reduce the amount per borrow until they notice people pulling out, then they'll raise it a little and call it done. It's an experiment, similar to our price experiments. They'll find the sweet spot (for them) and then move on to the next thing. The thing is, the sweet spot for authors who usually sell at $0.90 is anything over $0.30 right? For those selling at $2.99 its $2 or thereabouts, so where will Amazon decide to stop? Only they know.


Not the whole truth, only one data point. You're missing another data point: the multiplier. Many authors who shared their sales data reported an increase in borrows by an order of magnitude of 2 - 10 times what they previously earned. The most common I've heard is 3 times, which also lines up with my experience. So which do you prefer? 500 borrows at June's rate of $2.24 ($1,120) or 1,500 at $1.54 ($2,310)? Or how about 500 new readers of your work vs. 1,500?

Amazon doesn't have to keep the royalty rate at $2+ because they can see that most KDP Select authors are earning a higher volume of borrows than they ever have before. So say goodbye to the $2+ royalty rate of the past. I doubt we'll see it again unless Amazon feels especially generous (and I hope I'm wrong about this).

As for "they've used that little saving to help pay a bonus to the best selling," that's pure speculation. In fact, Amazon added "a bonus of $2.7 million in August on top of the regular base fund amount of $2 million." So they underestimated demand and compensated for it. Authors didn't take a hit for this and made out pretty well.

Could it be better? It always can be better! Should they have added $3 million to the pot instead? Sure, why not? But where does it end? Someone is always going to complain about the royalty rate being too low. I can live with $1.54 for August. I did well, not great, but far better than pre KU.

So Amazon didn't pull money out of the program to pay their Top 100 earners (which is a smart move to hold on to their talent, I might add). They added 2.7 million into the pot and created a new bonus system. Everything else, though logical, is speculation.

If you want to boycott KDP Select, pull your books from the program. If you want to boycott Amazon, pull all of your books, period.



> I prefer to be a smart businesswoman. Accepting a nearly-25% reduction in my pay in order to bribe the top sellers to remain (mostly) exclusive, without any benefit to my own business, and with a very obvious long-term harm to my business (and yours) on the horizon, is not smart.


What about the multiplier? It's a very real thing.

As a smart businessperson, I hope you're not getting caught up on one data point and missing the big picture. H.M. Ward is taking a chance on it and she's one of the smartest business people around.



> This is nothing more than a tax on the little guys to subsidize the guys at the top. It's taking money out of smaller authors' pockets (and altering the algorithms, which is worse) to try to bribe bigger authors into exclusivity (they don't all have to commit to exclusivity yet, but that's precisely where this is headed.)


If Amazon has to top off the pot, how are they taking money out of authors' pockets? And if Amazon loses their Top 100 talents, might that have an adverse effect on authors' pockets and KU in general?



> I am in this business to make money. When I play by the rules (committing to exclusivity in order to use Select/join KU) and then the rules are bent for other authors so that they can make more money, that frustrates me. When Amazon then reduces what it will pay me so that they can further woo those authors, without providing any direct benefit to me, that infuriates me.


I understand your frustration, but it is good for Amazon to retain their top talent to keep the program running.



> Your smartest move would be to diversify to Amazon's competitors now, start building up reach with readers there.


Did this. Tried this. Failed miserably. The most money I've ever made is in Amazon, and that's where my work will stay for the time being.

The money's at Amazon, folks. For now, at least. Do what's best for you.


----------



## Rachel Aukes (Oct 13, 2013)

Saul Tanpepper said:


> I think I've keyed in on the source of bitterness regarding the All-Star bonuses. It's psychological.
> ...
> Amazon miscalculated how these paired announcements would be perceived by (dare I say) most authors.


I agree with all of Saul's statements. Some may drop out of KDPS, others may join KDPS for the chance at the bonus. To me, this seems no different than the variable compensation structure (e.g., bonuses, stock options) most companies have in place for top performers and senior leadership, as a way to entice the ones who are believed to impact the bottom line the most to stay. While I'd love a bonus, my KDPS sales are nowhere close... yet.

Will I stay in KDPS? Every 90 days I ask myself that, and every 90 days the decision is very, very hard. I loathe the idea of Amazon becoming the only source of ebooks in the future. They are also my largest source of income, and I love them for that. When it comes to the almighty seller of books, I clearly have a split personality.


----------



## Amber Rose (Jul 25, 2014)

ElHawk said:


> I don't think I'm at liberty to disclose that on this forum, so since I can't point to anything for you to look at with your own eyes, feel free to not believe it.  But eventually, the truth will out.


No problem. I wasn't challenging...I was just curious as to whether it was fact, or an Internet-propagated "truth" that is based on gut feel and not much more. But I will now take it as a given (and haunt you later if you are wrong!)

And, may I say, that despite everything else I have said in this thread, I think it is _disgusting_ that Amazon rewarded authors that are not all-in. I would think that AZ has a one-to-one channel of communication with these authors, and could compensate them "quietly", while keeping the game even for the rest of us.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

I wonder why they told us about it? Because they're going to promote it on the sales pages? Since they don't tell us all the other perks the golden children get, it seems weird they're even letting us know.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Steeplechasing said:


> To those who think it's wrong for the little guys to subsidize the All Stars - if you make it into the All Stars league, will you be refusing your bonus payments and instructing Amazon to share it among the little guys?


Of course not! Who do I care about in this publishing game? ME. I don't care about the All Stars, and I don't expect any of the All Stars to give a crap about where I'm at. Why would they? Hugh Howey probably does, but Hugh isn't normal. Hugh makes millions, but still hangs out with the rank and file. (I say that with love and respect.)

~~~~

This isn't some game. This isn't about being nice. This is business.

As long as Select works out for MY business, I'll stay.


----------



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

Amber Rose said:


> I would think that AZ has a one-to-one channel of communication with these authors, and could compensate them "quietly", while keeping the game even for the rest of us.


I think it's supposed to be an incentive, an enticement to stay in (or join) Select. So if they compensated quietly, then it wouldn't be an incentive.

That said, the way they've gone about this--and the timing--is problematic.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Donald Rump said:


> Amazon doesn't have to keep the royalty rate at $2+ because they can see that most KDP Select authors are earning a higher volume of borrows than they ever have before. So say goodbye to the $2+ royalty rate of the past. I doubt we'll see it again unless Amazon feels especially generous (and I hope I'm wrong about this).


This is a very good point, and something else for me think about.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

SevenDays said:


> I think it's supposed to be an incentive, an enticement to stay in (or join) Select. So if they compensated quietly, then it wouldn't be an incentive.
> 
> That said, the way they've gone about this--and the timing--is problematic.


People who got All-Star bonuses are businesspeople too, though. They looked at the payout rate on the 15th and went, "well, shoot." Spent the rest of the day thinking, "OK. In or out?" until they heard the next day that they got the bonus. Because these are all people who COULD sell elsewhere, and they know it. (Full disclosure: I got a bonus.)

So KDP really had to tell them right away that they had earned the bonus, or lots of them would have been pulling their books. Whether you think that's a good or bad thing, whether the program would be better with the heavy hitters in it (including those who are non-exclusive) as a way to draw readers in and make them want to plunk down the $9.95/month that is paying for all our borrows ... I guess everyone here gets to decide that for themselves. But that's why the announcement came on the heels of the overall payout number, IMHO.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

I just read HM Ward's blog, and my thinking is that it's awesome Amazon lured her in. Even if they gave her some lifetime exemption, which I'm not getting, I want her involved whatever it takes. I want the Big 5 to get involved with KU. The more Amazon can do to lure readers in, get people reading more, the better it is for me.

It's hard to voice my opinions about all of this as someone who has outsized success. I prefer to hang back and read everyone else's thoughts. I don't think publishing platforms and retailers should make decisions that cater to the outliers but focus instead on the entire field. I've told the engineers at various outlets this, that they should just keep concentrating on rolling out features for all of us (like pre-orders, better dashboard reporting, and the like).

When KU was announced, a lot of my colleagues who were exempted in order to give KU a try were horrified at the program. (We didn't know what we were opting into, as they had to exempt so many people, that they knew the subscription service wouldn't remain a secret. Ironic that it was outed anyway right here on KB by an observant poster). Anyway, a lot of my colleagues pulled out immediately, worried about the drop in earnings. I stuck with it to collect as much data as I could. Right now, it looks like my income is down, but my readership is way up. More readers and less money. I'll take that any day of the week.

I know that rings hollow for people who need more money. Again, this is why I hesitate to say anything. My outlook on stuff like this has always been a bit outside the norm. So what good is my opinion? I certainly wouldn't ask for anyone to agree with me or adopt my strategies. In fact, I often suggest those who email me asking for advice to do the opposite of what I've done, as I've made a lot of weird decisions that certainly reduce my income.

Back to KU: I've gained more readers through KU than I would lose by pulling my titles down everywhere else. I already don't publish with Google, even though they have offered an exemption to their random discounting. I don't like exemptions. I'm uncomfortable with the one I have to be in KU. But I understand why Amazon did it, that they never could've convinced me or Holly to try the program without a limited-time sample.

Do the bonuses further the divide between the haves and have-nots? Absolutely. Can I say with certainty that I wouldn't be upset if I wasn't already unconcerned with income? I cannot say that for certain. Maybe I would be angry. I don't begrudge anyone who is, nor do I disagree with anyone who pulls out of KU.

My hope is that these bonuses will go to an ever-rotating crop of writers. Seeing Wayne Stinnett's story and that he got a bonus warms my heart. I've been sharing that story everywhere, even sending it along to KDP to see if they can highlight these kinds of hard-working successes more. There will be some top names who publish 12 titles a year who will get tens of thousands added to their millions, and that will cause rancor. But it'll mean their books are in the pool, and I want that. I want readers to come in. I hope they'll find some of my stories as well.

I also hope Amazon will tinker with the structure of this program. Give us some consistency. Do something about the 10% rule for short pieces (if the story is only 10 pages long, pay upon completion. Or if the list price is less than $2.99, only pay upon completion). There's all sorts of things they can do to make this more fair, and I think they'll work on that. But the idea that these bonuses are bad, when they seem to be added money, and people are saying "just keep adding it to the general pool" ignores the fact that KU benefits from luring in the most prolific writers (of which I am most certainly not one). And that there will be monthly surprises for up-and-comers, that it won't be the same people every month, and that at least we have a company throwing money at authors instead of figuring out how to wring it from us. Man, self-publishing has changed. It used to be the other way around.

There's no way everyone will agree on these things. I dig what Dalglish and others are saying. But I come down more on AmberRose's side of this. And I like to think, if I was just getting started in this game, that I would be happy for the bonuses and those who receive them. But it's hard to say. I have to keep in mind that I've been outsized in my good fortune. It sucks that this makes me less likely to add my opinion, where for years I was dispensing perhaps way too much of it.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

Donald Rump said:


> Not the whole truth, only one data point. You're missing another data point: the multiplier. Many authors who shared their sales data reported an increase in borrows by an order of magnitude of 2 - 10 times what they previously earned. The most common I've heard is 3 times, which also lines up with my experience. So which do you prefer? 500 borrows at June's rate of $2.24 ($1,120) or 1,500 at $1.54 ($2,310)? Or how about 500 new readers of your work vs. 1,500?


I understand this point. But can someone please explain how to accurately (semi-accurately?) measure an increase or decrease in borrow income and sales income due to KU? My borrows and sales are all over the map throughout the year. So if I compare my income in June (the last full month before KU) to my income in August (the first full month after KU), the result could be misleading.

The only way I can think of getting a realistic result is to compare my income from August 2013 to my income from August 2014.

But even doing that has problems: I've published another book since last August. So to account for that, I subtract money earned from that title from the August 2014 total. And since KU is available only in the US, I only compare US (.com) income from the two Augusts.

Doing that, I find that this August's borrow income increased 4 X's over that of August 2013, while my total income (borrows and sales) increased more than 2 X's.

My initial thought is that KU is benefitting me. But then I recall that one of my titles had a BookBub ad this past mid-July, and I wonder if my August jump in income might be more attributable to the residual effect of the BB ad rather than the launch of KU.

Seasonal variation, added titles throughout the year, marketing campaigns, etc&#8230;It leads me to think that it might take several months before an accurate measure of the KU effect emerges.

Is there a better way to measure this stuff?


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

Never change, Hugh. That's why we love (and need) you so much.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> There's no way everyone will agree on these things. I dig what Dalglish and others are saying. But I come down more on AmberRose's side of this. And I like to think, if I was just getting started in this game, that I would be happy for the bonuses and those who receive them. But it's hard to say. I have to keep in mind that I've been outsized in my good fortune. It sucks that this makes me less likely to add my opinion, where for years I was dispensing perhaps way too much of it.


Hugh, I want to stay in Select. I don't want to leave it. So far it's been good for me financially, and it's incredibly convenient for me to focus on just one channel. But I don't want to make the wrong decision and get kicked in the shins down the road. Your opinions help me come to decisions about my business, and I appreciate it whenever you share them.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

I guess I'm just not convinced that it won't be the same people every month, Hugh. Frankly they've done so many things this summer that have dramatically reduced visibility for so many of the small indies while pushing the already-huge even more.

Where you and I do agree is that the gulf between the haves and the have-nots is widening. I doubt that will change, though I hope it will.

Time will tell, but given how this summer has changed, I'm not expecting any bonuses in my own future. I'm not already in that crowd, so I don't expect the opportunity will end up coming my way. That's the lesson I've taken from the summer if 2014: the playing field is no longer level.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

It's really struck me hos much lottery language has come into play with regard to All-Stars.

"It could be youuuuuu!" "What would you do if you got cut one of the checks?"

Someone mentioned trickle-down economics and that's frankly being nice to the sales pitch the pro folks are using. It's quite frankly preying on hope.

The cold, nasty truth is that there is a strong luck component to success, especially in an entertainment-oriented industry. You have to hit at the right time with the right people to really catch fire. The best books ever might be languishing while sometimes awful stuff rises to the top. You don't have nearly as much control over it as you think; you can only keep taking your shot the best you can.

And that's why the lottery language is making me so disconcerted.

I don't fnd anything particularly offensive about All-Stars in and of itself, just KU and Amazon's conscious choice to reduce payouts. Buuuut, I do have a problem with people trying to present All-Stars as an incentive to new and mid-list writers. Essentially, they're telling people to base a financial decision, one that might decide if their children eat or if they get their meds next month... on a lottery ticket.

You don't plan your monthly budget on going down to the 7-11 and dropping twenty bucks on Cash Five tickets and All-Stars should not factor into people's choice on whether or not to join Select. There is too much of a luck factor in this particular component to hang your hopes on and it is frighteningly irresponsible for people to suggest they do.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

OK, fair points, but it actually is sort of a lottery. Can you say that a book that sells 8 times better is actually 8 times better? No of course not. Pop stars get lucky. Algorithms are luck fairies. There's not really another honest way to market luck other than calling it luck and asking people to believe they might also get there.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

I'm not able to be in KDP Select for most (if not all books unless I do something special, but my schedule isn't really geared for that) for various reasons that I've bored you all with before (I have a serial site where people pay monthly for my stuff and the individual books are for fun and as feeders to the main site), so my opinion is probably worth squat.

After that disclaimer, I've been thinking about why this All Stars thing is bothering me and it's this: the big movers being in Amazon will decrease all other authors' payouts, NOT because they're taking money from the pool, but because many readers would likely rather pay $9.95 for unlimited reading rather than $2.99 here another $3.99 there, etc.  

If you get your favorite authors in KU, you'll look at other indie stuff, too, but likely ONLY in KU.  You're less likely to splurge on an unknown (if you can even find them as visibility has dropped hugely for those not in KU).  So all other authors will start to majorly get whatever the borrow amount is after awhile and not the 70% of their list price.

Also, if KU on its face was so attractive, wouldn't the big guys be in it WITHOUT the perks?  But from what I've seen, they aren't really (Hugh excepted, but he's an exception in any light and he's admitted that he has LOST money). So they don't think KU on its face, even with increased borrows is worth it.  So Amazon throws at them no exclusivity and bonuses ...


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> When KU was announced, a lot of my colleagues who were exempted in order to give KU a try were horrified at the program. (We didn't know what we were opting into, as they had to exempt so many people, that they knew the subscription service wouldn't remain a secret. Ironic that it was outed anyway right here on KB by an observant poster). Anyway, a lot of my colleagues pulled out immediately, worried about the drop in earnings. I stuck with it to collect as much data as I could. Right now, it looks like my income is down, but my readership is way up. More readers and less money. I'll take that any day of the week.
> 
> ...
> 
> Back to KU: I've gained more readers through KU than I would lose by pulling my titles down everywhere else. I already don't publish with Google, even though they have offered an exemption to their random discounting. I don't like exemptions. I'm uncomfortable with the one I have to be in KU. But I understand why Amazon did it, that they never could've convinced me or Holly to try the program without a limited-time sample.


I'm not sure I understand this reasoning. Are some exemptions OK because it's only a test? Why is pulling more inventory into KU through exemptions an OK option compared to Google luring more books onto their platform with their exemptions? I signed that contract, btw, and put up inventory that I wouldn't have put up otherwise. I like to think Google Play is the richer for it, just like KU is richer for having the exempted books it does. Honestly, your actions seem a bit hypocritical.

For all the imploring that Amazon needs a viable competitor, when the opportunity arises to help make that competitor better, why would someone turn down that opportunity and descry it on principle, and then turn around and accept an exemption for another program that's locked into Amazon?



ElHawk said:


> That's the lesson I've taken from the summer if 2014: the playing field is no longer level.


Sorry ElHawk, it NEVER was level.

But yeah, we can see more transparently now how Amazon, like every other business, better rewards those who are making them more money. Top salespeople get trips to exotic places as bonuses. Top executives who can demonstrate the most money added to the bottom line by their efforts get rewarded with fat stock options and cush Golden Parachutes. Top authors get sweet escalator clauses in their contracts and some get bonused for hitting the USA Today and NYT lists.

But all along, Amazon's algorithms have been quietly rewarding those indie books that can succeed on their own. The algos don't target poorly ranked but richly deserving books to get generous boosts. They target the 1% that are already earning Amazon more money. As authors fight to become that 1% or move into the 0.5%, they get better rewarded via the automated recommendation system. And once they see someone achieve consistency in that 1%, Amazon reaches out and offers placement in monthly bargain-book lists, KDDs, and the like, then offers perks like pre-order capability (before it was cool for all) and exemptions in various programs.

This has been going on for the past 3 years, and the Top .01% of indie authors today have benefitted hugely from the disparity. Will that change? Probably when trips to Hawaii and target goal bonuses disappear from the corporate landscape. So, as I see it...never.

It is how businesses operate to incent employees...and vendors.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> You don't plan your monthly budget on going down to the 7-11 and dropping twenty bucks on Cash Five tickets and All-Stars should not factor into people's choice on whether or not to join Select. There is too much of a luck factor in this particular component to hang your hopes on and it is frighteningly irresponsible for people to suggest they do.


I'm already in Select, but I completely agree with this. The "lottery language" was bugging me too.

My goal is to become a top author someday, but I'm not self-absorbed enough to suggest that luck won't have a hell of a lot to do with it if I do make it.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Phoenix Sullivan said:


> For all the imploring that Amazon needs a viable competitor, when the opportunity arises to help make that competitor better, why would someone turn down that opportunity and descry it on principle, and then turn around and accept an exemption for another program that's locked into Amazon?


Because with the latter, I had no idea I was opting into an exclusion. I've participated in a few beta programs with Amazon in the past, and I thought this was another of those. I've always seen these beta programs trickle down to everyone else (matte covers, pre-orders), so I thought it was like that again. As soon as this was announced, and I saw what had happened, I blogged on my website (and posted here) that I hated the exclusionary aspect, but that they were right that I never would have tried KU out otherwise.

I should add that the reason you have that contract with an exclusion is largely because of them working out a one-off contract to lure my books onto the Google Play store. I saw progress made by holding out. I wasn't allowed to talk about the contract if I signed it, so I said I'd wait until everyone had the option. They generalized that offer, but not enough to satisfy me. They probably won't make those random discounts something everyone can opt out of, but I keep trying.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Because with the latter, I had no idea I was opting into an exclusion. I've participated in a few beta programs with Amazon in the past, and I thought this was another of those. I've always seen these beta programs trickle down to everyone else (matte covers, pre-orders), so I thought it was like that again. As soon as this was announced, and I saw what had happened, I blogged on my website (and posted here) that I hated the exclusionary aspect, but that they were right that I never would have tried KU out otherwise.
> 
> I should add that the reason you have that contract with an exclusion is largely because of them working out a one-off contract to lure my books onto the Google Play store. I saw progress made by holding out. I wasn't allowed to talk about the contract if I signed it, so I said I'd wait until everyone had the option. They generalized that offer, but not enough to satisfy me. They probably won't make those random discounts something everyone can opt out of, but I keep trying.


Well, it you've gone exclusive with Amazon, you're no longer trying to bolster any competitors, but that's another side conversation. I can't imagine it didn't occur to you KU wouldn't be a Select program - those tricksy Amazon execs! There's another beta going on alluded to many times in posts here on KB. Do you seriously think that it will be rolled out for everyone?


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Phoenix Sullivan said:


> Well, it you've gone exclusive with Amazon, you're no longer trying to bolster any competitors, but that's another side conversation. I can't imagine it didn't occur to you KU wouldn't be a Select program - those tricksy Amazon execs! There's another beta going on alluded to many times in posts here on KB. Do you seriously think that it will be rolled out for everyone?


I didn't even know about KU or what KU was or what I was opting into. You seem like you want to bash me rather than ask me about my experiences and hear what I was faced with, how it affected me, and what I'm wrestling with today. If that's not the case, sorry to read you wrong. If it is the case, I'll quietly slink back to lurk-mode and keep my opinions to myself.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

Hugh

One comment by one person shouldn't keep you from expressing yourself.  There are a lot of other people here who want to hear your opinions...so NOOOO SLINKING.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

JeanneM said:


> Hugh
> 
> One comment by one person shouldn't keep you from expressing yourself. There are a lot of other people here who want to hear your opinions...so NOOOO SLINKING.


Ditto. I always appreciate your posts. Always have. I've said it before: You're the indie author I want to be when I grow up. (Author-wise. We'll just pass right over how much older than you I am.)


----------



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

Oh please Hugh, don't slink and lurk! I don't have to agree with you to value your experience and insight. (Though I do, in this case, mostly agree)  

The thing is, any creative endeavor is always a crapshoot and there has never been a level playing field in any of them. I'll use KU while it works for me. If it stops working, I'll be flexible and look for other avenues - maybe standing on a street corner selling my book. I'll do whatever it takes to create as much success as I can. But a lot of that is just not under my control.

Other large corporations have rewarded their high performing employees and contract workers with bonuses. If anyone has ever received one, you were probably over the moon. You didn't expect it, but you were grateful. A lot of companies have stopped doing this in these tougher times. 

How can we complain - in a time when if you aren't E L James, trad pub is trying to take more and more away rather than give more - about a company willing to reward those who have rewarded them. These big sellers are the ones who have put money in Amazon's pocket and Amazon is offering to give some of it back.

Oh yes, how wrong, how evil of them - sheesh!


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Hugh Howey said:


> I didn't even know about KU or what KU was or what I was opting into. You seem like you want to bash me rather than ask me about my experiences and hear what I was faced with, how it affected me, and what I'm wrestling with today. If that's not the case, sorry to read you wrong. If it is the case, I'll quietly slink back to lurk-mode and keep my opinions to myself.


Ignore all that, and just keep doing what you're doing, Hugh. Those of us who seek out what you, and Holly, and other authors at the top have to say, appreciate it when we can get it.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I didn't even know about KU or what KU was or what I was opting into. You seem like you want to bash me rather than ask me about my experiences and hear what I was faced with, how it affected me, and what I'm wrestling with today. If that's not the case, sorry to read you wrong. If it is the case, I'll quietly slink back to lurk-mode and keep my opinions to myself.


I'm merely responding to what you've told us and what your ultimate response to it was - to go back into Select and exclusivity. No one is stopping you from giving a full explanation and refuting my observations on that. As an outsider looking at your actions, it seemed you did exactly what Amazon hoped you would - and that even though they tricked you into trying KU, you decided that, for your business, it was still a good choice once you knew the truth. And that's OK. It is YOUR business decision. But to sign exclusivity or exclusion terms with one company while renouncing those of a competitor doesn't seem - _in my opinion and from my perspective based on my observations and what you've revealed so far _- a responsible action.

If any of what I see from the perspective of an outsider is wrong, then there's always room on the floor here for an introspective look at your turmoil over a decision we all face.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Phoenix Sullivan said:


> I'm merely responding to what you've told us and what your ultimate response to it was - to go back into Select and exclusivity. No one is stopping you from giving a full explanation and refuting my observations on that. As an outsider looking at your actions, it seemed you did exactly what Amazon hoped you would - and that even though they tricked you into trying KU, you decided that, for your business, it was still a good choice once you knew the truth. And that's OK. It is YOUR business decision. But to sign exclusivity or exclusion terms with one company while renouncing those of a competitor doesn't seem - _in my opinion and from my perspective based on my observations and what you've revealed so far _- a responsible action.
> 
> If any of what I see from the perspective of an outsider is wrong, then there's always room on the floor here for an introspective look at your turmoil over a decision we all face.


He's not on trial, Phoenix. Why does Hugh have to explain what he did or didn't do to you? What does it matter for YOUR business?

He offered his perspective on the All-Star move. That's all.


----------



## Amber Rose (Jul 25, 2014)

SevenDays said:


> I think it's supposed to be an incentive, an enticement to stay in (or join) Select. So if they compensated quietly, then it wouldn't be an incentive.
> 
> That said, the way they've gone about this--and the timing--is problematic.


It got lost in the post, but I was specifically referring to the authors who are not "all-in" KU, because of the special arrangement they have with AZ. Other than that, the All-Stars should certainly be an in-our-face incentive, to motivate.....


----------



## ThePete (Oct 10, 2013)

> It got lost in the post, but I was specifically referring to the authors who are not "all-in" KU, because of the special arrangement they have with AZ. Other than that, the All-Stars should certainly be an in-our-face incentive, to motivate.....


Yeah, that was my knee jerk reaction too. That this was just a cheaper alternative to an affiliate bounty program. At worst, exactly what the post said and just some Amazon exec's idea of "fun." All the righteous indignation leaves me scratching my head.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

DaCosta said:


> I don't think they sent an email (?) It was announced on their KDP forum.


The plot thickens. They did send an email, but did anyone outside the US receive it? Placing a note on a forum is akin to the planning permission sequences in the opening chapter of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Those outside the US cannot see may KU looks like and then to not email us (if that is what happened to everyone in Select outside the US) is a slap in the face.

Apparently KDP are acceding to my request to exit Select, but I fear that actually it is a customer service agent incapable of reading my request and thinks I asked to just leave Select rather to exit on the same grounds of a material change to the scheme a la the complete exit to non-exclusivity offered to those in Select when KU was announced.

Most people here seem concerned with the issue of bonuses. As someone who lives within sight of both Canary Wharf and the City of London I am used to other people getting bonuses that I can only dream of. I am concerned that they were going to give a gold star on the page of the titles rewarded. If KU operates like KOLL it privileges the already popular and makes getting discovered hard for newcomers. The material change that I complained about to KDP was that they were added a new level of enticing borrowers to borrow those already top of the pile.


----------



## ThePete (Oct 10, 2013)

> I didn't even know about KU or what KU was or what I was opting into. You seem like you want to bash me rather than ask me about my experiences and hear what I was faced with, how it affected me, and what I'm wrestling with today. If that's not the case, sorry to read you wrong. If it is the case, I'll quietly slink back to lurk-mode and keep my opinions to myself.


Don't take it personally. You've got a unique insider's perspective and a willingness to share. Most of us would love to hear about your experiences. If it's not too much trouble, could you start a new thread on that?


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Phoenix Sullivan said:


> Sorry ElHawk, it NEVER was level.


Well, yeah, that's true. Maybe it's more accurate to say that the relative quantity or even the relative illusion of levelness has shifted dramatically, while still acknowledging that there really isn't such thing as a truly level playing field in any business. 



> But yeah, we can see more transparently now how Amazon, like every other business, better rewards those who are making them more money.


Yes. And while I have no issue with rewarding those who make big money for the company -- that tactic makes complete sense to me, in fact -- the way this was rolled out seems suspicious at best. They way they rolled out this particular perk has ruffled a lot of feathers, obviously, and I wonder why they chose to do it that way, because surely they could see the feather-ruffling coming from a mile away. So if nobody at Amazon cares any longer about making the business *look* like the place where everybody has an equal shot if their books are good enough, then what does that say about how much harder it's going to get in the near future? That's what I'm wondering now.



> This has been going on for the past 3 years, and the Top .01% of indie authors today have benefitted hugely from the disparity. Will that change? Probably when trips to Hawaii and target goal bonuses disappear from the corporate landscape. So, as I see it...never.


And again... I don't have a problem with it on principle. In fact, I usually like incentives. However, this could have been done with more tact and preserved a lot of goodwill... and a lot of warm fuzzy feelings people were starting to develop for Select and KU in spite of reduced earnings.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> If it is the case, I'll quietly slink back to lurk-mode and keep my opinions to myself.


Or you could go take the Eight Hour Fiction Challenge!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Joliedupre said:


> He's not on trial, Phoenix. Why does Hugh have to explain what he did or didn't do to you? What does it matter for YOUR business?
> 
> He offered his perspective on the All-Star move. That's all.


That shouldn't make him immune to questioning and criticism, and I hope that he would agree.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

ElHawk said:


> Yes. And while I have no issue with rewarding those who make big money for the company -- that tactic makes complete sense to me, in fact -- the way this was rolled out seems suspicious at best. They way they rolled out this particular perk has ruffled a lot of feathers, obviously, and I wonder why they chose to do it that way, because surely they could see the feather-ruffling coming from a mile away. So if nobody at Amazon cares any longer about making the business *look* like the place where everybody has an equal shot if their books are good enough, then what does that say about how much harder it's going to get in the near future? That's what I'm wondering now.


It's dog-eat-dog, which is why I'm glad my kids don't want to be authors who write for the public.

But, there's NOTHING else out there that I want to do for a living. So . . . it is what it is.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> He's not on trial, Phoenix. Why does Hugh have to explain what he did or didn't do to you? What does it matter for YOUR business?


I don't recall _asking_ for him to explain anything. I merely pointed out that the option is there.

And apparently, by his account, he made it possible for me to forge a business alliance (not that he asked me what my timeline might have been), so I guess his actions (or inactions) DO matter to my business. So I should be questioning EVERYTHING he does in case it has an impact on MY business down the road, whether *I* agree with what he's lobbying for or not.


----------



## Chad Grills (Aug 19, 2014)

Just a few thoughts: I appreciate every author who has commented on this thread constructively. 

As far as Hugh's advice goes, I feel like I've received a top notch (free!) education on self publishing from him in the few short months I've been writing. 

So thanks to Hugh, and everyone else here who has contributed, and isn't afraid to hoard or of bashers. I'm thankful for the help, and congrats on anyone in All-Stars!


----------



## Pamela (Oct 6, 2010)

This whole thing saddens me.  When I started reading the pages yesterday, at first all I saw was, 'this is great, wonderful,' etc.  I kept thinking 'No, it's not great.  This is awful.'

Then some brave people started coming out with the realities.  Comparing it to the 'trickle down theory is brilliant.'  The peons fight for crumbs while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 

We all know why some authors don't use signatures here on Kboards.  Sometimes when a book took off and an author announced it, there were a rash of one-star reviews suddenly on that book.  Now imagine what can happen if you're close to the top 100, your book rising fast--and then....and then....the crash as people start 'liking' all your negative reviews.  It happened to me.  It's happened to others here at Kboards.

To Hugh, we not only love your books - we love what you've done for us and we know you have enormous integrity.  Please continue to give us your thoughts on this and any subject.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Phoenix Sullivan said:


> And apparently, by his account, he made it possible for me to forge a business alliance (not that he asked me what my timeline might have been), so I guess his actions (or inactions) DO matter to my business. So I should be questioning EVERYTHING he does in case it has an impact on MY business down the road, whether *I* agree with what he's lobbying for or not.


What?

Okay, whatever.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Pamela said:


> To Hugh, we not only love your books - we love what you've done for us and we know you have enormous integrity. Please continue to give us your thoughts on this and any subject.


+1


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> That shouldn't make him immune to questioning and criticism, and I hope that he would agree.


Nope. The fact that already *six* people have leaped in to beg him to stay and tell him how great he is is what does that.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Mercia McMahon said:


> The plot thickens. They did send an email, but did anyone outside the US receive it? Placing a note on a forum is akin to the planning permission sequences in the opening chapter of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
> 
> Those outside the US cannot see may KU looks like and then to not email us (if that is what happened to everyone in Select outside the US) is a slap in the face.
> 
> ...


I got the email. I'm in the UK (though maybe not for long after the Scottish independence vote tomorrow)


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> I don't recall asking for him to explain anything. I merely pointed out that the option is there.
> 
> And apparently, by his account, he made it possible for me to forge a business alliance (not that he asked me what my timeline might have been), so I guess his actions (or inactions) DO matter to my business. So I should be questioning EVERYTHING he does in case it has an impact on MY business down the road, whether *I* agree with what he's lobbying for or not.


----------



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

Sorry Phoenix, I think you're probably well within you're rights to say what you're saying - there's just a really aggressive tone coming across that I think isn't fair to direct at someone who has tried so hard to support both this place and the wider indie writer community.

That doesn't mean everyone has to fall in line with everything Hugh says, but he did preface his comments that he realized his perspective on this might be different given his level of success and his views might not line up with those who have not been so blessed. He knows far more about this business than I do, so I'm happy to listen to everything he says.

And then make up my own mind  As I'm sure he would want me to do.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> Nope. The fact that already *six* people have leaped in to beg him to stay and tell him how great he is is what does that.


If it means Hugh is going into lurk now, I want people to shut-up so Hugh can keep talking.

Yeah, it's selfish. So sue me.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

It seems that quite a few believe that JP Bezos has turned from the man who helped us storm the citadel, to a reverse Robin Hood. 

I don't get this 'subsidy' theory. If anyone can point me to the clause in the TOS which lays down a guaranteed minimum payment, I'll be pleased to reconsider.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Joliedupre said:


> If it means Hugh is going into lurk now, I want people to shut-up so Hugh can keep talking.
> 
> Yeah, it's selfish. So sue me.


That might be the most whaaa? thing said on this thread. And that's saying something!

eta: I have probably learned more from Phoenix than anyone on this board about how to run a business as a indie, how to assess, how to react. That's not to say Hugh doesn't have anything to offer. Lots of posters here do. The idea that they should stay silent is...well, crazy and incredibly detrimental to the health and value of this board.

Hugh is a big boy. I'm sure he can withstand some questioning. He can always just ignore them if he wants as well. I hope we (collectively) never take things at face value and always question.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Monique said:


> That might be the most whaaa? thing said on this thread. And that's saying something!


If you have better insight than Hugh for new self-published authors, let's hear it.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Joliedupre said:


> If you have better insight than Hugh for new self-published authors, let's hear it.


This isn't a competition, nor is it one or none. See my eta above.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Monique said:


> This isn't a competition, nor is it one or none. See my eta above.


Yeah, okay.

~~~

Hugh, I hope you come back from time to time.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Joliedupre said:


> If it means Hugh is going into lurk now, I want people to shut-up so Hugh can keep talking.
> 
> Yeah, it's selfish. So sue me.


You know... Phoenix didn't tell Hugh to lurk.

I frankly don't get why Hugh even said that because that didn't help anyone. He's a nice guy and all, but that... was not a good or fair thing to do no matter what his intentions were. If you've got such a vocal following in a place like this, declaring that one person questioning you makes you leave is going to cause a reaction and it's not going to be a constructive action. Maybe I've been immersed in the internet too long and I'm just more aware of it, but this is something internet personalities need to understand.


----------



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

Nobody's wrong here. I find everyone's take on this valid, including Phoenix's. But I don't see any point in people addressing one another in really aggressive tones - and Phoenix may not be aware that the tone was perceived as aggressive. 

So let's all get back to having fun hashing this out!


----------



## D-C (Jan 13, 2014)

Steeplechasing said:


> I got the email. I'm in the UK (though maybe not for long after the Scottish independence vote tomorrow)


I didn't get the email. I'm in the UK.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> You know... Phoenix didn't tell Hugh to lurk.
> 
> I frankly don't get why Hugh even said that because that didn't help anyone. He's a nice guy and all, but that... was not a good or fair thing to do no matter what his intentions were. If you've got such a vocal following in a place like this, declaring that one person questioning you makes you leave is going to cause a reaction and it's not going to be a constructive action. Maybe I've been immersed in the internet too long and I'm just more aware of it, but this is something internet personalities need to understand.


If you want to learn from the players, you gotta let the players speak. If you don't care about what the players have to say, then go ahead and piss them off and send them off to lurk.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> If you have better insight than Hugh for new self-published authors, let's hear it.


I think we all benefit by having a diversity of voices on this and other subjects. Also, I don't think it's a stretch to say that Hugh's experiences are not universal, nor is his success easily duplicated. There might be other people, on some subjects, who have ideas that would be more applicable to my own situation. I don't want to dismiss someone simply because they are not (or _are_, for that matter) Hugh Howey.


----------



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

DaCosta said:


> I didn't get the email. I'm in the UK.


I got the email and I'm in Canada.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Heather Hamilton-Senter said:


> Nobody's wrong here. I find everyone's take on this valid, including Phoenix's. But I don't see any point in people addressing one another in really aggressive tones - and Phoenix may not be aware that the tone was perceived as aggressive.
> 
> So let's all get back to having fun hashing this out!


Man, if that's her being aggressive, her indifference must involve boisterous cuddling.


----------



## heidi_g (Nov 14, 2013)

C. Gockel said:


> Romance in particular reflects the collective consciousness of our culture's musings on the most important decision anyone makes in their lifetime: who they marry. On the personal level, there can't be anything more important than that.
> 
> But I like my romance to have spaceships and or dragons zipping by in the background. Preferably both.


^^^^ This  A little magic never hurts either!


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> If you want to learn from the players, you gotta let the players speak. If you don't care about what the players have to say, then go ahead and p*ss them off and send them off to lurk.


Phoenix is also a player. Isn't she responsible for some million plus sales or something now? She also works with all sorts of different authors in putting together box sets and the like, and has her finger on the pulse of advertising, algorithms, etc. I'm quite happy to hear her thoughts on stuff.


----------



## Molly Tomorrow (Jul 22, 2014)

I got the email in the UK. 

Also, most of the people I know who received some kind of bonus are small indies and wouldn't even be considered midlisters. They ain't rich. They just had a particularly good month.

What are people (people or person, I couldn't find the post again to quote it) talking about with regards to amazon reducing visibility for small indies during the summer? As a small indie, I don't feel my visibility has been reduced.


----------



## heidi_g (Nov 14, 2013)

When I got the email for this fund, I was like uh-huh. Right on my decision to migrate off Select over the next few months... Yep, that sounds about right for my timing in general  But I don't think I'm going to be eligible for the All-Star fund anytime soon... so for me, probably not a big loss at this point.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Monique said:


> Hugh is a big boy. I'm sure he can withstand some questioning. He can always just ignore them if he wants as well. I hope we (collectively) never take things at face value and always question.


Hugh blogs on self-publishing matters with comments open, so he is well used to hearing criticism. His later comments about how KDP brought him into a non-exclusive KU deal were noteworthy, but I thought that his initial intervention supporting KDP's move was (excuse the pun) a bit rich coming from one of the successful ones, when the problem with the material change to the KU setup is that it boosts the discoverability of those already being discovered by the shed-load.


----------



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

Vaalingrade said:


> Man, if that's her being aggressive, her indifference must involve boisterous cuddling.


You made me LOL - literally out loud 

I did read it as very aggressive - but I'm well aware that it may not have been. Tone is difficult to hear online and one person's cuddling is another's .......

I'm all for Phoenix's continued expression as well as Hugh's and anyone else who wants to weigh in! We can all play nice


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Joliedupre said:


> If you want to learn from the players, you gotta let the players speak. If you don't care about what the players have to say, then go ahead and p*ss them off and send them off to lurk.


I'm not so desperate to learn from the 'players' (aren't we all players?) that I'm willing to let thier ideas go completely unquestioned and challenged. And if *one* person challenging them is enough to piss them off and make them go to ground, then they've got some things to learn themselves.

No, seriously, what if even the hell, Hugh? You're normally a shway guy even if I don't agree with you, but this was not a thing this thread needed. If you didn't want to participate anymore, you should have just stopped instead of making a dramatic announcement and activating the forum's Hive Defense Protocols.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

MichaelWallace said:


> I think we all benefit by having a diversity of voices on this and other subjects. Also, I don't think it's a stretch to say that Hugh's experiences are not universal, nor is his success easily duplicated. There might be other people, on some subjects, who have ideas that would be more applicable to my own situation. I don't want to dismiss someone simply because they are not (or _are_, for that matter) Hugh Howey.


I listen to everyone, but I pay special attention to people like Hugh Howey, H. M. Ward, and some others. Holly doesn't realize the impact her words have had on my being where I am today with self-publishing, but they have, and someday, when I meet her, I'm going to tell her that. So I know who *I'M* paying close attention to.

To each his or her own.


----------



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

Mercia McMahon said:


> Hugh blogs on self-publishing matters with comments open, so he is well used to hearing criticism. His later comments about how KDP brought him into a non-exclusive KU deal were noteworthy, but I thought that his initial intervention supporting KDP's move was (excuse the pun) a bit rich coming from one of the successful ones, when the problem with the material change to the KU setup is that it boosts the discoverability of those already being discovered by the shed-load.


You're right. But also to be fair, he did state that he was aware his point of view might be different from others due to his situation.

We must all find the middle ground between worshipping at the feet of saint Hugh, and vilifying him as the feudal lord over us serfs  (freely admitting here that I'm still in worship mode  )

Let's just take good advice from a great writer and success and apply it where it works for us, and politely move on when it doesn't.

(BTW Jolie - did you change your covers? Beautiful!)


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> I listen to everyone, but I pay special attention to people like Hugh Howey, H. M. Ward, and some others. Holly doesn't realize the impact her words have had on my being where I am today with self-publishing, but they have, and someday, when I meet her, I'm going to tell her that. So I know who *I'M* paying close attention to.
> 
> To each his or her own.


True, and I'm probably +100,000 sales thanks to Phoenix, so that colors my own perceptions. If I could somehow hoover off Hugh's ability to write a universally acclaimed story, I'm sure I'd do that, too!

I saw the discussion as being forceful and opinionated, which is exactly what I'm hoping for. I hope it will continue without anyone huffing off or shutting it down. Moderators included.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

I know what will bring him back out:

Mr. Howey, after careful deliberation I've decided to dedicate my next book to you. In fact, you're the main character!


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Heather Hamilton-Senter said:


> (BTW Jolie - did you change your covers? Beautiful!)


Thanks! I had problems with my first cover artist. So I had to. I've been told by numerous readers that they like these covers better. So I'm glad it worked out this way. My new cover artist is Kelly Walker, and she's awesome.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> Phoenix is also a player. Isn't she responsible for some million plus sales or something now? She also works with all sorts of different authors in putting together box sets and the like, and has her finger on the pulse of advertising, algorithms, etc. I'm quite happy to hear her thoughts on stuff.


+1


----------



## Pamela (Oct 6, 2010)

I didn't get the email.  I'm in the US.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

MichaelWallace said:


> True, and I'm probably +100,000 sales thanks to Phoenix, so that colors my own perceptions. If I could somehow hoover off Hugh's ability to write a universally acclaimed story, I'm sure I'd do that, too!
> 
> I saw the discussion as being forceful and opinionated, which is exactly what I'm hoping for. I hope it will continue without anyone huffing off or shutting it down. Moderators included.


I grew up in a family of talkers, and this is the way we talk at home. Some people get upset. Some don't. I'm usually not one to run away from a discussion. I can take it. But I understand not everyone goes for that.


----------



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

MichaelWallace said:


> Phoenix is also a player. Isn't she responsible for some million plus sales or something now? She also works with all sorts of different authors in putting together box sets and the like, and has her finger on the pulse of advertising, algorithms, etc. I'm quite happy to hear her thoughts on stuff.


Amazing! I want to hear too.

I think the forum gets into trouble when we try to tell someone else they're wrong rather than just stating our own opinion and leaving it at that. But it's a free space to do that too! It doesn't deter me from following an interesting discussion.

But yeah, Mods, don't shut this thread down. It hasn't devolved too far and it really is an interesting discussion.

And the crux of the question is, does this new move on Amazon's part hurt those of us at the middle to the bottom, give us something to hope and aim for, or not affect us at all?

Did anyone ever find an answer as to whether the bonuses were coming out of the general fund or additional money? I've been trying to follow all the various threads but I never saw a definitive answer to that.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Joliedupre said:


> If you want to learn from the players, you gotta let the players speak.


In general, I agree with this sentiment. However, let's not make the mistake of thinking that Hugh's voice is the only one worth listening to. I'm sure he'd be the first person to say that's not the case. He's one player of many valuable players from whom we can learn. And the best way I know of to ensure that all of us are thinking critically is to challenge ideas freely, no matter whose ideas they are. It's always dangerous to put anybody into "sacred cow" status (and probably a little weird and uncomfortable for the person who gets designated the "sacred cow," too!  )


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Right now, *it looks like my income is down*, but my readership is way up. More readers and less money. I'll take that any day of the week.


I'm curious, how is that even possible?

If you didn't have to be exclusive (and kept your books on other sites) and if you had enough sales and borrows to qualify for the All-Star program (you may not have)--how exactly did your income drop?



Dolphin said:


> Can anybody demonstrate a decrease in income due to your participation in KU? Is it even an available hypothesis?


Well you have your answer--I think.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Seeing aggression in a post is subjective - I thought the post from Phoenix aggressive, and I might well have reacted to it the same way Hugh did. What nobody knows is what is going on in the lives of these people right now, or in the life of anyone who posts something 'controversial'.

You don't have to be Mister Howey to reach a point where you cry enough. I've seen quite a few people just steadily stop posting here in the past couple of years...they'd reached their own tipping point, and the place is poorer for their absence.

I wouldn't mind betting that Hugh and Phoenix have an awful lot more to deal with - businesswise - than most of us (I'm talking about responding to fans, charity requests, PMs from those seeking script advice or mentoring etc), yet they make the time to post here. I don't know that much about Phoenix. I do know that Hugh has campaigned hard and long for what he believes in, for what he thinks will benefit Indies on the whole.  That's ethics. That's giving back. That's respect.

Those who openly plead for Hugh to keep posting are entitled to do so without the implication from others that they are kow-towing. If Hugh does return to posting, I'll guarantee one thing - the point will come when he will call it quits. However deep your ethics run, however determined you are, you've got to say to yourself at some point, 'Look this is not a fight for civil rights, it's about publishing. I thought I could change it for the better, but I now need to accept I can't, and bow out.'  Hugh will reach his tipping point, as will Phoenix, as will you and I.

Depressingly predictable, but a fact.

All human life is here.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> Nope. The fact that already *six* people have leaped in to beg him to stay and tell him how great he is is what does that.


I was kind of hoping that someone, or David, would come along and clarify whether this is snark or not, because I'm frankly not sure. I'm guessing yes, which would be more in the Dalglish spirit, in which case I would have to agree. No matter how high we raise anyone onto our pedestals, we should never ever think of our idols as being above scrutiny. While I find Hugh's decisions, or at least his explanations of his decisions, somewhat inconsistent, I look at his record of championing for indies into account. We're all forced, coerced, tricked or otherwise go willingly into situations which will run counter to what we've preached or practiced. Especially in business. Especially in THIS business. I don't see it as being hypocritical rather than practical. Phoenix's characterization that it's irresponsible is perhaps the wrong word. It would be irresponsible to Hugh if it were to run counter to his own business objectives. Only he can say whether this decision is or isn't irresponsible in that regard. Perhaps it would've been better if Phoenix had simply characterized it as inconsistent and left it at that.

If, on the other hand, David meant no snark, then I think he's wrong. Because as much as I enjoy his writing and hope to reach his level someday, he is, after all, not above reproach.


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

Saul Tanpepper said:


> No matter how high we raise anyone onto our pedestals, we should never ever think of our idols as being above scrutiny.


I call this my John Locke principle--just because someone tells you something, doesn't mean they told you everything.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

A.R. Williams said:


> I call this my John Locke principle--just because someone tells you something, doesn't mean they told you everything.


I don't think HH is anywhere close to John Locke, and I mean that in the best possible way.



> Those who openly plead for Hugh to keep posting are entitled to do so without the implication from others that they are kow-towing. If Hugh does return to posting, I'll guarantee one thing - the point will come when he will call it quits. However deep your ethics run, however determined you are, you've got to say to yourself at some point, 'Look this is not a fight for civil rights, it's about publishing. I thought I could change it for the better, but I now need to accept I can't, and bow out.'


Let's not get carried away. He's not Nelson Mandela, either.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

Oh, there he is!

http://www.hughhowey.com/ruminations-on-exclusivity/

Edit: Oops. My mistake. He put this up a few hours ago.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

Hugh, I don't have a dog in this hunt because I've never been in Select, but do you think the drop in sales for those of us who are not in, is related to KU or just the normal summer drop?


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

ElHawk said:


> In general, I agree with this sentiment. However, let's not make the mistake of thinking that Hugh's voice is the only one worth listening to. I'm sure he'd be the first person to say that's not the case. He's one player of many valuable players from whom we can learn. And the best way I know of to ensure that all of us are thinking critically is to challenge ideas freely, no matter whose ideas they are. It's always dangerous to put anybody into "sacred cow" status (and probably a little weird and uncomfortable for the person who gets designated the "sacred cow," too!  )


Yep, point taken.  Sorry, Hugh. LOL!


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

Donald Rump said:


> Oh, there he is!
> 
> http://www.hughhowey.com/ruminations-on-exclusivity/
> 
> Edit: Oops. My mistake. He put this up a few hours ago.


Thanks for the link. So, his sales on Amazon dropped so much because of KU borrows that he lost money.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

MichaelWallace said:


> I don't think HH is anywhere close to John Locke, and I mean that in the best possible way.
> 
> Let's not get carried away. He's not Nelson Mandela, either.


No, he's not Nelson Mandela, but to act like Hugh is just an author with ordinary success is not true either. I don't know about you, but I learn from the top, and we're lucky to have Hugh participating. Most millionaire authors who started here move away from here. Hugh hasn't . . . yet.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

> Let's not get carried away. He's not Nelson Mandela, either.


That was my point, Michael. Whatever Hugh's motivation is, the object is the publishing world, not the future of the human race. if you're not Luther King or Mandela, then, however deep your commitment, at some point you're going to say, 'I'm out'.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

That doesn't mean his every choice has been optimal or correct though.

Plus, like a page ago, you agreed that luck plays a big part. I'm not saying he hasn't made a lot of good choices, but let's not be so ready to call ANYONE the Single Perfect Master. Even the much-respected Steven King has said and done dumbass things (Remember Cell?)


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Donald Rump said:


> Oh, there he is!
> 
> http://www.hughhowey.com/ruminations-on-exclusivity/
> 
> Edit: Oops. My mistake. He put this up a few hours ago.


Very interesting, Hugh. Thanks for the post.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> No, he's not Nelson Mandela, but to act like Hugh is just an author with ordinary success is not true either. I don't know about you, but I learn from the top, and we're lucky to have Hugh participating. Most millionaire authors who started here move away from here. Hugh hasn't . . . yet.


Hmm, It's been my experience that authors who are at the top are not necessarily the best ones to turn to for advice on how to get started _right now_. The circumstances and the landscape is totally different _right now_ than it was when they started. Most of them will tell you this if you ask them how they did something. They'll say, "This worked for me then, but I don't know or don't think it will work now." The decisions and the landscape of their businesses are so different, it just isn't all that relevant.

That doesn't mean they don't have valuable advice or that you shouldn't be watching what they do, all of their decisions play a roll in their success. But sometimes it's just not that useful depending on where you are in your career.

For instance, I find it much more helpful to read Viola's thread on how she started writing a novella serial and what she did earlier this year, than I do reading about how someone caught an algorithm in 2011, put out four books in two months, and sold 100K books. Now their audience is so huge all they have to do is put a book out and it climbs the charts based on the sheer volume of fans.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> That doesn't mean his every choice has been optimal or correct though.
> 
> Plus, like a page ago, you agreed that luck plays a big part. I'm not saying he hasn't made a lot of good choices, but let's not be so ready to call ANYONE the Single Perfect Master. Even the much-respected Steven King has said and done dumbass things (Remember Cell?)


Yes, that's true Vaal.

I have goals that I want to reach and a plan to reach them. Luck will play a huge part, and I can't control that. I CAN control who I listen to. Hugh Howey, as well as some other top authors, have insights into this business that have helped me.

And for me, that's the bottom line.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Oh Sweet Jesus, I just read the blog post.

No. Just No.

What he's advocating only works if the competing parties are on fairly equal ground. And siding with the most unequal actor is not going to incite change.

Also, 90 days is a full business quarter. Why do people not understand this? It's not  a short period of time. If something happens that makes you want to make a change on day 3 of 90, this becomes very, very clear.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Deanna Chase said:


> For instance, I find it much more helpful to read Viola's thread on how she started writing a novella serial and what she did earlier this year, than I do reading about how someone caught an algorithm in 2011, put out four books in two months, and sold 100K books.


Viola didn't produce any advice threads at Kboards until she was a success in her own right, and you had better believe I listen to her.

However, she, too, may have left this place for good.

I hope not.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> Viola didn't produce any advice threads at Kboards until she was a success in her own right, and you had better believe I listen to her.
> 
> However, she, too, may have left this place for good.
> 
> I hope not.


Yes I know. But when she wrote those threads she was just taking off. That's what makes her advice more relevant to people starting right now than some of the other HUGE sellers. Six months from now, her advice may be irrelevant.

Edited to add- I think you're missing the point. I was trying to say the people coming up through the trenches right now are often the ones with the best nuggets of info.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> Viola didn't produce any advice threads at Kboards until she was a success in her own right, and you had better believe I listen to her.
> 
> However, she, too, may have left this place for good.
> 
> I hope not.


I love that gal. A shame how everything turned out.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Deanna Chase said:


> I think you're missing the point. I was trying to say the people coming up through the trenches right now are often the ones with the best nuggets of info.


Some do, yes. Anyway, it's a personal choice who we pay attention to when it comes to our writing life. I do what works for me.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> Viola didn't produce any advice threads at Kboards until she was a success in her own right, and you had better believe I listen to her.
> 
> However, she, too, may have left this place for good.
> 
> I hope not.


Her blog seems to indicate she did. And we're the poorer for it.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

Jim Johnson said:


> Her blog seems to indicate she did. And we're the poorer for it.


Yep.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Martitalbott said:


> Hugh, I don't have a dog in this hunt because I've never been in Select, but do you think the drop in sales for those of us who are not in, is related to KU or just the normal summer drop?


Hard to say. I'm not a fan of confounding variables, and there are a ton of those with all the changes taking place. I've seen some people outside of KU report that sales are increasing. I'd wager I've seen more who say sales are down. I haven't had a new novel release in months, so I've seen a steady decline (which I expect to see). It could be both are true, that the summer decline is in effect (didn't I see someone bust this myth a year or so ago?) and also the availability of more free stuff to read.

Bookstore sales are also down 5%. Is that the Brick and Mortar decline, or something else? Is reading in decline?

We won't do our next AE report until October, so I'm hoping we see something there. Then again, it's our first post-summer report, and we don't have several years worth of data to compare to, so teasing signal from noise is nearly impossible.

I like lots of data, large samples, and long timelines. This last bit we have none of.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Rosalind James said:


> People who got All-Star bonuses are businesspeople too, though. They looked at the payout rate on the 15th and went, "well, shoot." Spent the rest of the day thinking, "OK. In or out?" until they heard the next day that they got the bonus. Because these are all people who COULD sell elsewhere, and they know it. (Full disclosure: I got a bonus.)
> 
> So KDP really had to tell them right away that they had earned the bonus, or lots of them would have been pulling their books. Whether you think that's a good or bad thing, whether the program would be better with the heavy hitters in it (including those who are non-exclusive) as a way to draw readers in and make them want to plunk down the $9.95/month that is paying for all our borrows ... I guess everyone here gets to decide that for themselves. But that's why the announcement came on the heels of the overall payout number, IMHO.


My statement from before about the all-stars program stemming from KU itself being in trouble might well be correct, in this case.
Perhaps not as many readers signed up for KU as Amazon was anticipating? Or they're not borrowing that many books and Amazon fears they'll drop out? That scenario (a reader perception that there isn't enough value in KU) together with a prospect of authors in the top 100 of KU borrows dropping out, might have prompted Amazon to take measures.

You're right, Rosalind, that Amazon might be thinking they need to rescue the program before it sinks.
(And you deserve everything coming your way - you created a niche that is unique. There's absolutely nothing else like your books out there.)

I saw a realllly long thread on facebook where a kboards member (who swapped from YA to 'hot romance' and is doing great guns) asked her readers if she should go all in with KU. The response was overwhelmingly negative. Almost none of the respondents said they were interested in KU and actually said they 'didn't want to pay for borrowing books' and also wanted to keep the books they loved.

Someone earlier mentioned 'the multiplier effect'. This doesn't make sense unless you actually ARE gaining more readers (KU readers). If, for instance, Amazon's moves make it harder for your book to be seen - then you're losing both non-select sales and KU borrows.

Someone else mentioned luck, and this is also true. I made thousands on select borrows during my first Christmas as a self-publisher - on my first two books. If I had been on that wave now, I'd be doing extremely well with KU right now. I've had no books out for months (long story, involving having to take my books off-line when I sold the first in the series) and the KU thing came out of nowhere now that I'm ready to start putting them back on. This particular series won't be going into select and I'm happy about that.

Someone mentioned bitterness. What? No, buddy. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no bitterness in me. I'm just trying to figure out this new landscape and make the best decisions for my career.


----------



## komura 420 (Aug 25, 2013)

As a leftist trapped in this decaying economic model, I recognize that the only vote that really counts these days is how we spend our money.

That said, is there anyway to know which authors or titles are in KDP Select without cross checking against other book sites? 

I spend a fair amount on books and want to put my money where my mouth is. I will cast my ballots accordingly, against monopolists and their collaborators.  

My money, my rules. Your money, your rules.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

About Hugh: When I first came to KBoards about 10 months ago, I'd never heard of Hugh Howey, and I'd been selling very well for almost a year. I don't know how Hugh markets, and I don't know how he writes. I assume "very well" in both cases. 

My admiration for him isn't based on his sales. It's based on the voice he's been for indies, the information he's compiled and freely shared, and his demeanor online. I guess it's that Buddhist thing about right speech (paraphrasing): Is it true? Is it helpful? Is it kind? Is it necessary? Is it spoken at the right time (so the person can hear it)? What's always struck me about Hugh is that he seems to be speaking and acting from this place when he's on here. I find I listen more to people who speak this way than to those who seem to be coming from an unhelpful and unkind place, however valid their points may be. If this makes me a Howey Fangirl, I'll wear it.

In general: I never spent any time on internet forums until I published my books two years ago--too busy working.  Since then, I've observed that arguing on the Internet is a lot more like debate club in high school than it is like arguing with a jerk ex-husband. You don't win by browbeating and insulting the other person until he or she gives up and goes away (and divorces you). You "win" (although you won't think of it that way) by presenting your opinion in a measured way that allows for the existence--maybe even the validity--of opposing points of view, by allowing the other person to present his or her point and acknowledging it, and then by shutting the heck up so that reasonable, intelligent people can decide for themselves. You aren't really arguing "with" that other person. You're arguing "for the benefit of" all the people who are reading and judging. You won't know what they think of you, all those people. The snarkier you are, the more you feel like "Ha! I won!", the less likely you are to have ACTUALLY won. 

My 2 cents' worth of observation. Can I have my Fangurl badge now?


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> Someone earlier mentioned 'the multiplier effect'. This doesn't make sense unless you actually ARE gaining more readers (KU readers). If, for instance, Amazon's moves make it harder for your book to be seen - then you're losing both non-select sales and KU borrows.


I did. It makes a lot more sense if you're enrolled in the program and actively promoting. If your book has issues outside of promotion (bad cover, poor editing, etc.), it won't matter if it's in KU or not. But if you've done a decent job, you have nothing to fear and everything to gain. It still might take a little bit to find your audience, but this is a marathon not a sprint, right? KU is a tool that can help get you there faster.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

Rosalind James said:


> My 2 cents' worth of observation. Can I have my Fangurl badge now?


Here. I'll let you wear mine:


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

From Hugh's BLOG post today. "In May of 2012, I saw early signs that the readers I would gain elsewhere would not make up for the readers I would lose by the loss of KDP Select visibility. I’ve seen nothing to counter that observation since. I lose readers by spreading my ebooks far and wide. It’s counterintuitive, but it’s true."

This is exactly what I've seen over my 4 year self-pub career. I hear the counter-arguments, but I've never seen it with my titles. Nothing has come close to matching the money I've made through Amazon, and the readership I've reached. 100 to 1 compared to spreading my titles. This is MY situation.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Saul Tanpepper said:


> Here. I'll let you wear mine:


Aw, thanks!


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

Rosalind James said:


> Aw, thanks!


It's only on loan. I'll be wanting it back.


----------



## jackiegp (May 18, 2013)

scottmarlowe said:


> Spot on. Well said.


Agreed!


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Well my books have been taken out of Select in response to my demand to have an immediate exit from Select akin to that offered to those in Select at the time that Kindle Unlimited was introduced. I am waiting to see if they get back to say that the agent was not authorised to make that decision before uploading to other retailers. Although as far as I am concerned I demanded such an exit and by unenrolling me they acceptted that the contract was terminated including with regards to exclusivity. Still I suspect that the agent only paid attention to the "immediate exit from Select" and not "akin to that offered to those in Select at the time that Kindle Unlimited was introduced." 

I may be in the small minority in this thread, but I am very peeved at the public approval boost given to bestsellers (the extra money is not my concern). I remain of the opinion that the introduction of Kindle Unlimited was a panicked reaction to the success of Scribd and the All Star Team seems to be an ill thought out panic reaction to an insufficient take-up by the heavy hitters. I think Hugh has got it wrong, this is not about encouraging bestsellers to promote KU hard, it is about getting authors into Select. KU needs a lot of readers to keep authors on board and in Select. Scribd is an incentive to leave Select and I believe that that is what lies behind both KU PR disasters.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

I wonder what will happen to Amazon's share price and to the image of J Bezos should KU fail. I wonder what JB believes might happen in that scenario - will he bite the bullet early as he has done with the Fire phone, or keep trying to shore it up?

The phone was the first obvious misstep by JB. I hope he is not developing a Steve Jobs-like mentality where he ignores everything except his own instincts (which have been pretty much dead right until the Fire). Is All-Stars the cream on a steadily growing cake or a desperate attempt to stop a crumbling cake from disintegrating?


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> Oh Sweet Jesus, I just read the blog post.
> 
> No. Just No.
> 
> ...


Yep. I 100% agree with you on this.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Steeplechasing said:


> I wonder what will happen to Amazon's share price and to the image of J Bezos should KU fail. I wonder what JB believes might happen in that scenario - will he bite the bullet early as he has done with the Fire phone, or keep trying to shore it up?


Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

KU got about two days of news coverage and then it faded out. No one is hanging much of anything off it and for Amazon, it's now exactly a flagship product. It's just another play to keep indies pinned into exclusivity.

As much as I wish KU would go down as an epic 'ET for the Atari' level boondoggle that will leave book subscription services radioactive territory for the next decade, All-Stars isn't a thing they're doing to 'save' KU. It's what they're doing to keep the top sellers in Select firmly in place while they throttle down the payments to the rest.

Without All-Stars, they'll lose some money, which doesn't matter. Amazon has an aversion to profit anyway. But BN, Apple, Kobo and Google stand to MAKE money without All-Stars and Amazon can't stand for that. The thing people constantly get wrong about Select is the idea that it's meant to make money. Of course it isn't. It's there to starve the other channels of talent. The downthrottling of payouts is just to keep it from costing so damn much.

Drop-kicking the rank and file another 10% will probably save the company 15 million over the course of the year. Horray for businesses being businesses?


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

fwiw, you just send them an email and they will still take your book out. No big.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

That's not permanent and as far as we know isn't currently open to everyone. We don't know if Mercia managed to bail because Amnesty is still in place or because she had the rage of a million suns on her side.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

I had no rage, I just asked. Haven't sold millions. Practically nobody. Then 2 days later I asked to make it permafree and they did that too.


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

Steeplechasing said:


> I wonder what will happen to Amazon's share price and to the image of J Bezos should KU fail. I wonder what JB believes might happen in that scenario - will he bite the bullet early as he has done with the Fire phone, or keep trying to shore it up?
> 
> The phone was the first obvious misstep by JB. I hope he is not developing a Steve Jobs-like mentality where he ignores everything except his own instincts (which have been pretty much dead right until the Fire). Is All-Stars the cream on a steadily growing cake or a desperate attempt to stop a crumbling cake from disintegrating?


There have been plenty of missteps made by JB and Amazon. I think as authors we tend to focus entirely on the books and media side of Amazon when Amazon has its mighty big feet in multiple pools. Right now, Amazon's big picture is turned towards cloud services.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

"Putting shorts in KU is bad for it. Let me tell you about the shorts I put in KU"


----------



## Amber Rose (Jul 25, 2014)

A.R. Williams said:


> John Locke principle--just because someone tells you something, doesn't mean they told you everything.


Brilliant! I think I can reference a John Lock Principle at least once a day.

And, everyone, let's calm down. I don't think Hugh has left the building.


----------



## Amber Rose (Jul 25, 2014)

Jim Johnson said:


> Her blog seems to indicate she did. And we're the poorer for it.


Can you (or anyone) please post a link to Viola's blog? Thanks....


----------



## Michaelploof (Feb 14, 2014)

I'm going to hit this list. I just decided, and so it shall be so.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

DTW said:


> So you naysayers all flock back to Google Play (where they'll set you free without warning; triggering price matching everywhere so your royalties go to zero); to B&N (which, very literally, could collapse any month now); to Kobo (which is a very small fish in a very very very huge ocean); and to all the genre retailers like AllRomance, Drive-by and whoever else I'm not mentioning. Go ahead and flock on back to them. If your sales numbers on those platforms add up to more than your KU payments PLUS extra sales due to KU borrow rank visibility; then you made the right call. However, remember you have to subtract all the advertising expenses you shell out to support your sales on those unvisible platforms. Remember that some of you were in here whining about how "Amazon is trying to convince us to advertise KU for them" while every other e-tailer by default makes you advertise to get traction there.
> 
> Okay, done. Bunch of flames incoming, I'm sure. Enjoy yourselves.


No. No flames from me. In Select, if I don't get a sale, I'll get a borrow. Both give me money and both contribute to ranking.

I whined all day yesterday, but I'm done today. (Hugh's blog post helped a lot, too.) As long as the royalty for a borrow doesn't fall too low, I'm okay with things right now.

Thank you, everyone, for the discussion.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Drew Smith said:


> You know I've been think about shorts. I think maybe the times are a changing as far as they're concerned. Everyone here keeps talking about how readers don't like short stories and how they will leave the program if KU is swimming with them. Obviously I'm not talking about 600 words scams, but edited real short stories.
> 
> Anyway, if readers don't much care for short stories why would Amazon go to all the trouble of making the whole Short Reads thing? They have definitely moved Short Stories into a spotlight on their site. There must be more people interested in them than we might at first think. Maybe that's why Amazon hasn't jerked them out of KU, started paying them less, or started requiring more than 10% before payment.
> 
> I'm going to have to think on this one for a while.


I've actually seen my short stories increase in sales since KU rolled out. And they're not even enrolled! It has made me wonder whether KU has helped speed up a re-emergence of reading shorts for fun. Interesting!

ETA: to Jolie: But what constitutes "too low?" On TPV somebody compared this to boiling a kettle of frogs, and I think it's an apt description.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Amber Rose said:


> Can you (or anyone) please post a link to Viola's blog? Thanks....


For the Google-challenged: http://violarivard.wordpress.com/


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

I agree with everything Elhawk and Vaal has said in this thread. It's great to see common sense prevailing against the tide.

I don't really have many more thoughts to add. Amazon should have been discreet with its bribery of the minuscule few and not rubbed it in the faces of the masses by sending them emails.

KU at this point is such a mathematical headache. The worst part is not knowing what the next month's borrow payout will be. I expected the worse this month ($1.60) and they've managed to dip below my worst expectations. I can only assume they'll continue to do the same. Clearly their priority is to keep the biggies in, and to everyone else, here's a teasing email of what you'd be getting if you were performing. 

Since the fund is all arbitrarily what Amazon wants it to be, and not based on profit, you can only expect the treatment of non-star authors in the program to decline. And it's happening fast.


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

ElHawk said:


> On TPV somebody compared this to boiling a kettle of frogs, and I think it's an apt description.


Very apt. 
Because frogs will definitely jump out of boiling water before they die, no matter how slowly you raise the temperature. Just like most authors will bail on KU long before they hit financial ruin. 
Lowering the payout and benefits slowly might make a few hang on a little longer, but indie publishers, by and large, are a pretty savvy bunch. Being able to adapt is pretty much a requirement for success in the indie game nowadays, whether it be KU, or the next thing that comes along.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> KU at this point is such a mathematical headache. The worst part is not knowing what the next month's borrow payout will be. I expected the worse this month ($1.60) and they've managed to dip below my worst expectations. I can only assume they'll continue to do the same. Clearly their priority is to keep the biggies in, and to everyone else, here's a teasing email of what you'd be getting if you were performing.


Did your total income from borrows decrease this month? Or just the per unit royalty?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

The only real criterion for anything in publishing (other than, obviously, ethical questions) is, "Is doing this making me more money?" Not what somebody else is making or getting, because yes, that could be you. I started well after the glory days of Select (fall 2012). Wayne started a year after me. Select worked great for both of us and still is. Neither of us had published before. Neither of us wrote in a "hot" area or wrote to market (although we both write genre fiction ). Yes, we were lucky, but as a sign on my door reminds me, "luck is reality too." IT IS POSSIBLE. 

I said the same thing before I found out I had got a bonus. So what if KDP rewards the non-exclusive, if it keeps those people in the program and draws the readers? It's the reality of publishing--things change, and all I can do is react to the changes and choose my own best path. If I'm making more money off borrows, making more overall in KU than out of it, that's a win for me, and I stay. If I'm not, I go. 

So: if your 3x or 5x borrows are still making you more money in KU despite the lower payout, that's a win for you. If not, not. There was a lot of derision about KDP talking about "increased visibility" being a benefit of KU. But visibility has been my primary goal since Day 1 at this game two years ago. Visibility is everything. Select and now KU have indeed increased my visibility--and that of many others, and yes, that's been a benefit. 

(Sorry for taking Wayne's name in vain here. I am not speaking for him, just pointing out that our journeys have been similar in that we were both total nobodies who got here via Select, long after Select was supposed to have stopped "working.")


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

Dolphin said:


> Did your total income from borrows decrease this month? Or just the per unit royalty?


Explain your question to me like I'm a five year old.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

(The above is, I hope, about as harsh as you'll ever hear me get. But I find that envy, in particular, gets in the way of logical decision-making for me. We all feel it. But it doesn't help, unless it fuels me to work harder so someday I will be a truly Special Snowflake who gets the non-exclusive bennies too.)


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Ugh. I hate all the vehemence in these posts. 

I don't think there is one right answer to KU. I think for some people it is going to be freaking excellent, for others, no. I think genre is going to matter a lot, and how long you've been published, etc. 

Calling anyone stupid for being in KU or not being in KU is really silly. Just because someone isn't making the same business decision as you, doesn't mean they're making a bad business decision for them. Unless you see their data, you really don't know.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

ElHawk said:


> ETA: to Jolie: But what constitutes "too low?" On TPV somebody compared this to boiling a kettle of frogs, and I think it's an apt description.


My books are no more than $2.99. So the royalty for a borrow is still okay for me. But if it dips much more than it is right now, I won't be happy. Someone in this thread said the days of a $2.00 or more royalty for borrows are over. I believe that.

So we'll see.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

I have just received a notification from KDP that they deliberately sent the All Stars email to *only a subset of publishers*. The PR disaster deepens. Still no mention that my exclusivity clause continues to apply, so I'm off to play on D2D etc.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

C. Gockel said:


> Ugh. I hate all the vehemence in these posts.
> 
> I don't think there is one right answer to KU. I think for some people it is going to be freaking excellent, for others, no. I think genre is going to matter a lot, and how long you've been published, etc.
> 
> Calling anyone stupid for being in KU or not being in KU is really silly. Just because someone isn't making the same business decision as you, doesn't mean they're making a bad business decision for them. Unless you see their data, you really don't know.


I hope I didn't come across that way. I don't think anybody's stupid for making the best decision for them. In or out, whatever gives you the greatest benefit for your situation is the right choice. For YOU.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> I hope I didn't come across that way. I don't think anybody's stupid for making the best decision for them. In or out, whatever gives you the greatest benefit for your situation is the right choice. For YOU.


Oh, no, you didn't! Don't worry Rosalind, I've yet to see you not be tactful and kind.


----------



## Amber Rose (Jul 25, 2014)

Jim Johnson said:


> For the Google-challenged: http://violarivard.wordpress.com/


Hey, in my defence, I didn't know her last name. 

(and thanks!)


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Amber Rose said:


> Hey, in my defence, I didn't know her last name.
> 
> (and thanks!)


I didn't either. I googled 'viola kboards'. It's like magic!


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

Rosalind James said:


> I hope I didn't come across that way. I don't think anybody's stupid for making the best decision for them. In or out, whatever gives you the greatest benefit for your situation is the right choice. For YOU.


I guarantee that post wasn't directed at you, Rosalind. You've been a voice of calm in all of this. I couldn't agree with you more. YOU have to do what's best for YOU, based on YOUR data and experience. I'm gaining readership and financial reward from Select right now. Until I see otherwise, I'm staying the course.


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

"It's great to see common sense prevailing against the tide."

When I read this, I thought of a quote:

“Common sense is the most widely shared commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it.” 
― René Descartes

To each their own. KU makes sense to me, for me. I wouldn't dare tell anyone else that it does or doesn't make sense for them. I'll share my experiences and my data-backed analysis (of my own situation), and let others draw their own conclusions. Sharing.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> The only real criterion for anything in publishing (other than, obviously, ethical questions) is, "Is doing this making me more money?"


A far more important question is 'Will this allow me to keep making money in the long term?"

For everyone dancing and singing about volume and 'only 90 days' and 'you could totally win the lottery', I'm not hearing any looking forward to the future.

No, we keep hearing about how they'll 'adapt', and how we can't imagine what might be coming next, and how they can react instantly (where instantly here equals an ENTIRE BUSINESS QUARTER). No one is even giving token lip service to things literally every other business pumps millions of dollars into like trends, projections and market research. It's all reactionary with no proactive forecasting or preparation.

Everyone talks about how they'll deal with whatever bridge when they come to it, but in the midst of all his fight-picking DTW made one important (and I'm sure wholly unintentional) point: what happens when you finally come to that bridge and through all of our collective inaction, we've burned all the others?


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> It's great to see common sense prevailing against the tide.


Yes, I will stuff stupid amounts of stupid Amazon cash stupidly in my big, fat, stupid bank account and cry my stupid self to sleep.

The End.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> A far more important question is 'Will this allow me to keep making money in the long term?"
> 
> For everyone dancing and singing about volume and 'only 90 days' and 'you could totally win the lottery', I'm not hearing any looking forward to the future.
> 
> ...


Nope, this was also in my plans. I have other irons in the fire as well. I know this is an obnoxious thing to say, but I'll say it anyway. I'd put my marketing nose up against anybody's. It served me well in my professional career, and it hasn't steered me wrong so far in this one. The visibility I've received from being in Select has already resulted in three separate huge opportunities for me that have, yes, allowed me to put eggs into more baskets. So--it's all good.

But, of course, as I've said before many times--everyone should choose the path that they foresee as leading to their own greatest success, as much as we can foresee anything in this business (or in this world). Many roads can lead to success. There is no one "right way" to do this thing we do. Best of luck to all.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> A far more important question is 'Will this allow me to keep making money in the long term?"
> 
> For everyone dancing and singing about volume and 'only 90 days' and 'you could totally win the lottery', I'm not hearing any looking forward to the future.
> 
> ...


I'm just curious - what's your strategy?


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

This thread is interesting.  Most of the people who are complaining that people haven't been nice, spend most of their posts pontificating on how nice everyone should be.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are working it out.

Communication is more than just sunshine, roses and bunnies, people.

Honest communication is, anyway.

~~~

I'd like to join in with other people in this thread who have thanked the moderators for not interfering.  

This discussion, as a whole, has helped me reach a decision about Select.  Of course, that decision can change, but I feel comfortable for now.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

kward said:


> So opt out after 90 days and then you don't have to worry about it anymore.


What I'm saying is, your explanation is not a selling point.


----------



## scottmarlowe (Apr 22, 2010)

Steven Konkoly said:


> I'm gaining readership and financial reward from Select right now. Until I see otherwise, I'm staying the course.


This is really the crux for me. I'm doing better with Select than I do without it. I know. I've tried both ways. My data is pretty clear that I sell more with titles in Select than having those same titles out in the broader market.

For me, KU has been a bust. It isn't affecting my sales, but neither am I racking up the borrows like some others. Maybe it's fantasy, maybe it's me. I have no idea. I also don't particularly care/mind re Kindle All Stars. You go, All Stars. I've been on the All Star side of the fence in my corporate career plenty of times (and been on the other side, too), so I have no bad feelings towards Amazon's decision or towards those who are benefiting from it.

What really interests me about this whole thing is what are the other retailers planning to do about it? Nothing? Probably. But if they're at all serious about selling books (maybe they aren't), they need to step up.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Good point, Scott. One thing's for sure, right when we get comfortable with the "new normal"--BAM! That's where we're lucky to be indies, because, all right, each individual book is in Select for three months. But unless you enrolled all your books at once, you can probably start taking them out much faster than three months. I know mine are very staggered. And beyond that? We can turn on a dime and try something new. No committees, no bosses. That's a huge advantage.


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

Rosalind James said:


> Nope, this was also in my plans. I have other irons in the fire as well. I know this is an obnoxious thing to say, but I'll say it anyway. I'd put my marketing nose up against anybody's. It served me well in my professional career, and it hasn't steered me wrong so far. The visibility I've received from being in Select has already resulted in three separate huge opportunities for me that have, yes, allowed me to put eggs into more baskets. So--it's all good.
> 
> But, of course, as I've said before many times--everyone should choose the path that they foresee as leading to their own greatest success, as much as we can foresee anything in this business (or in this world). Many roads can lead to success. There is no one "right way" to do this thing we do. Best of luck to all.


Precisely my approach, Rosalind. Hardly a short term, "throw it against the wall and see what sticks strategy." Since my private corporation answers to a small group of shareholders (me, myself and I), I am free to reinvest my earnings, after paying said shareholders a salary, in the longer range vision. Foreign emerging market penetration (diversified through multiple selling platforms); expanded multi-media diversification (audiobooks); advertising and promotion opportunities that grow my mailing list, increase visibility and generate income; collaborations with other authors I would never have been able to access without visibility; the list is endless. In other words, generating steady income streams now and later. Raise cash now, invest in the future. Rinse, repeat. This isn't solely about diversifying to other platforms. It can't be.

Looking five years down the line, as Val suggests, I see no Barnes and Noble ebook market. Kobo might have better market penetration in Europe than Amazon, but who's selling a ton of English copies in Germany? If you're not translating your books right now, you're behind in that market. Translation costs big money ($5-8K), which I've raised through my short-term business objectives. By early 2015, I'll have two books in the German market, one published by Amazon Crossing (an opportunity I would not have gained without visibility) and one paid for and published by ME.

Same with audiobooks. Complain all you want about ACX, but the industry isn't going to reboot itself any time soon. ACX is the only affordable game in town and the only method of wide audiobook distribution. Will I have to settle for worse terms for future audiobooks published through ACX? Probably, but I have seven of my eight current titles locked in at the old rate...all of them paid for by short-term profits, and all of them paid off. They are nothing but income streams at this time.

What's the biggest gamble staying in Select? Borrow payout declines along with borrows, or some combination where I make less money in an income stream (borrows) that accounts for 15% of my total monthly take. Not all of it will disappear, so I feel insulated.

What's the biggest gamble being out of Select? No more perma-free. Who has insulated themselves from that? If Amazon is 50% of your income, and you're running your series with a perma-free, what happens then? I've heard nothing but tales of terror from writers (here), who have lost a perma-free due to Amazon quirks, only to have their Amazon sales of the supported series grind to a very slow pace.

Please don't assume that those in KU have no business sense or long term vision. Not everyone's vision will be the same, and not all of us will agree on strategy, but trust me, anyone hanging around these boards for long enough has gained the tools to help them guide their OWN future. And for the newer members, who are cutting their chops so to speak, they need to be exposed to all of these approaches, so they can determine their own path.

There's no shortage of readers out there, or ways to find them. Good luck!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

LisaGloria said:


> I'm just curious - what's your strategy?


Building a strong and loyal fandom by being as available and hassle-free as possible while keeping myself as completely open to opportunities as possible. This year, I'm making 8 times what I did last year purely thanks to the fact that I've been able to leap upon every opportunity that comes my way like a slasher villain on a promiscuous camp counselor.

And I'm going to be able to keep doing that while others are waiting for Countdown to finish cooling down and let them change their price, or can't put up stories on their site, or are out of free days.

If there's a sea change, I'm not going to have to wait 30, 60 or 89 days to do something about it; I'm going to deal with it the same day it happens.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

scottmarlowe said:


> What really interests me about this whole thing is what are the other retailers planning to do about it? Nothing? Probably. But if they're at all serious about selling books (maybe they aren't), they need to step up.


I was told, as I said earlier in this thread, according to an author who spoke to someone on the inside, that Apple is about to step it up.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Steven Konkoly said:


> Please don't assume that those in KU have no business sense or long term vision.


You yourself just laid out the failure of longterm thinking when it comes to Select. Who do you think are helping make sure there's no competition and they they'll have to eat worse terms? What program exists precisely to make that happen?

People shouldn't just be shrugging their shoulders and saying 'oh well, I'm just going to have to accept worse terms and lower income'. There's no reason we should HAVE to accept this crap. We're a third of Amazon's book sales. But no, we're just passively letting it happen while stealing from our future selves in the present.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> I was told, as I said earlier in this thread, according to an author who spoke to someone on the inside, that Apple is about to step it up.


I wonder if it's that Apple is adding iBooks to iOS 8 along with a bunch of free books. Hopefully it turns out better than the U2 debacle on their new iphones.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Jim Johnson said:


> I wonder if it's that Apple is adding iBooks to iOS 8 along with a bunch of free books. Hopefully it turns out better than the U2 debacle on their new iphones.


You may be interested to know that iBooks will also run on the latest version of OSX.



scottmarlowe said:


> What really interests me about this whole thing is what are the other retailers planning to do about it? Nothing? Probably. But if they're at all serious about selling books (maybe they aren't), they need to step up.


As Kindle Unlimited (and the All Star treatment it is now getting) is a response to Scribd and Oyster I think you have the question the wrong way round.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> You yourself just laid out the failure of longterm thinking when it comes to Select. Who do you think are helping make sure there's no competition and they they'll have to eat worse terms? What program exists precisely to make that happen?
> 
> People shouldn't just be shrugging their shoulders and saying 'oh well, I'm just going to have to accept worse terms and lower income'. There's no reason we should HAVE to accept this crap. We're a third of Amazon's book sales. But no, we're just passively letting it happen while stealing from our future selves in the present.


Are you the Pied Piper in disguise, Vaal, wishing us to leave Select for a better tomorrow which we, blind mice, cannot see?

Why can I not see "crap" and simply see another move by Amazon to increase their book business?

EC, watching non-passively to see how things unfold.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Mercia McMahon said:


> You may be interested to know that iBooks will also run on the latest version of OSX.


I guess that's good? I don't use Apple products other than an old nano iPod.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> Building a strong and loyal fandom by being as available and hassle-free as possible while keeping myself as completely open to opportunities as possible. This year, I'm making 8 times what I did last year purely thanks to the fact that I've been able to leap upon every opportunity that comes my way like a slasher villain on a promiscuous camp counselor.


Ok, Vaal. I'll call your bluff.

What you've said is logical, but does it convert into actual sales?

I made $3,800 in July when Kindle Unlimited arrived, $30 from Kobo, and chump change from the rest of the vendors. In August I made $2,700 from Amazon, $30 more from Kobo, and a pittance everywhere else. Neither amount is the most I've ever made, and many writers on this board make substantially more than I do. I publish short stories and have done ok despite juggling family and a full time job.

Instead of saying things like "I'm making 8 times what I did last year," give us some real numbers. This isn't meant as a slight; I just want to understand where you're coming from. When I look at your rankings, it doesn't appear like you're making any money, but I'd be happy to be wrong.

If your approach works, then indeed, your points should be considered.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

Hmm, where have I heard something similar before? Oh, yeah.



EC Sheedy said:


> Why can I not see "crap" and simply see another move by (Hachette*) to increase their book business?


*(insert is mine)


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

EC Sheedy said:


> Are you the Pied Piper in disguise, Vaal, wishing us to leave Select for a better tomorrow which we, blind mice, cannot see?


I'm trying really hard to untangle this mixed metaphor. The pied piper isn't a good thing, but the mice were brutally mutilated so...

I have no idea.


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> You yourself just laid out the failure of longterm thinking when it comes to Select. Who do you think are helping make sure there's no competition and they they'll have to eat worse terms? What program exists precisely to make that happen?


Select? Select fueled the rise of a new generation of self-published authors, many of whom left Select once their ships were built and sailed the diversified seas. Awesome! But why are those seas drying up, despite the influx of high selling authors and the continued presence of the Big 5 and all of their traditionally published books? It has nothing to do with Select. The sites more or less suck from an author and reader standpoint! End of story. I'd rather hawk books outside of the local grocery store than deal with Kobo. Probably sell more books, too!

Worse terms: That's my business, frankly. I don't know how to put this without ruffling feathers, but I don't plan on cutting off a steady income source that has helped me shape my career (short and long term) to keep the "competition" afloat. If you're worried that my outlook, and that of many authors seeing the same success on Select, will jeopardize your long term plan...time to reevaluate your plan, because I have no immediate plans to leave Select, and I just saw a thread dedicated to people leaving other platforms and sailing the Select seas.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

It's going to jeopardize YOUR longer term plan. You just got done talking about how ACX terms are awful but you have to take them. Take a wild guess what will happen to ebooks.

But no, good sales today, who cares about tomorrow?

Something, something, grasshoppers, ants.

And what is it with Amazon apologists and nautical analogies?!


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

I'll have to boil this down for myself: I'm making money where and when I can now, so I can invest and develop opportunities that will ensure long term income sources. If every other ebook platform disappears and ebook royalties drop at Amazon, I'll be fine. 

I'm a realist. There will be no mass exodus from Amazon that will FORCE them to do this or that. Not now. Not ever. 

And ACX terms are not awful. I just checked my last ACX statement. I think I'll keep playing in that sandbox. 

I predict you will say the same thing again, slightly tweaked.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

What opportunities do you even plan to develop if _every_ other platform disappears and royalties drop? You'll just be stuck in the same place you are with maybe some decent savings to live off of as your income declines.


----------



## scottmarlowe (Apr 22, 2010)

Joliedupre said:


> I was told, as I said earlier in this thread, according to an author who spoke to someone on the inside, that Apple is about to step it up.


I saw that. I really hope they've got something in the works that isn't tied into using only their native platform/tools.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

Jim Johnson said:


> I guess that's good? I don't use Apple products other than an old nano iPod.


I think any serious competition against Amazon is good for all of us, whether we're in Select or not. Right now there's other channels, but the only time I think about them is when I'm pissed at Amazon. I want to think about them when I'm NOT pissed at Amazon, too.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

Joliedupre said:


> I think any serious competition against Amazon is good for all of us, whether we're in Select or not. Right now there's other channels, but the only time I think about them is when I'm p*ssed at Amazon. I want to think about them when I'm NOT p*ssed at Amazon, too.


Right on. If anybody is missing the boat right now, it's GP. Why isn't that better yet?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

GP isn't better because they're new and thus missed the train for Mark Coker to punch them into being less awful.


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

Audiobooks, foreign ebook markets, paper sales, direct sales to reader list (growing rapidly due to visibility), a large backlist of titles and series successfully implemented on Amazon, along with branding in subsidiary non-fiction markets related to my fiction books.

If my ebook royalties were cut in half today, I wouldn't be happy, but I'd survive thanks to the investments I've made in non-ebook formats...without touching savings. Additionally, I'm also not the only one working in my family. I have back up, so I can afford to take some risks, though I really don't perceive my course as risky. 

I look at this picture every day. 

I think this discourse is very instructional. Everyone's circumstance is different, which is why it's important to understand that everyone arrives at their decision based on THEIR OWN set of circumstances.


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

LisaGloria said:


> My plan (though you didn't ask me, but whatever), if KU should fail or otherwise dump all my titles into a dark room from which they cannot be retrieved for republishing nor purchased by consumers:
> 
> - Write more and super fast. I have lots in the queue. It would take me about 2-3 months to replace the 26 I have out.
> - Publish elsewhere.
> ...


Another great point. Build a name now and publish on whatever platform survives the "mythical" war that will destroy all platforms. I did it once, I can do it again. Love the positive attitude, Lisa. This is the ultimate back up.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

Steven Konkoly said:


> And ACX terms are not awful. I just checked my last ACX statement. I think I'll keep playing in that sandbox.


Even with the reduced Whispersync royalty? I'm worried about that. I have a new audio book coming out this month. I'm doing royalty share, and I heard with Whispersync the royalty ends up being really low.

(Of course, it didn't stop my narrator from asking me if she could narrate my second book. So I guess the royalty adds up eventually.)


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

I haven't seen any of these hit my statements...as far as I can tell. My average royalty has been $6.75ish. Maybe someone else has seen the impact of this. This average has been the same for me since I started, with a few bumps due to the old program kicking up the royalty percentage for certain sales levels.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Steven Konkoly said:


> I haven't seen any of these hit my statements...as far as I can tell. My average royalty has been $6.75ish. Maybe someone else has seen the impact of this. This average has been the same for me since I started, with a few bumps due to the old program kicking up the royalty percentage for certain sales levels.


Ditto. Non-issue.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

Cool!  Good to know!


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Explain your question to me like I'm a five year old.


In total, did you earn more from borrows before KU, or after?

Just because the royalty on each borrow is down does not mean that you are earning less. If your books are being borrowed more often, you could still be earning more money from borrows than you were before, despite the lower royalty. As far as I know, that's been the experience of most indies so far.



Vaalingrade said:


> If there's a sea change, I'm not going to have to wait 30, 60 or 89 days to do something about it; I'm going to deal with it the same day it happens.


As long as it's not a sea change in favor of KDPS, eh? I'm not sure that's happened, but I'm also not sure it hasn't.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2014)

Dolphin said:


> In total, did you earn more from borrows before KU, or after?
> 
> Just because the royalty on each borrow is down does not mean that you are earning less. If your books are being borrowed more often, you could still be earning more money from borrows than you were before, despite the lower royalty. As far as I know, that's been the experience of most indies so far.


I wasn't in select before KU. But my concern is sales cannibalization. I'm much less worried about the other platforms as I am worried that where I would have had sales people are borrowing instead. This doesn't matter as long as the borrow royalty is close to the sale royalty, but if it goes low enough it doesn't become feasible.


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I wasn't in select before KU. But my concern is sales cannibalization. I'm much less worried about the other platforms as I am worried that where I would have had sales people are borrowing instead. This doesn't matter as long as the borrow royalty is close to the sale royalty, but if it goes low enough it doesn't become feasible.


Cannibalization is assumed, but there's no way to prove it without asking each person that borrowed if they would have bought if there was no KU.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> Cannibalization is assumed, but there's no way to prove it without asking each person that borrowed if they would have bought if there was no KU.


It's also quite possible that borrowers will become buyers. They may buy a book they borrowed in order to reread it later (or simply to collect their favorites), or they may buy other books from your catalog after discovering you through a borrow.

We don't worry about permafree cannibalizing sales, because we know from long experience that the sales they generate far outstrips the sales they cannibalize. It's too early to say whether or not that's true for KU, but it certainly could be. It's not necessarily true that borrows diminish sales.


----------



## hankgarner (Apr 30, 2014)

I think this is appropriate to the discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> I like lots of data, large samples, and long timelines. This last bit we have none of.


My long timeline is why exclusivity makes me edgy. I just left a comment on Hugh's blog to that effect.

In 25+ years in publishing I've made a lot of choices. Even more, as an active member of the writing community for all those years, I've known the details of and watched the results of thousands and thousands of choices. I don't have the stats, but I do have the observational skills to say that choices/changes that narrow authors' future options are far, far, far less beneficial in the long-range than those that keep them as open as possible.

Some changes/choices we have little to no control over. In the traditional world that included the consolidation of distributors and the (still ongoing) consolidation of publishers. These were decisions made by businesses for the benefit of those individual businesses. Neither trend has been a good thing for authors. Both contributed to many, many authors' earnings dropping (while, yes, some individuals did very well.)

In my view one of the joys of indie is that it broke the exclusivity stranglehold that traditional publishers have had on authors. With indie we've had choices. We've had control.

I will not discuss details because I agreed not to. But anyone who looks at my books can see the fact that I have 3 of my 30+ titles in Select. It's an ongoing experiment. I agreed, because I wanted to see from the inside what had made me so uncomfortable from the outside.

But I'm definitely edgy. Not for myself, but for the future for authors.

Look, in another 25 years, I probably won't be here ... No, wait. What am I saying? Of course, I'll be here. Still writing, too. But possibly beginning on the downslope of my career. That I'll give you. ... Anyway, my approach and view are not going to be the same as someone starting out or someone who is not a survivor of traditional publishing.

I know that my top priority in writing is to write what I want to write. If what I want to write doesn't sell as well as things I don't want to write, then I won't make as much money as those writing other things. My decision, and I'm fine with that.

I'm realizing from this discussion and my reactions to it that another priority is to have the control of selling in many outlets. Some might make more money going another way than I do by diversifying, and I'm fine with that.

So, I'm good with making my choices in favor of more control, even if I make less money that way. In 25 years (barring disasters!) I'll still be doing what's most important to me -- writing what I want to write.

But I am concerned about where authors will be in 25 years. From my experience, the road paved with exclusivity has not led anywhere good for authors as a whole.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Patricia McLinn said:


> My long timeline is why exclusivity makes me edgy. I just left a comment on Hugh's blog to that effect.
> 
> In 25+ years in publishing I've made a lot of choices. Even more, as an active member of the writing community for all those years, I've known the details of and watched the results of thousands and thousands of choices. I don't have the stats, but I do have the observational skills to say that choices/changes that narrow authors' future options are far, far, far less beneficial in the long-range than those that keep them as open as possible.
> 
> ...


Bingo. It's kind of like Monsanto. Go ahead and eat the food. It's good for you. 

I am also against exclusivity. Even so, when with a publisher I had to put one of my books in Select. As I suspected, it sucked. Since I don't write romance it didn't do anything. When I left the publisher I moved my book back to other vendors. Guess what? Half of my sales now come from Apple and B&N. Nope, I don't sell much, but better than I used to. It's building and I want it built on several platforms.

Still, to be fair, I moved my erotica under a pen name to Select at the end of August. So many people said it was good for erotica. Guess what? Seven books died. Sales at Amazon? Zero. I had sales before. Borrows? 4. Wow. 4? Plus, I no longer had sales coming in from B&N and Are, and those were better than Amazon anyway.

Since someone here said all you had to do was ask, I emailed 2 days ago and asked to be taken out of Select. They were kind enough to release my books and now they are back everywhere I want them.

Never again. Someone here mentioned Vaal being the Pied Piper. He isn't the Pied Piper, folks, Amazon is. It might taste good now, but in the future it won't be so delightful. It depends on if you want to be the tortoise or the hare. My mom warned me long ago not to accept candy from strangers. Amazon may not seem like a stranger, but they aren't your friend or family, either. They don't care if you survive in this business or not. They care if they survive. That's business. And I fully understand you make your decisions based on your business. Just make sure you aren't making short-term business decisions that hurt your future.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Dolphin said:


> It's also quite possible that borrowers will become buyers. They may buy a book they borrowed in order to reread it later (or simply to collect their favorites), or they may buy other books from your catalog after discovering you through a borrow.


For whatever it's worth, I hope I'm not the only KU user to borrow a book and then also buy it. Not so much to have a copy of it, but to give the author a double-dip--both the borrow share and the purchase. I've only done this on a few of the 50-odd KU books I've borrowed, probably less than 10%, but I felt the authors deserved it.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

Once I had to start returning books, I had to do it too. That Wool omnibus is taking a while to get through.


----------



## Molly Tomorrow (Jul 22, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> What opportunities do you even plan to develop if _every_ other platform disappears and royalties drop?


I'd probably be too busy stockpiling for the apocalypse if Apple and Google both disappeared within the space of 90 days to care!

This isn't going to happen. It would be absurd to make business decisions based on this .


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

Being exclusive does NOT mean all your eggs are in one basket, nor does it remove your choices. Any time I feel it's better to no longer be exclusive to one retailer, I'll branch out. I was spread out before and can do it again, with just a few hours' work. Right now, it's better for me, from a monetary point of view, to take advantage of the tools exclusivity with Amazon provides. Provides for me. Nobody else. I only make business decisions for me, everyone else is on their own. Is it a fit for everyone else? I don't know, that's something each business, and make no mistake you are a business, must make for themselves.  

Having worked in the business world for 30 years (construction and trucking businesses, but the basics are the same) I know better than to make any business decision based on narrow data. Sales and trends change constantly and making any business decision based on a few days, weeks, or even a month of data will often come back to bite you. I prefer to look at data by the quarter, where the lines tend to smooth out and long term trends can be followed. Most anyone with a head for business will tell you the same thing. Jumping quickly, you often miss the boat and end up in the water.

What do you know? The Select period is designed with quarterly agreements. Sounds like logical business planning.


----------



## wordsicle (Sep 5, 2014)

I'm new and I'm going to experiment with Select.

I agree with you guys. Diversification is important. It's probably the MOST important thing you can do if you're treating your writing like a business. But I'm new. I don't have any business to protect. I'm going to take advantage of the Amazon programs because I don't stand to benefit a lot from being on Kobo or iBooks yet.

This kind of leads me back to Gaughran's posts near the beginning of this thread, though. The benefits of Select seem to be primarily for the new authors. Which means that them piling money out of the pool and giving it to the top authors in the program is bad for me. But it also means that they finally have an incentive for the top authors to stick with Select when the novelty period has ended.

It's a good move for them. It's just a crap move for the rest of us.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I'm not that new an author. I hear this a lot, but if I'm saying, Wayne's saying, friggin' Hugh HOWEY is saying that we're getting benefits from Select, I'm not sure it's true.


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> I'm not that new an author. I hear this a lot, but if I'm saying, Wayne's saying, friggin' Hugh HOWEY is saying that we're getting benefits from Select, I'm not sure it's true.


Actually, everything I just wrote was a crock, but it sounded good. I just do whatever Rosalind and Hugh do.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Man, I've been taking your name in vain a lot lately, haven't I, Wayne? Sorry. I don't speak for Wayne, everybody. He's more than capable of speaking for himself.  It's just that I feel like he's a bit of a kindred spirit, since our journeys have been kind of similar. (Well, except the Marine part. And the truck driving. Wait. Oh, well.)


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

Rosalind James said:


> I'm not that new an author. I hear this a lot, but if I'm saying, Wayne's saying, friggin' Hugh HOWEY is saying that we're getting benefits from Select, I'm not sure it's true.


Ditto. I published my first ebook in fall of 2010. Select works fine for me.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Steven Konkoly said:


> Ditto. I published my first ebook in fall of 2010. Select works fine for me.


[Amended. And Steve's saying!]


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Molly Tomorrow said:


> I'd probably be too busy stockpiling for the apocalypse if Apple and Google both disappeared within the space of 90 days to care!
> 
> This isn't going to happen. It would be absurd to make business decisions based on this.


I'm not the one who said they would. That was his comment that he's somehow preparing for every other sales channel to kerplode.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Also, no offense, Rosalind, but the three people you're pointing out are people who Amazon made a point of making whole with this All Star thing after slashing your payouts because your books are popular enough to be making them money. Most people aren't going to be compensated (because the subscription model doesn't work and even Amazon can't afford to pay everyone fairly for it. But hey, maybe AliBaba will!).


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> I'm not the one who said they would. That was his comment that he's somehow preparing for every other sales channel to kerplode.


You posed the question, Val. I answered. Guess how much I would lose right now if every other ebook channel kerploded. ZERO. And that ain't no Derp-talk. Of course, I would have to buy a new phone and get used to a different search engine, but beyond that...ZERO.

I don't want this to happen, but right now...not a problem for me. Let me beat you to your repetitive response.

"But you're making this happen by staying in Select."

Here's the harsh truth. You will never convince anyone to abandon Select to save the collective ebook platform universe. Nobody buys the endangerment theory. Select didn't destroy other platforms. Only Amazon will convince people to abandon Select. Some have left, some have joined. Some have come back. My bet is more have been added to the roster than departed.

You will never convince anyone that what Amazon has done so far deserves abandonment. Only Amazon can do that by truly screwing over writers. That hasn't happened, in my opinion. One opinion in a sea of many.

You can tell me my payouts have been slashed all day, and I'll look at my sales report and say...yes, I only got 1.54 per borrow, which is lower than before, but I had 3X as many borrows due to the new program...yielding me 2.5X the money and more readership than before. My Mailchimp list has seen double enrollment since KU. Not a screw over. This can go on and on, and I suspect it will.

And to set the record straight. I did not earn a payout...but I feel very whole right now.


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> Being exclusive does NOT mean all your eggs are in one basket


Wayne, you seem like a very nice person, but this stopped me. How could it possibly NOT mean having all your eggs in one basket for the period of exclusivity? That's the definition of exclusivity.



> nor does it remove your choices. Any time I feel it's better to no longer be exclusive to one retailer, I'll branch out.


It does remove your choices for the period of exclusivity. Beyond that, you are assuming that the options of other retailers will still be there if/when you want to change your choice because it will benefit you. Most likely some will endure. I'm not advocating supporting other retailers at all costs. However, I also believe authors need to be realistic in recognizing that they're part of this eco system, too. The choices we make now could limit the choices we have later.

Maybe they won't, which would be lovely. My experience says otherwise.

Guess we'll reconvene in 25 years and see what happened in the interim.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

When I saw this big free ad for Wayne it confirmed my worst fears about just how much All Stars is a complete denial of the Amazon claim only two months ago that KU would increase visibility for the lesser lights. That and not the bonus payments were what led me demand and get an immediate non-exclusive exit from Select. Amazon give the impression of making this up as they go along. Pleased that if some have to be All Stars a few I know from here are among that number, but I am glad to be heading back to wide sales distribution and Scribd.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=amb_link_424800502_4?ie=UTF8&docId=1002989601&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=hero-quick-promo&pf_rd_r=1V3TM5R2S88R4EZGJ1CQ&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=1920909902&pf_rd_i=B00HUZ4PS6


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Also, no offense, Rosalind, but the three people you're pointing out are people who Amazon made a point of making whole with this All Star thing after slashing your payouts because your books are popular enough to be making them money. Most people aren't going to be compensated (because the subscription model doesn't work and even Amazon can't afford to pay everyone fairly for it. But hey, maybe AliBaba will!).


I still made 3x as much on borrows in August as in June without my bonus, Vaal. I said the same things I've said about the bonus before I knew I would be receiving one--that it was a good thing to keep top-borrowed authors in the program, even though I wouldn't be getting as much per borrow. Because in DOLLAR terms, I made three times as much on borrows. That's what matters to me, rather than the payment per borrow. The bonus was nice, don't get me wrong, but the dollars are what matters.


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Also, no offense, Rosalind, but the three people you're pointing out are people who Amazon made a point of making whole with this All Star thing after slashing your payouts because your books are popular enough to be making them money. Most people aren't going to be compensated (because the subscription model doesn't work and even Amazon can't afford to pay everyone fairly for it. But hey, maybe AliBaba will!).


Love it when people start a sentence with "No offense", then go straight to offending.

Making whole?

Amazon had absolutely nothing to do with my earning over $20K last month. Outside of the fact that they're my retailer of choice.

Slashing payouts? Sorry, not seeing that either.

I'm betting that having an all around negative attitude about, well, everything as far as I can see, here on a public forum viewed by readers has nothing to do with anything either. No, I'm sure you're just one of the repressed few that "the man" keeps kicking down.


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> I'm betting that having an all around negative attitude about, well, everything as far as I can see, here on a public forum viewed by readers has nothing to do with anything either.


One of the best things I have read in this whole, extremely entertaining thread. 
Would probably serve us all well to keep this in mind. 
I am going to sign up for KU right now, just so I can borrow Wayne's books.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

I'm right there with you Wayne. I'm not some big-time all star king either. My books are ALL decidedly mid-list and I cleared the better part of 15k last month because of KU.

Far as I'm concerned, KU is an effective tool. I've used it to build my brand and I'm benefiting from it. If someone chooses not to use the tool, that's their choice. KU isn't only for the people sitting at the tippy-top of the list. In my opinion, it is one of the very best tools Amazon has ever given us (if not THE best tool) to achieve visibility and sell books -right now-. Amazon threw a ladder down, and you can choose whether or not you want to climb it. Don't get angry at people standing on top of the ladder - they climbed it and they earned their position.

And if you decide you want to try some other ladder, and diversify, that's your business. Do what you think is best for your catalog.

If I was starting a new pen name today, I would use KU to push it. Absolutely no question. KU isn't just feeding the kings. KU is a KING MAKER on Amazon, and Amazon is a huge market that can be cracked with intelligent releases and planning. When and if that balance shifts, I will happily diversify my catalog elsewhere.


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

Steven Konkoly said:


> Here's the harsh truth. You will never convince anyone to abandon Select to save the collective ebook platform universe.


He's right.

And I am thunking my head on the desk. What ~have~ I been thinking? Truly. It was like creating an LLC so things would be easier on my heirs. Should have just let them struggle instead of taking on all that work. What ~was~ I thinking?

Those of us who have concerns about the overall future are not going to persuade those who are focusing on what they see as making max hay as long as the Amazon sun shines (Not, NOT, NOT saying the poster quoted above said that -- I'm paraphrasing another poster on a related thread.)

And, while I do have those pesky concerns for the overall future, this could be a Very Good Thing in the short-term for those who are diversified. Since we can't tend the long-term on our own, all we've got left is the short-term. So ...

I'm changing my tune.

EVERYBODY should put all their books in Select and keep them all there. Do it right now. Everybody. Quick. All your books. Over there. Only place where there's any hay all. So do it fast. No, no, don't look over here. Or there. Or that other place. Nope. Only one place. So everybody jump right on in -- all in. Right now. Exactly like that. Yup, that's good. Really good.

Thank you!

Edited to fix a typo


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I think the point is ... For me, KU is just the latest thing. Select made my career, starting one big week in, when I put the first book up for free for 3 days and got 14,000 downloads. That was fall 2012, when "free" and Select had "stopped working." I had 2,000 SALES at $3.99 in my first month thanks to Select. In my fifth month, I had 20,000 sales, because I put that book up for free again and got almost 100,000 downloads in five days. Because of Select. After the algorithms had been changed--in 2013.

Every time I've thought of getting out of it, something has happened to change my mind. I was a nothing nobody from nowhere. Select built my career. Yes, I was lucky. And yes, I'm grateful--to my readers, and to Amazon. I know Amazon isn't doing this for me out of the kindness of their hearts. I'm a businessperson. I was an executive, got the framed MBA diploma and all that good stuff. I'm in it because it's worked for me. Will it work for everybody? Clearly not. Some people are better off out. But some are better off in. It's going to depend on genre, and your books, and whether you already have a platform elsewhere, and your goals, and all sorts of other things. Everybody gets to decide, and isn't that a wonderful thing?

Being vehement again. Time to go write books. But I do want to disabuse anybody of the notion that somehow I'm "special." I'm not any more special than anybody here. I didn't start off with any secret weapons or knowing any secret handshakes (or anybody in the business). I started from ... not even Square One. Square ZERO. And it worked. That tells me that it CAN work for other people too, because I'm not the only one.

[Edited to add: I want to make it very clear that I'm not trying to tell anyone they "should" be in Select. My least favorite thing is when people imply that somebody else is stupid not to make X or Y decision. We're all smart people here. Everyone knows their own books and goals best. Do what's right for YOU. I'm only sharing what has been the case for ME, in case it is helpful.]


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Tempers are running a bit hot...let's lighten up.  Vaal, ease up.  I'd hate to have to put anyone on post approval as, being on vacation, it might take awhile for me to approve them.  

Let's stop name calling and personal characterizations.  Ann may do more when she reads the reports...

EDIT:  And, to clarify, there's been snark from a number of sources.  The snark alarms have been going off big time.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

[/quote]


Mercia McMahon said:


> When I saw this big free ad for Wayne it confirmed my worst fears about just how much All Stars is a complete denial of the Amazon claim only two months ago that KU would increase visibility for the lesser lights. That and not the bonus payments were what led me demand and get an immediate non-exclusive exit from Select. Amazon give the impression of making this up as they go along. Pleased that if some have to be All Stars a few I know from here are among that number, but I am glad to be heading back to wide sales distribution and Scribd.


Wayne, first a hearty congratulations...with no strings attached. Well, I do have a question. Would it be fair to say that you weren't a crazy KDP, rock and rolling sales machine before August? You don't have to answer. Anyone who has read your numerous posts in full, before going red-eyed rage crazy, knows that you are a classic underdog story.

Thinking that KU will only help the rich and famous is not accurate. Equating better visibility to Wayne's level of KU awesomeness (outside of the payouts) is not accurate.


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

Patricia McLinn said:


> Those of us who have concerns about the overall future are not going to persuade those who are focusing on what they see as making max hay as long as the Amazon sun shines


You can talk all you want about what is good for the future of the ebook ecosystem. I'd wager the reason most of the KU bashers want to stay diversified is because they are making money on those other platforms. In fact, that has been said in numerous places in the thread as the number one reason people dropped out of Select: to make more money elsewhere.

And good for them! I would never try to talk them out of changing what is working for them. I don't see anyone on here suggesting that they should pull all their books and put them in Select.

Why doesn't that seem true the other way? Why so much venom towards those who choose Select as the tool that is working for them?

For some authors in Select, dropping out would cut their sales in half, maybe more. Some of them rely on that money to put food on the table.

Can you honestly say that you would take a 50% pay cut for the good of the ebook industry? Really? Would you put the welfare of your family behind the needs of Apple and B&N?

How about these companies that need our help step up and innovate some programs that will make it worthwhile for authors to choose them over Amazon? Do you think for one minute that Apple couldn't give Amazon a run for its money in the ebook market if they wanted to? Apple does not need our help!

Also, Amazon wasn't always here, and they won't always be around. Just because they seem like a juggernaut now, doesn't mean someone won't come up with a better way to consume books.

Even if Amazon drives the major competitors under, it would never be in their best interest to screw over authors to the point that we can no longer make a living at it. Then they wouldn't have anything to sell!

There have always been people who tell stories. There have always been people willing to pay for them. And there always will be.


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

Hi Steven,

I'm trying to figure out why you quoted my post in your reply? There doesn't seem to be a connection. I didn't mention Wayne, didn't mean Wayne, wasn't thinking of Wayne. And surely you weren't implying that I was a victim of "red-eyed rage" -- not after I said you were right!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> *Being exclusive does NOT mean all your eggs are in one basket, nor does it remove your choices. Any time I feel it's better to no longer be exclusive to one retailer, I'll branch out. I was spread out before and can do it again, with just a few hours' work. Right now, it's better for me, from a monetary point of view, to take advantage of the tools exclusivity with Amazon provides. Provides for me. Nobody else. I only make business decisions for me, everyone else is on their own. Is it a fit for everyone else? I don't know, that's something each business, and make no mistake you are a business, must make for themselves. *
> 
> Having worked in the business world for 30 years (construction and trucking businesses, but the basics are the same) I know better than to make any business decision based on narrow data. Sales and trends change constantly and making any business decision based on a few days, weeks, or even a month of data will often come back to bite you. I prefer to look at data by the quarter, where the lines tend to smooth out and long term trends can be followed. Most anyone with a head for business will tell you the same thing. Jumping quickly, you often miss the boat and end up in the water.
> 
> What do you know? The Select period is designed with quarterly agreements. Sounds like logical business planning.


This. So, so this.


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

I hit the wrong quote button and it added your entire post into that response. I modified it. You're eyes might be pinkish right now.


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

Hi Voelker,

I hope you'll go read my posts earlier in the thread if you're interested in my views. I've been in publishing a long time, seen a lot, formed opinions. I'm not going to bore folks here by repeating them. 

Will say there's no "venom." None. I think the discussion would be more beneficial to all without such characterizations.


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

Steven Konkoly said:


> I hit the wrong quote button and it added your entire post into that response. I modified it. You're eyes might be pinkish right now.


Nah, just blurry. ;-)


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

Patricia McLinn said:


> Nah, just blurry. ;-)


No kidding. It's all good.


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

Can anybody explain this line from Amazon's All-Star announcement:

"Finally, many authors outside the U.S. derive most of their qualified borrows from the KOLL and have not been able to benefit from the growth of KU. This has meaningfully altered their ability to compete within the wider pool of KDPS loans."

How have we not been able to benefit or compete? As long as our books are enrolled in KDPS, KU subscribers can borrow them.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2014)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> Being exclusive does NOT mean all your eggs are in one basket, nor does it remove your choices. Any time I feel it's better to no longer be exclusive to one retailer, I'll branch out. I was spread out before and can do it again, with just a few hours' work. Right now, it's better for me, from a monetary point of view, to take advantage of the tools exclusivity with Amazon provides. Provides for me. Nobody else. I only make business decisions for me, everyone else is on their own. Is it a fit for everyone else? I don't know, that's something each business, and make no mistake you are a business, must make for themselves.
> 
> Having worked in the business world for 30 years (construction and trucking businesses, but the basics are the same) I know better than to make any business decision based on narrow data. Sales and trends change constantly and making any business decision based on a few days, weeks, or even a month of data will often come back to bite you. I prefer to look at data by the quarter, where the lines tend to smooth out and long term trends can be followed. Most anyone with a head for business will tell you the same thing. Jumping quickly, you often miss the boat and end up in the water.
> 
> What do you know? The Select period is designed with quarterly agreements. Sounds like logical business planning.


Wayne, you're doing great in Select, and you don't spend your time chastising people for not being in Select. You mind your own business; you let us know about your successes in hopes of motivating others, and you go on with your life.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> That tells me that it CAN work for other people too, because I'm not the only one.


Right. You're not the only one. There are other people who are making it work, and there will be more people who will join that group. I, for one, am not looking at your status as something that is unattainable for me. Other people may think that way about their writing careers, but I don't.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Rayven T. Hill said:


> Can anybody explain this line from Amazon's All-Star announcement:
> 
> "Finally, many authors outside the U.S. derive most of their qualified borrows from the KOLL and have not been able to benefit from the growth of KU. This has meaningfully altered their ability to compete within the wider pool of KDPS loans."
> 
> How have we not been able to benefit or compete? As long as our books are enrolled in KDPS, KU subscribers can borrow them.


KU is US-only at the moment and US audiences don't read all that many French, Germen or Italian-language books, so they're not getting any borrows aside from KOLL.

This is less a UK thing as the other European publishers. Though it is weird they're not extending the same courtesy to Brazil, Japan and Mexico.


----------



## bluwulf (Feb 1, 2014)

bobfrost said:


> If I was starting a new pen name today, I would use KU to push it. Absolutely no question. KU isn't just feeding the kings. KU is a KING MAKER on Amazon, and Amazon is a huge market that can be cracked with intelligent releases and planning. When and if that balance shifts, I will happily diversify my catalog elsewhere.


THANK YOU for this! I am going to be publishing my first series soon and I have been so confused about whether not to join KU. You helped me make that decision - with some help from Wayne, Rosalind and Viola.


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

Steven Konkoly said:


> Would it be fair to say that you weren't a crazy KDP, rock and rolling sales machine before August?


Not really. My sales have steadily risen every single month since I published my first book. Mostly by adding a new book every three months. I started the year at about 2000 sales in January, building steadily to over 6000 in July. It took from March to July and three ads to figure out the best way to maximize BookBub results. My ad, fortuitously placed on 8/1, had much more to do with August sales than being in Select did. September so far is very lackluster and will probably be less than July, way less than August.

But hey, Rocktober is just around the corner. I have my 5th book being released on 10/4 and a BookBub ad on 10/7, running in conjunction with Countdown Deals on all four of the older titles and a special price on the new one. All five for under five bucks. I'm shooting for 5000 sales in one day.


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> KU is US-only at the moment and US audiences don't read all that many French, Germen or Italian-language books, so they're not getting any borrows aside from KOLL.
> 
> This is less a UK thing as the other European publishers. Though it is weird they're not extending the same courtesy to Brazil, Japan and Mexico.


I'm not so sure they are referring to foreign language books. If they were, wouldn't they have specifically said so? rather than just authors outside the US?


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Rayven T. Hill said:


> I'm not so sure they are referring to foreign language books. If they were, wouldn't they have specifically said so? rather than just authors outside the US?


Maybe KDP expect US authors to be forming 10% clubs to boost their earnings by reading each others' books and as non-US authors can't join KU they cannot indulge in such practices


----------



## Amber Rose (Jul 25, 2014)

Rayven T. Hill said:


> I'm not so sure they are referring to foreign language books. If they were, wouldn't they have specifically said so? rather than just authors outside the US?


It doesn't just refer to foreign language books. Authors who are outside the US and promote themselves (say with a book reading) within their own country can't, for instance, invite their local fans/readers to borrow their books. The only option is for the fans/readers to buy the books. I am not sure that increasing the pot by $80k fixes this,....but that's Amazon for you.


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

People are understandably upset about the All-Star program, because Amazon is being vague about what role it had to play in the new smaller payout.
I actually don't see it that way. 
I think this whole thing is to see how low Amazon can go, without Authors taking a walk away from Select. 
From what I'm hearing, $1.50 is where people will still be willing to stay, because for _most_ (though certainly not all) the increased borrows from KU is too good to pass up right now. 
Seriously, I see the programs as two separate entities. 
1. Amazon testing most profitable payout for them
2. Introducing New incentive to good selling authors to stay in Select. 
Also, many author's report ebook distribution with Amazon having close to or over 70% of their sales.
For many people, the possibility of joining Select/ KU now should be on their minds. Many may very well make that other 30% with borrows.

I'm still a starting off author. And to me, Select seems like the best place to be, at least until you have that mythical  3rd (or 5th) book.
Seems like the best place to build a fan base. There is even some early indication that KU may be showing signs of replacing the perma-free. 
(By replacing, I mean KU is removing that barrier that until now only perma-free offered)

As the market changes, find ways to use it to your benefit. 
I absolutely see the opportunity for KU to take me some place that it would've taken me longer to get to, without it. 
It feel like adding a jetpack to a tugboat...(You know what I mean  )
Even with that said, I will probably diversify a second series, just to test the waters.
Nothing in this business offers permanence, and I can't even pretend to know the best path for everyone. 
Gotta admit the All-Stars are on an awesome one! Congrats Wayne, Hugh, and Rosalind!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I've been puzzling over the KDP All-Stars thing.

"Hey, you've been super-successful, so here's even more money and even more promotion."

*sigh*

The danger here, I think, is it could end up creating an elite class of indies, just as trad-publishing has done with their superstars, like Stephen King, James Patterson, et. al.

And the midlist folks and lower get pushed even lower.

I understand the general motive, though: not wanting those doing really well to go away/go wide.

But one would think that the very volume of sales achieved by the Top 100 KDP authors is, in itself, plenty of reward already. They DO work hard to earn that success, after all.

Someone who achieves 5,000 borrows, though, is already making a LOT more than another writer with 5 borrows, so that's where I feel like, "why line their pockets even deeper?" 5,000 is great already! Super, in fact... but add a bonus in, and do they lose the motivation and drive that helped 'em get there?

I have no idea, but it is a question...

Ahh, well. I'm glad for those who make the cut, at least.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Patricia McLinn said:


> It does remove your choices for the period of exclusivity. Beyond that, you are assuming that the options of other retailers will still be there if/when you want to change your choice because it will benefit you. Most likely some will endure. I'm not advocating supporting other retailers at all costs. However, I also believe authors need to be realistic in recognizing that they're part of this eco system, too. The choices we make now could limit the choices we have later.


I want to repeat that other retailers are not dying off because indies refuse to publish with them, but because customers refuse to buy from them. That has nothing to do with us. Because they do a poor job of serving their customers (relative to Amazon), they are typically very poor markets for indies (relative to Amazon). We shouldn't be subsidizing their failures any more than customers should.

We can't save Amazon's competition from themselves. If they're going to go under, they'll do it with or without us. Our only obligation is to grow our own businesses--an obligation which applies equally to Amazon and its competitors.



Patricia McLinn said:


> Guess we'll reconvene in 25 years and see what happened in the interim.


Frankly, I think worrying about 25 years from now is exactly the wrong idea. How could you possibly have planned for today back in 1989? How about in 1999? 2009, even?

I'm not sure that it's worthwhile to worry any further into the future than your production schedule. Every few months, indies are having to adjust to major shifts in the marketplace, and that's not going to stop anytime soon. We might have notional goals, targets, dreams, but I don't think it makes much sense to claim that distributing to Kobo, B&N, and somehow Apple helps you prepare for the future.

The best provision for the future is an established brand and deep pockets. Through Amazon, authors like Hugh and Rosalind have built something that Amazon couldn't take away if they tried--certainly not by merely cutting them out of KDPS--and they've made themselves excellent partners for the big fish as well. They're protected against the future because they're successful in the present. The fruits of that success may be diminished if Amazon spazzes out and starts biting the hands that have fed it, but I think they'd survive just fine.

Success in the present sets you up for success in the future. The one flows into the other, and the thing about making hay while the sun shines is that Amazon can't take your hay away from you. They can't take your mailing list. They can't empty your bank account. They can't take Wayne's new (but previously owned!) truck. They can't take your house, if you're successful enough to buy one of those. Unlike a publisher, they can't even take your _books._ All they can take away are the very perks that folks leave on the table by going wide: improved visibility with the world's largest online retailer and borrow revenues. The overall crackdown on indy royalties, the Spotification of indy publishing, will come whether or not you participate in the boom times...or it may never come at all. For many of us, I'm increasingly convinced that participating in KDPS is wise in the meantime.



CraigInOregon said:


> I have no idea, but it is a question...


I think they probably want to encourage people to publish lottery tickets. And like Hugh said, evangelize for KU. H.M. Ward did it. That could be worth quite a few bounties right there.

Also--and I think this is a new spin on it--it's a way to _soften_ the blow of reduced per unit royalties. Suppose that the borrow pot for this month was a given. It's gonna be $1.54 a pop, that's the deal, rip off the bandaid now instead of making people think that we're going to start throwing $10m a month at this thing just to buoy up per unit royalties. What might we, Amazon, do in order to soften the blow? How about a new incentive program that sort of, kind of gamifies publishing and encourages our indies to compete? Sounds splendid!

Obviously the message has been received less well in some quarters. One possible explanation, though.

I feel sure the thinking wasn't "HEY I WONDER HOW WE CAN BE JERKS AND ALIENATE PEOPLE." I'd admit that I'd sort of respect their moxie if it was.


----------



## David Wisehart (Mar 2, 2010)

CraigInOregon said:


> The danger here, I think, is it could end up creating an elite class of indies, just as trad-publishing has done with their superstars, like Stephen King, James Patterson, et. al.


This seems to be the intent. They're calling it "All-Stars" for a reason.

It's another bestseller list that Amazon is marketing to readers, as a way for readers to discover new authors.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

David Wisehart said:


> It's another bestseller list that Amazon is marketing to readers, as a way for readers to discover new authors.


Or Amazon's clever ruse to make it look like KU has the same range of bestsellers as Oyster or Scribd.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> A far more important question is 'Will this allow me to keep making money in the long term?"
> 
> For everyone dancing and singing about volume and 'only 90 days' and 'you could totally win the lottery', I'm not hearing any looking forward to the future.
> 
> ...


The problem with your logic is that it doesn't address the reality that whatever is going to happen will happen regardless what each of us as individuals do. It is the collective that will determine what happens, and no matter how much you preach from your soapbox, that's not going to change. We don't function as a single unit because each individual author is going to put their own needs ahead of the group every single time. Which is only natural. As in politics and government, the systems that expect humans to act against their own best interests have the largest rate of failure.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

swolf said:


> The problem with your logic is that it doesn't address the reality that . . . as in politics and government, the systems that expect humans to act against their own best interests have the largest rate of failure.


Condemned by your own words 

It all depends on what you regard as your own best interests. For some it is about maximizing the hay harvest for others it is being on what they view as the more ethical side. The notion that individuals only act out of personal self-interest is a long-disproved political fallacy. The notion that different people have different ethical outlooks is a fact the acceptance of which tends to make online lives easier.


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

"For some it is about maximizing the hay harvest for others it is being on what they view as the more ethical side."

What THEY view as the more ethical side=What YOU view as the more ethical side=those in KU are less ethical=this didn't work for ME so everyone seeing success in KU must be unethical.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Voelker58 said:


> You can talk all you want about what is good for the future of the ebook ecosystem. I'd wager the reason most of the KU bashers want to stay diversified is because they are making money on those other platforms. In fact, that has been said in numerous places in the thread as the number one reason people dropped out of Select: to make more money elsewhere.
> 
> And good for them! I would never try to talk them out of changing what is working for them. I don't see anyone on here suggesting that they should pull all their books and put them in Select.
> 
> ...


Excellent post. Am I thrilled with all aspects of KU? No. But as of now, I actually have some hope that I will continue to sell books. Despite putting out two novels in the first half of the year (that's good for me--I'm a slow writer), I didn't see that magical jump in sales that's supposed to happen when a series gets a new book. Also, because of declining sales prior to that, I didn't have the money to do a big launch with lots of advertising. After a decent initial launch, sales of all my books plummeted in April. Coincidentally, that was the same month I let Select expire and didn't renew it. I put them up on other channels and had some sales in May and June, but they were slowing there, not increasing, just before KU was launched. It was a no-brainer to get back into Select.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Condemned by your own words
> 
> It all depends on what you regard as your own best interests. For some it is about maximizing the hay harvest for others it is being on what they view as the more ethical side.


I said 'their own best interests', not 'your own best interests'.



Mercia McMahon said:


> The notion that individuals only act out of personal self-interest is a long-disproved political fallacy.


Once again you're trying to twist my words by inserting 'only'.



Mercia McMahon said:


> The notion that different people have different ethical outlooks is a fact the acceptance of which tends to make online lives easier.


Never said they didn't.

Next time, if you post a quote of mine and respond to it, please read it first.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

Condemned? Ethics? Wow, the hyperbole. 

Good luck on all your non-KU channels, people. This conversation is officially bananas.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Steven Konkoly said:


> "For some it is about maximizing the hay harvest for others it is being on what they view as the more ethical side."
> 
> What THEY view as the more ethical side=What YOU view as the more ethical side=those in KU are less ethical=this didn't work for ME so everyone seeing success in KU must be unethical.


My post is in response to someone else attacking a fellow member's logic. As per the close to my comment online communities function better when you keep to discussing points and not mocking another individual. Same goes for assuming to tell another forum member what they really meant. I wrote "they" because I meant "they" and want to defend the ability of all forum members to post their honest opinions about the topic rather than descending into their opinions about other members.

I am not alone in finding KU less ethical, including many who are in Select (as I was briefly). I left Select with KDP's permission because they materially changed the scheme with their All Stars announcement that they tried to keep secret from many publishers. I will probably not return to it because Amazon seemed to have been rattled by not being able to push Hachette into submission and are now engaging in ill-thought out and poorly communicated policies (first KU then All Stars).

Despite viewing any form exclusivity as less ethical than inclusivity, I wrote "they" because I meant to write "they."


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

As a feisty self-publisher with several pen names in various genres, I've seen my sales dropping across the board since the beginning of July, even before Kindle Unlimited.

Lately, I've been sending screenshots of my personal sales charts to other indies who are in tears and on the brink of drastic measures. 

Everyone's upset. Everyone's sales are down. Except for a few people who are new, or have some strategic advantage. That strategic advantage could be getting into a new genre at the right time, great marketing, or the luck of getting a ton of internal merchandising support from Amazon. It's not all computer algorithms. There are humans out there decided if your new release is going to make it or break it.

Here are some things you should know:

- If you're selling books at $4.99, I wouldn't put them in KU.

- If you're launching something new, unless it's 99 cents, I wouldn't put it in KU immediately. Wait and roll it in after 30 days when it drops off the cliff.

- If you have serials or a lot of books at $2.99, or backlist that just isn't doing anything at all, put that stuff in KU.

- Some high volume book bloggers who make a living off affiliate revenue are boycotting books in Select because there's no affiliate dough in KU.

- Try not to look at the All Stars list and count up the # of people who are on it without having to go exclusive with Amazon. And know that more popular series will be on it next month, as some high profile ones are now in KU without being exclusive. Don't think of the All Stars list as being something you can get, and you won't be disappointed next month when you don't. 

- If you can, use the preorder system on Amazon. It might drop your opening-day rank and visibility, but I think it helps with alsobots.

- Many people have reported fewer incoming alsobots on newly launched titles, and no more of that 5-day bump when albos kick in. My guess is Amazon is trying a new thing, where they funnel people into fewer hit books rather than spread the recommendation engines wide across a swath of many. This is bad, unless you're a superstar with Amazon already. 

- Results from BookBub ads are down, especially promotions on first-in-series permafrees. It seems logical the freebie-buyers have switched to KU, as you would expect the most price-sensitive consumers to do.

And, finally, I love all you guys, but I don't post on here because my sales are also plummeting and have been since July. If I ever want to own a house, I need to get more work out and selling. All this doom and gloom gives me hives. It's upsetting. But if a little fear makes you work smarter, so be it. Good luck to you all! 

p.s. don't even look at the bestsellers lists. Don't even look.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

That's really helpful info, Dalya/Mimi/thingy


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

Sensational post, Dalya. It deserves it's own thread. So much useful information. 

Not sure why not to look at the bestseller lists. Is it because the information to be gathered there is misleading, or because we're apparently stuffed with hurtful jealousy?


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Sensational post, Dalya. It deserves it's own thread. So much useful information.
> 
> Not sure why not to look at the bestseller lists. Is it because the information to be gathered there is misleading, or because we're apparently stuffed with hurtful jealousy?


LOL. Because sometimes the blurbs alone make me want to rage-quit publishing. Of course, the real problem is that many of us had dreams, and now those dreams have gone behind the barn to get shot in the head and made into the broth for the Whatever's Selling Today Soup.

Not that being a "sellout" is a bad thing. In fact, you might change that word and call it "selfless producer" -- someone who selflessly produces goods not from a place of ego and satisfaction, but from a selfless place that just wants people to be happy reading about what they like.

{redacted}

I've already said too much.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

Dalya / Mimi / etc. said:


> As a feisty self-publisher with several pen names in various genres, I've seen my sales dropping across the board since the beginning of July, even before Kindle Unlimited.
> 
> Lately, I've been sending screenshots of my personal sales charts to other indies who are in tears and on the brink of drastic measures.
> 
> ...


+1 You are right on every point, Dayla/Mimi etc... 

Confession: I HAVE been looking at the best seller lists. In fact, this morning I was looking at them. Amazon published books (Montlake Rom. etc...) are beating me at every turn and have been for weeks. There are fewer changes/shifts in the lists. Seriously.
My also-boughts on the newest title are all messed up with books I've never seen before (you're definitely on to something there). 
Also, pre-orders are populating the list more and more. I don't know what readers will do if they actually want to READ something today and that will affect readers' reliance upon the best seller lists and actually even going there (mark it). 
Love your counsel on books that aren't selling well with a suggestion to just put in KU (I can tell you that the all-in strategy isn't working for me there and maybe it is as simple as you need ten to fifteen books out before feeding those KU readers. 
My thoughts are many readers will jump the program next month if they can't get to the books or don't see what they want, which explains why Amazon made their move prior to that "cliff date for themselves" of authors re-signing for another 90 days or moving out.
On to the _Some high volume book bloggers who make a living off affiliate revenue are boycotting books in Select because there's no affiliate dough in KU_... *Maximum point. *Noted for future reference. This will certainly play a role in the future when it comes to blog tours etc...
Totally agree on BookBub. My results for my last run in August were underwhelming (underwater) and considering I was held hostage in changing pricing for 90 days in order to get an ad run. I'm not sure I'll be repeating that exercise any time soon. 
Miss you. Wish you were here more. Your witty style always lights the place up.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2014)

Dalya / Mimi / etc. said:


> LOL. Because sometimes the blurbs alone make me want to rage-quit publishing. Of course, the real problem is that many of us had dreams, and now those dreams have gone behind the barn to get shot in the head and made into the broth for the Whatever's Selling Today Soup.
> 
> Not that being a "sellout" is a bad thing. In fact, you might change that word and call it "selfless producer" -- someone who selflessly produces goods not from a place of ego and satisfaction, but from a selfless place that just wants people to be happy reading about what they like.
> 
> ...


Cool. Yeah, I already went through that last year with my horror books. I'll never be the next Stephen King. It's fun sure working in the warehouse and bragging about your writing, but I've had to evolve. Now I have more chance of being the next (insert successful romance lady's name). And I've learnt that if I think something in my opinion is bad is selling, then I need a new opinion. Perspective changes everything.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

Katherine Owen said:


> Also, pre-orders are populating the list more and more. I don't know what readers will do if they actually want to READ something today and that will affect readers' reliance upon the best seller lists and actually even going there (mark it).


I have noticed this too, and I think Amazon will have to split pre-orders out from the HNR list sooner or later, or as you say, everybody will stop looking at that list.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Patricia McLinn said:


> Wayne, you seem like a very nice person, but this stopped me. How could it possibly NOT mean having all your eggs in one basket for the period of exclusivity? That's the definition of exclusivity.
> 
> *It does remove your choices for the period of exclusivity. Beyond that, you are assuming that the options of other retailers will still be there if/when you want to change your choice because it will benefit you. *Most likely some will endure. I'm not advocating supporting other retailers at all costs. However, I also believe authors need to be realistic in recognizing that they're part of this eco system, too. The choices we make now could limit the choices we have later.
> 
> ...


In regards to the part I bolded. If the other outlets aren't there...what difference does it make if he stays in Select? Unless you're saying that by so many authors going exclusive, we're killing off the other platforms? To that, I'd have to say they are killing off themselves. Apple, for instance, makes a gajillion dollars in profit---but us indies are supposed to prop up their books and take the financial hit because they're too cheap or disinterested to make their bookstore the best in the world? They could, you know. They have the funds and the tech savy, for sure--and yet, _they don't._ 

Barnes and Noble? Well, they're still reeling from Nook and haven't learned in over four years how to make their ebookstore a fantastic experience for both readers and authors. I don't think they'll be around in two years, and it won't be because of us. It'll be their own mis-management.

Kobo? I don't know much about them except that every time I list a book with them, it seems to be sucked into some black hole on their site--never to be seen by human eyes again. 

Scribd? I'm still trying to get the bad taste out of my mouth with them and all the pirated books they had there. I guess that's getting cleaned up now. If subscription services like KU aren't sustainable, as someone else said up thread, how the heck can Scribd survive? Oyster? Ditto for them. I hope they do, but they are stand alone subscriptions and they will be competing with Amazon--where people are already shopping for baby wipes and computers. People trust Amazon and everyone has heard of it. How many people have heard of Scribd? Or Oyster?


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

I really don't see how this is an ethical question. It's just about the business of selling books and how best to go about that for you and nobody else. There's nothing unethical about going into (or going into) Select.

I'm not currently in Select. I had some good luck a couple of years ago when you could put your books free, see a zillion downloads without any promo, and then rake in the cash over the next few weeks. When it started to fizzle I went back in at the other stores and this time took the effort to build those markets any way I could. It has been challenging, and they still are not always indie friendly, but my income is probably about 40% from other stores right now. I've been tempted to go back into Select (I have a couple of minor works there, is all), but the thought of losing all that progress for a gamble makes me very hesitant. I've also added quite a few Nook, iTunes, and Kobo readers to my mailing list and hate to cut them off.

That's my particular business decision, and only for this exact moment in time. I don't think it's wrong for other people to try different strategies.


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

Dolphin said:


> Frankly, I think worrying about 25 years from now is exactly the wrong idea. How could you possibly have planned for today back in 1989? How about in 1999? 2009, even?
> 
> I'm not sure that it's worthwhile to worry any further into the future than your production schedule. Every few months, indies are having to adjust to major shifts in the marketplace, and that's not going to stop anytime soon.


And I think not looking ahead is irresponsible. So, I suppose we'll agree to disagree on that point.

As for planning for specifically what's going on now, no, of course not. But looking at the possibilities? Seeking out more info? Considering that if this-then-probably-this, but if that-then-the-other, and good-heavens-look-at-this-new-thing-so-that-might mean ... oh, hell yes.

I sold my first book in 1989. Was thinking then about where publishing might go. Saw the markets and the creative freedom in my genre narrowing, narrowing, narrowing. Thought things might follow some of what happened in Hollywood, with the rise of indies because the studios were making only blockbusters (then studios bought some of the indies, and the cycle begins again.) Didn't happen exactly that way. But sort of, with a number of small specialty publishers rising. None fit my needs, but I was on the watch for them before they started. Checked them out early to make that determination.

I started asking for my rights back as soon as they became available. At that time there was nothing else to be done with them. Did I predict that indie would happen? No. But I was keeping tabs on those emerging small pubs, and I was always thinking that having the rights in my control was better than the pittance of royalty from reprints in Iceland. So, yeah, by 1999 I had some rights back.

By 2004-2005-2006, I was thinking and reading and talking about how ebooks would change the landscape. Somewhere in there I put books up with a digital platform/retailer run by a fellow author. That author by the way is still running that business, though now focused on a niche market, which is doing quite well for her. I removed my books (not in her wheelhouse niche) just this summer.

In 2007 I heard a talk at the Novelist, Inc., conference by Chris Anderson, author of The Long Tail and then-editor of Wired magazine that persuaded me that publishing as I'd known it was going to be gone soon. Scary thing was there was no clue then what could/would replace it. But those of us who heard him were alert to the possibilities.

By early 2009, a group of authors had created a sell-ebooks-directly-to-readers website where I had my books. (We still have that website. It's very, very, very lowkey. Keeping it alive basically as insurance. So that, should the atmosphere at the retailers become not to our liking, we have an established website with a good history of fulfilling digital orders that can be spiffed up and ready to fly in short order.)

When Apple raised the percentage paid to authors and Amazon followed, I put my books up on those sites in 2010.

Those are, of course, the things I got right. I got a lot wrong. But none of what I got wrong cost me (in money, time, or opportunity) what I gained by what I got right.

So, yes, I believe strongly in looking to the future beyond my production schedule. I believe in gathering in lots and lots of info about future visions. I believe in scanning the horizon as far out as you can so you are prepared to act on possibilities, not react to what's already happened.

I also believe in insurance (including the website), having a Plan B, C, D, and E, paying off my mortgage and having no other debt, building a really-bad-if-not-the-worse-case-scenario nest egg, diversifying in investments and income streams, having enough toilet paper, chocolate, and dog food in the house to get to the end of a deadline book, and knowing how to live on a whole lot less money than I'm making right now.

I also believe that I need to factor in to my calculations that I will be financially supporting through my taxes and charitable donations a whole lot of people who don't look to the future.


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

Patricia McLinn said:


> Wayne, you seem like a very nice person, but this stopped me. How could it possibly NOT mean having all your eggs in one basket for the period of exclusivity? That's the definition of exclusivity.
> 
> It does remove your choices for the period of exclusivity. Beyond that, you are assuming that the options of other retailers will still be there if/when you want to change your choice because it will benefit you. Most likely some will endure. I'm not advocating supporting other retailers at all costs. However, I also believe authors need to be realistic in recognizing that they're part of this eco system, too. The choices we make now could limit the choices we have later.
> 
> ...


Being exclusive isn't a forever thing. Yes, all my books (eggs) are in a single basket right now. But, I don't look at a basket as a month long, or even a 90 day long thing. It's years long. As I said in the lines you didn't quote, the eggs can be taken out and placed elsewhere, whenever I decide. Heck, if you're bold enough, you could take them out and juggle them. You might end up with egg on your face, though.

Since I make decisions based on quarterly data, not monthly data and all my books renew within two weeks of each other (not by coincidence), if and when the time comes that it'd be advantageous to take them out, I will. All of them at one time. That decision is coming up for me in October, when the Select period ends for all my books and is also when my next book will come out and go into Select. That's not a coincidence, either. It's part of business planning and I don't base my business decisions on the opinions of anyone, but myself.

Lastly, as I've said on many of these Select/KU threads, each of us will do what we think is correct for us. For me, right now, that's being in Select. If it's not right for you, that's fine. It's your decision to make and yours alone. I only offer what results I've had. YRMV.


----------



## boo4321 (Nov 21, 2013)

MaryMcDonald said:


> In regards to the part I bolded. If the other outlets aren't there...what difference does it make if he stays in Select? Unless you're saying that by so many authors going exclusive, we're killing off the other platforms? To that, I'd have to say they are killing off themselves. Apple, for instance, makes a gajillion dollars in profit---but us indies are supposed to prop up their books and take the financial hit because they're too cheap or disinterested to make their bookstore the best in the world? They could, you know. They have the funds and the tech savy, for sure--and yet, _they don't._


(rest of quote edited for brevity)

I'm a little confused by this. First of all, whether or not other bookstores are competition for Amazon doesn't necessarily mean they're "cheap" or "disinterested". Apple and Amazon have VERY different approaches to business, and this plays into how they approach the book market. (I know this article was shared around here during the whole Amazon-Hachette thing, but I think its comments on the positions of Amazon, Apple , and Google in this current marketplace are still informative: https://medium.com/@jakedfw/making-sense-of-amazon-hachette-6ef55a961cbe) Just because they aren't interested in a race to the bottom does *not* mean they're disinterested in the book market, or won't be a big player in the future, and it doesn't mean that there isn't still a huge market of potential readers there. And it DEFINITELY doesn't mean that anyone who decides to pull out of Select to publish there will "take a financial hit." I made more money between April and August on iTunes than I made in the entire previous year on Amazon. They effectively tripled my income in a handful of months. They've been very, very good to me, and not because I "propped up their books". B&N has been up and down for me (this is actually a good month for me over there), and Kobo has been slowly but steady growing each month. Google Play has also been pretty consistent for me.

My point isn't that anyone who diversifies will find massive success on other platforms--we all know that sales are different from author to author and even book to book. But stating that people will "take a financial hit" if they diversify like it's a fact is as bad as pro-diversifiers stating that people who go into Select are walking away from a bunch of money. The truth is, NONE OF US KNOW unless we try BOTH approaches, which of course comes with its own sets of risks. For me? More than 50% of my income comes from other vendors. I highly doubt that going Select could make up for the income I'd lose (but more importantly for me: I won't risk losing the audiences I've built on other vendors). But again -- I don't know. We all have to make our own choices here based on our own data.


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

Drew Smith said:


> I have enjoyed noting how many people have put some of their books into Select, realized that you can't just fling them in there and expect to sell and get borrows, and (when they didn't sell) suddenly decide they're against exclusivity. Next thing you know they're here talking about how unethical it is to be in Select because it hurts all indie publishers.
> 
> Wonder how many of them wouldn't have seen the light if they had sold any books?


And many who have concerns about Select/exclusivity/KU have NOT done that.

It doesn't serve the discussion to ascribe lump motivations -- to those going Select, to those not going Select, to those debating what to do.

As Wayne said about going Select. He made the decision for his books based on his business plan, looking at his expectations and goals.

Well, here's a shocker -- the people not going Select are doing the same. So there are a bunch of individuals posting.

Individuals.

Yet over and over and over in these discussions I see those choosing not to go Select lumped together and labeled with anti-Amazon, frothing, nasty, hypocritical and a whole lot else. And, yes, I know there have been posts that have lumped and disparaged the Select-choosers. I'd say the number of posters lumping non-Select is considerably higher than the other way around. Though I acknowledge I could be more attuned to the lumping of non-Selects because I am one, and my dog's getting jumpy from me reading posts and shouting, That's not what ~I~ said! Don't imply I did!

I guess lumping makes some people feel better about themselves. It sure doesn't add to the discussion.

So, what do you want to do, folks? Discuss? Or shut up anybody whose opinions/approaches/decisions are different from yours?

I mean that seriously. Because if folks just want solely to share with each other why they've gone Select and how well it's working for them, they have every right to. Perhaps a thread with that subject line. Then another one for those who only want to deride Select. And then anyone who wants to lump, mock, disparage, and deride those who aren't in their camp won't have to worry about annoying messages about being fair or accurate. Won't have to worry about thinking or questioning or possibly learning.


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

Thank you so much, Ember, for making excellent and new points.  

Especially about retailers' different business models and readerships.

One of the things I've noticed is that different books/series do better at different venues. Westerns better at Amazon and Kobo, boxed sets biggest sellers at Nook, women's fiction stronger at Apple, for example. 

I suspect that's at least partly because they do draw different readerships. (Some might also be ongoing effects of one-off visibility.)


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

It seems like there are tons of threads about the merits of Select vs not going into Select.  This thread is supposed to be about the All-Stars.  It seems like we've gone far afield....

Betsy


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

Does that mean you want all discussion other than about the all-star email to stop on this thread?

What will happen to discussion that evolved from that start?  Some of that non-subject-line-specific discussion was very good before/between/around posts that devolved into p***ing matches.  

I'd hate to see this thread cauterized now by saying it can only be about all-star email.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> Everyone's upset. Everyone's sales are down. Except for a few people who are new, or have some strategic advantage. That strategic advantage could be getting into a new genre at the right time, great marketing, or the luck of getting a ton of internal merchandising support from Amazon. It's not all computer algorithms. There are humans out there decided if your new release is going to make it or break it.


Certainly not everyone. Many are doing well.



> - If you're selling books at $4.99, I wouldn't put them in KU.


Wait a minute. Didn't you just say that everyone's sales are down? So how does it hurt to put a $4.99 book into KU if it's not selling in other channels? Yes, I get the whole pricing scheme justification thing, but if readers of KU are targeting higher priced books, might it also go the other way, too?



> - If you're launching something new, unless it's 99 cents, I wouldn't put it in KU immediately. Wait and roll it in after 30 days when it drops off the cliff.


This sounds like a marketing plan revolving around only the New Release list. If you want to start off with a bang, you need to be doing other things as well (free giveaways, 99-cent promotions, advertising, Bookbub...) regardless of whether or not your book goes into KU. I can see benefits either way, and perhaps there will come a time when it's best to add or subtract a book from KU to generate interest.

It all depends on how much work you want to put into it.



> - If you have serials or a lot of books at $2.99, or backlist that just isn't doing anything at all, put that stuff in KU.


As a general rule of thumb, I'd agree, but if a title isn't doing anything at all, it's time to reevaluate the cover, blurb, promotional activity, etc. Some titles, despite being in KU may still not sell and do better in other channels. It's all about finding that sweet spot.



> - Some high volume book bloggers who make a living off affiliate revenue are boycotting books in Select because there's no affiliate dough in KU.


The rise and fall of advertising revenues is constant, and I feel for bloggers who rely on this volatile source of income. My sister ran a successful blog back in 2000 called Frugal Moms that ran that roller coaster ride until it crashed and burned. Sadly, my sister took it down and never wanted to see it again.

You can't rely on random book bloggers to push your books. It's all about forming relationships, and if you focus on that, you will generate a nice push for your books. Mailing lists also don't hurt.



> - Try not to look at the All Stars list and count up the # of people who are on it without having to go exclusive with Amazon. And know that more popular series will be on it next month, as some high profile ones are now in KU without being exclusive. Don't think of the All Stars list as being something you can get, and you won't be disappointed next month when you don't.


You're taking the wrong approach.

Set a goal. Let's say 1,000 borrows in KU or 1,000 sales in all your channels. Plan and run promotions. Take note of what worked and and what didn't. Try to improve both your marketing and quality of work with every release.

If your goal is to be an All Star, set actionable goals.



> - If you can, use the preorder system on Amazon. It might drop your opening-day rank and visibility, but I think it helps with alsobots.


Preorders can also help implement your marketing strategy more effectively as well.



> - Many people have reported fewer incoming alsobots on newly launched titles, and no more of that 5-day bump when albos kick in. My guess is Amazon is trying a new thing, where they funnel people into fewer hit books rather than spread the recommendation engines wide across a swath of many. This is bad, unless you're a superstar with Amazon already.


I suspect we're in for some nasty surprises with Amazon's algorithms, and unfortunately, I don't think there's anything we can do about it. Adapt, put out more quality books, and continue building your readership.

Ideally, you could convert your mailing list into sales originating from your website and not involve any third parties (except for luring them to your site). It takes a lot of effort, but that's the route I would eventually like to take.



> - Results from BookBub ads are down, especially promotions on first-in-series permafrees. It seems logical the freebie-buyers have switched to KU, as you would expect the most price-sensitive consumers to do.


Mine were up from August, which is notoriously a slow month. I think it's too early to tell if BookBub has lost its juice, but it's certainly a possibility.



> And, finally, I love all you guys, but I don't post on here because my sales are also plummeting and have been since July. If I ever want to own a house, I need to get more work out and selling. All this doom and gloom gives me hives. It's upsetting. But if a little fear makes you work smarter, so be it. Good luck to you all!


Exactly! We all should be writing, shouldn't we?


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Donald Rump said:


> Certainly not everyone. Many are doing well.
> ...


Thanks, Donald, for the tips! It's always good to come to kboards and get a wide variety of advice from people who have interesting and unique POVs on the marketplace.

I suppose that just because every single person I talk to privately is doing worse since KU came in, that doesn't give me the right to say "everyone is suffering right now." Perhaps I should spend three times as long on my posts to make them more bulletproof, just in case someone disagrees with my wording in a messageboard post. Because that's such a great use of my time.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> I suppose that just because every single person I talk to privately is doing worse since KU came in, that doesn't give me the right to say "everyone is suffering right now." Perhaps I should spend three times as long on my posts to make them more bulletproof, just in case someone disagrees with my wording in a messageboard post. Because that's such a great use of my time.


How can I help get you back on course?


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> Thanks, Donald, for the tips! It's always good to come to kboards and get a wide variety of advice from people who have interesting and unique POVs on the marketplace.


PM me your pen name(s) and I'll help you promote them.


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

Dalya / Mimi / etc. said:


> Thanks, Donald, for the tips! It's always good to come to kboards and get a wide variety of advice from people who have interesting and unique POVs on the marketplace.
> 
> I suppose that just because every single person I talk to privately is doing worse since KU came in, that doesn't give me the right to say "everyone is suffering right now." Perhaps I should spend three times as long on my posts to make them more bulletproof, just in case someone disagrees with my wording in a messageboard post. Because that's such a great use of my time.


+1 Your points are all valid. I treasure them and I know a lot of others do too.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Donald Rump said:


> PM me your pen name(s) and I'll help you promote them.


I'm just teasing you, Donald. I know you're good peeps. I have some reason to suspect that an unknown percentage of people (between 0% and 100%) posting here don't enjoy seeing their posts pulled apart or bolded and argued with.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Patricia McLinn said:


> Does that mean you want all discussion other than about the all-star email to stop on this thread?
> 
> What will happen to discussion that evolved from that start? Some of that non-subject-line-specific discussion was very good before/between/around posts that devolved into p***ing matches.
> 
> I'd hate to see this thread cauterized now by saying it can only be about all-star email.


I don't think we need another thread with KU/Select/Amazon good vs KU/Select/Amazon bad. By all means, if there's something new to be said that has evolved from the KDP All Star thread, please continue.... Threads do evolve, but I don't think every WC thread has to turn into the same discussion, which is what seems to have been happening lately. And they've been turning quite ugly. Just sayin'....

Betsy


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

I'm an All-Star in my house! And on my block.

I'm getting a T-shirt made up: KU RUINED ME. I'M DEAD INSIDE. JUST KIDDING. WRITE WHAT YOU LOVE.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Dalya / Mimi / etc. said:


> I'm an All-Star in my house! And on my block.
> 
> I'm getting a T-shirt made up: KU RUINED ME. I'M DEAD INSIDE. JUST KIDDING. WRITE WHAT YOU LOVE.


Dalya,

it's only my moderator status that keeps me from declaring my feelings...



Betsy


----------



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

Dalya / Mimi / etc. said:


> I'm getting a T-shirt made up: KU RUINED ME. I'M DEAD INSIDE. JUST KIDDING. WRITE WHAT YOU LOVE.


I would totally sell someone else's soul for one of those.


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

Voelker58 said:


> How about these companies that need our help step up and innovate some programs that will make it worthwhile for authors to choose them over Amazon? Do you think for one minute that Apple couldn't give Amazon a run for its money in the ebook market if they wanted to? Apple does not need our help!
> 
> Also, Amazon wasn't always here, and they won't always be around. Just because they seem like a juggernaut now, doesn't mean someone won't come up with a better way to consume books.
> 
> ...


I haven't read the entire thread. Please forgive me if I'm repeating what someone else said.

I think Amazon might have made a mistake creating KU, and by doing so might have hurt the ebook business. Although they are important to us, ebooks are just a fraction of what Amazon sells. The most profitable program Amazon has is Prime, because Prime members spend over $500 more on Amazon per year than non-prime members. KU could have been created to entice people into Prime. Selling dog food and toilet paper is big business.

Amazon doesn't share information, but it's my guess that the majority of people who signed up for KU are avid readers (the casual readers who signed up for a month to test it probably left). The problem here is that the avid readers who are in KU now are the same readers who bought books before KU existed, which could be the reason so many of us have seen our sales plummet.

When KU was announced, thousands of people uploaded thousands of "books" into Select and KU, hoping to make a fortune. Many of the "books" were no more than ten to twenty pages that were filled with grammatical errors and misspellings, in short, absolute crap. If just a few pages were read--10%--the authors were paid. One of the reasons for the steep drop in sales could be that readers have encountered so much garbage that they have become temporarily disenchanted with ebooks. Amazon set no standards. It was free-for-all publishing, which is damaging to writers who take pride in their work.

Now Amazon has created its own star system. I'm glad for the people who are in it, especially Rosalind and Wayne who have been so helpful and sharing, but I'm wondering if this star system is an attempt to deflect the fact that a majority of the ebooks Amazon is selling in KU are junk. They put the good food on the top to cover the rotting food underneath.

Apple vets every book it publishes. Apple has money, and as a company it has class: Apple doesn't sell anything that will tarnish its reputation. Maybe we should all hope that Apple sees an opportunity here, and it uses some of its trillions of dollars to revolutionize the ebook business.


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

Dalya / Mimi / etc. said:


> - If you're launching something new, unless it's 99 cents, I wouldn't put it in KU immediately. Wait and roll it in after 30 days when it drops off the cliff.


I've heard mention of this cliff. Where is it? Coming off the Hot New Releases list?


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

I was just wondering about this. Maybe I've only ever been at the bottom of the cliff, LOL What's at the top?


----------



## Capella (Jan 16, 2014)

Mercia McMahon said:


> My post is in response to someone else attacking a fellow member's logic. As per the close to my comment online communities function better when you keep to discussing points and not mocking another individual. Same goes for assuming to tell another forum member what they really meant. I wrote "they" because I meant "they" and want to defend the ability of all forum members to post their honest opinions about the topic rather than descending into their opinions about other members.
> 
> I am not alone in finding KU less ethical, including many who are in Select (as I was briefly). I left Select with KDP's permission because they materially changed the scheme with their All Stars announcement that they tried to keep secret from many publishers. I will probably not return to it because Amazon seemed to have been rattled by not being able to push Hachette into submission and are now engaging in ill-thought out and poorly communicated policies (first KU then All Stars).
> 
> Despite viewing any form exclusivity as less ethical than inclusivity, I wrote "they" because I meant to write "they."


Hi Mercia,
How did you get them to let you out of Select? Who did you contact and how fast did it happen? Did they penalize you in any way?


----------



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

LisaGloria said:


> I was just wondering about this. Maybe I've only ever been at the bottom of the cliff, LOL What's at the top?


Well, not at the top myself! But I keep a spreadsheet that also corresponds to a graph. Looking at the graph, it is clearly discernible that there's an overall sales drop at 30, 60 and 90 days. But excepting falling off the new releases at 30 days, I don't know what in reality corresponds at 60 and 90? I've asked, but no one seems to know. Is it that the algos don't put you in the also boughts as often? Or for higher selling authors.

I really don't know, but the graph shows it - a sudden drop and then usually a slight level set after and then things plug along as before but at a slightly lower rate.....


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Heather Hamilton-Senter said:


> Well, not at the top myself! But I keep a spreadsheet that also corresponds to a graph. Looking at the graph, it is clearly discernible that there's an overall sales drop at 30, 60 and 90 days. But excepting falling off the new releases at 30 days, I don't know what in reality corresponds at 60 and 90? I've asked, but no one seems to know. Is it that the algos don't put you in the also boughts as often? Or for higher selling authors.
> 
> I really don't know, but the graph shows it - a sudden drop and then usually a slight level set after and then things plug along as before but at a slightly lower rate.....


Right, the concept is that all other things being equal, a book out for ≤ 30 days is going to sell more than a book out for ≤ 60 days, which will sell more than a book out for ≤ 90 days. Assuming nothing significant happens, a given title's sales will drop off of the "cliff" three times and then settle into a baseline.

I would expect that it applies to a wide range of visibility factors. Also boughts is a likely one, but it could also make you more likely to appear on lists, in mailings, in search results--practically anything.

For all we know, it could provide a hidden bonus to your sales rank, making it easier to appear in top 100s during your first three months. Maybe a book with 5,000 sales could appear before a book with 6,000 sales if it's a newer release. That's speculation, mind you. I don't recall seeing any evidence of that in the past. We know it does _something_, though, or has in the past. The future is always murkier.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

lala said:


> I just said this another thread! So maybe it's not just a crazy theory I came up with at 4am. While everyone's fighting & trashing Select/not in Select or Hugh Howey or whatever & the board is going down in flames, this is really what people should be worried about.


As I recall, some folks have observed alsobots kicking in earlier for titles in KDPS vs. titles _not_ in KDPS. There could be any number of new fingers on the scales to support KDPS/KU at the expense of other titles. It's not necessarily unrelated to the controversy.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Dalya / Mimi / etc. said:


> I'm an All-Star in my house! And on my block.
> 
> I'm getting a T-shirt made up: KU RUINED ME. I'M DEAD INSIDE. JUST KIDDING. WRITE WHAT YOU LOVE.


I like it, especially the "Write What You Love."

It's similar to the sentiment repeated by Bill Taub, a television screenwriter whose book I edited: "Write what you wish to see."


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2014)

Congratulations to the All Stars! Well done, Hugh, Wayne etc. And a big THANK YOU!!!
Because you bring a lot of shoppers into our little shop and maybe they will check out my books too. 

Kindle Unlimited has been good to me. I went from 25 percent being able to leave my day job to 33 percent being able to leave my day job and become a full time writer. Kindle Unlimited is floating my boat, but I'm the one who has to row it. I keep writing and the more books I publish, the extra sales make me the more confident that I will be able to give up my day job in two years. 

BOOM TIME FOR INDIES!!!!

Put all your books in Kindle Unlimited and tell your readers to get a subscription. Remember Amazon is not competing against B&N and GPlay and iBooks, if the reason you want to diversify to other outlets is to maintain competition, it is competing most of all for people's time. People first and foremost have to be seduced to read and not play games or watch television. That is goal number one. Amazon is doing that with their Kindle Unlimited program. An all you can read library for ten bucks a month.  

The way I see the All Star program working for me is: Kindle Unlimited is a credit card, you can use it in one shop, Amazon and I have some shelf space in this shop. For me the more people come into the shop, the more people can see my book, the more potential buyers. Let's say McDonald's gives you a credit card. You can eat whatever you like at any of their restaurants. If you have a credit card for McDonald's you're unlikely to go spend hard cash at Burger King, let's say Kobo or B&N next door. First you use your credit card for the expensive stuff at McDonald's, the burgers the shakes, but after a few days you will want something more and since it's free, you're willing to try anything. Well that's where I come in. If Hugh, Wayne and the All Star team are the burgers and the shakes, I wanna be the onion ring the customers try out on day five. Looking at the borrows, I know with 12 books, no way these borrows would have been sales. Without KU they would have meant no money at all in my pockets.

Why are the Kardashians always on every magazine cover? Because they sell magazines. If I had an ad in one of the magazines and it was read because someone wanted to actually read about the Kardashians, what does that matter to me? If Hugh, Wayne and the All Star team are subsidizing my marketing budget by bringing in customers who can see and buy my books, all I can say is THANK YOU!!! and you DESERVE your bonus. Keep up the good work.

Yes, my friends, these are BOOM TIMES FOR INDIES!!! seize your chance.

Thank you Amazon, thank you All Star Team!!!


----------



## 71089 (Jul 12, 2013)

DELETED BECAUSE OF TOS CHANGE


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

I can't help but chuckle, when someone says that the Zon is putting their thumb on the scale, so to speak, when it comes to books either in or not in Select. There are millions of books sold on Amazon. Yeah, they're the biggest retailer, but if they had the manpower to do some of the things people suggest there would be no such thing as unemployment in this country. It's all done by computers. When someone buys your book and then turns around and buys Joe Blow's book, an also bought is created. There isn't a person sitting there watching each transaction, that's absurd.

I like drno's analogy about being an onion ring. It's a very good comparison. Following a successful business model just makes good business sense. Even if the results aren't as good, they're bound to be better than following the business model of a company that just filed bankruptcy. An extreme comparison, but you get the point.

All I can say is, try it. If you're selling 1000 books a month on all channels and it drops to 900 by going to Select, that's a loss of 300 over three months. But, if you use good promotional tools and utilize the tools that Select provides, I just don't see it happening. For instance, I've noticed that on the first day of a Coundown Deal, I've sold ten times the average. I've seen other books do likewise, by monitoring my sub-category on a daily basis and plugging new books that appear into eBook Tracker to follow more closely.

I have a BookBub ad coming up in a couple of weeks. By using the Countdown Deal to lower my price, I'm doubling the royalty income. I'm also running Countdown Deals on ALL my books at the same time and releasing a fifth book. I'm anticipating a single day income of over $4000. That would be cut in half, without the tools Select provides. I'll be posting the run up to the ad, how it's set up and the results, if anyone's interested.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Just as a general note:

My sales are not down.

I didn't even have as terrible a summer as I normally have had in years past, when sales generally dip.

In fact, August, for me, was very good.

I think part of that just has to do with me finishing some things and getting some new stuff out there.

In June, I put out Nice Girl Like You... In September, I had Spoiled debut.

In October, I'm gonna probably have three new titles in one month, including The Woodsman, which took me 33 months to finish.

And I suspect I'll have something in November, maybe even December.

For me, if anything, KU has added more borrows to my mixing bowl. I haven't really seen it eat away at my sales, because most of my new titles (except for NGLY) hadn't even appeared in August, when I had a really nice sales month.

So, my mileage varies from others, in general, on the whole KU issue.

As it relates to my comments about the All-Stars... as I said, I'm happy for those who make the cut, but really, they already have great numbers, so my only thing is, why add that extra million or whatever it is, and only benefit the people who are already doing well, when you could just make the monthly pot bigger and benefit everyone?

Sure, I'm closer to 5 borrows this month than 5,000... so the difference between a $1.58 borrow and a $2.00 borrow isn't a world-changer; but it's nicer for everyone, at least, that way.

Still, that thought wasn't about sour grapes at all. It's a nice thing for those who get it, and I remain happy for 'em! 

P.S. As another note -- I am in Select and believe in it. Not with every title. My standard practice is to take my new releases and put them into Select for 1-2 terms, then go wide to other platforms.

Not always, but as a general rule.

If I felt I was leaving significant money on the table by doing that, I'd go wide from day one.

But the truth of the matter is, 90 percent of my income comes from Amazon, historically, whether I go wide first or go Select first.

And Select seems to help boost my earnings, so I have been going Select first with most new titles, and then going wide later.

As with all things, I'll adjust my strategy as I try different things out.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

exkitteh said:


> LMAO - Just a quick post to say I just listened to you on the RSP podcast today and it was (and you were) awesome! You're going on my buddy list whether you like it or not


Hey, why do you have my cat, Tigerheart, as your avatar?  Seriously, looks just like her.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> I can't help but chuckle, when someone says that the Zon is putting their thumb on the scale, so to speak, when it comes to books either in or not in Select. There are millions of books sold on Amazon. Yeah, they're the biggest retailer, but if they had the manpower to do some of the things people suggest there would be no such thing as unemployment in this country. It's all done by computers. When someone buys your book and then turns around and buys Joe Blow's book, an also bought is created. There isn't a person sitting there watching each transaction, that's absurd.


Oh, of course. Not sure if you're referring to my post, but just to be clear, I'm totally aware everything's automated. More aware than most, in fact, since I'm a web developer.

I expect membership in KDPS has always been something automatically taken into account. I also expect that it matters more than ever now.

ETA: Just to add to what swolf said and clarify once more, I am _dead certain_ that there are myriad variables automatically taken into account whenever you perform a search, look at autoboughts, calculate your sales rank, &c. Amazon spends a lot of money on a lot of smart programmers whose job it is to set systems like this in place and massage them over time. If they want to make KDPS books more visible, all they have to do is adjust variables in their algorithms. That's what the algos _are._

Google Search is the same way. The entire SEO industry is devoted to studying and manipulating algorithms like this. They can afford their own lavish, private soirees too.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> I can't help but chuckle, when someone says that the Zon is putting their thumb on the scale, so to speak, when it comes to books either in or not in Select. There are millions of books sold on Amazon. Yeah, they're the biggest retailer, but if they had the manpower to do some of the things people suggest there would be no such thing as unemployment in this country. It's all done by computers. When someone buys your book and then turns around and buys Joe Blow's book, an also bought is created. There isn't a person sitting there watching each transaction, that's absurd.


I'm not advocating any conspiracy theories, but that type of change wouldn't require manpower to pull off. I worked as a software developer for a long time, and I'm sure a book's enrollment in Select is just a flag in a database. It would be simple coding to use that flag in any algorithms.

Again, I'm not saying they're doing that.

And it looks like you're on top of it, Wayne. Congrats on your success.

Edited to add: In techno speak, a 'flag' is generally just an on/off bit. Yes or no.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

To address the "thumb on scale" comment. Yes, Amazon absolutely has their thumb on the scale of Select books. Sales for Select book weigh more heavily in book ranking than sales for books not in Select. I know this because many authors have been doing daily ranking comparison among their own books in/out of Select or with friends. Select books are consistently lower in ranking with less sales. 

No, I am not bitter. I was one of the authors offered the ability to do Select without exclusivity, and my summer sales have so far exceeded my expectations, that I'm still smiling. But I pulled all my books when KU rolled out. I found that KU cannibalized existing book sales, and when your books are priced at $4.99/$5.99, $1.53 is NOT a good profit margin. Since the majority of my sales were for the 6th book in one of my series, clearly, that was not new readers. 

No one has the right answer as to whether KU is a good decision or bad one because we are all individuals. I do not care what others do with their business. But it is folly to assume that just because a corporation does something that currently benefits you, that the reason they did it WAS to benefit you. That's never the case. Sometimes your interests will align with those of a vendor and that's great. And sometimes they won't and that will suck.

Such is an open marketplace.


----------



## Avis Black (Jun 12, 2012)

Amazon may weight the scales towards KULL books that a KULL user buys after borrowing them.  Increasing sales per customer is a big deal if you're a business, because you can't keep gaining new customers forever.  Titles borrowed + sold are probably getting more visibility via an increased number of also-boughts versus books that don't.  A title that brings in a higher revenue per book is golden, as far as Amazon is concerned.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

I'm probably going to be unpopular for saying this, but if Amazon is weighting Select books differently or providing better visibility--so what? That is a perk of Select, just like free days and Kindle countdown. Amazon has already proven that they give perks to some people and not others. Some authors get offered deals from Amazon imprints, some get promoted as Kindle Daily Deals, or other promotions. It's not even just about sales because I know some authors who haven't had as many sales as my book had at that time, and yet they were offered promotions. It could just be lucky timing on their part. Some authors get bonuses and some get to go to Bezos' Campfire. 

The only fair part is that we all get to upload on KDP.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I think talk of fairness is, in any pursuit, an exercise in "I wanna give myself a headache and be unhappy."

I see a lot of sense in what you're saying, Mary.

My job as an author isn't to grumble in public.

My job is to help people become aware of my books and that they might have a fun time reading them.

It's good to remind myself that that's my primary mission.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

CraigInOregon said:


> I think talk of fairness is, in any pursuit, an exercise in "I wanna give myself a headache and be unhappy."
> 
> I see a lot of sense in what you're saying, Mary.
> 
> ...


Believe me, getting caught up in the fairness of it will drive us all crazy. lol I could point at this author or that author, and claim they got something I didn't, and a few times, privately, I'm sure I have.  Get a few glasses of wine in me, and I might even grumble in public. Good thing I don't drink wine very often.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

I never said anything about fair. I only stated facts. Screaming "unfair" is a waste of time and energy.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Oh yeah, I certainly don't care about whether it's fair. I'm not sure anybody even mentioned or implied any concerns about fairness in this particular area. It's a real thing, though, and important to consider when weighing the pros and cons of participating in KDPS.


----------



## Amber Rose (Jul 25, 2014)

A quick observation, not meant to agree or disagree with any other posts here: 

Fairness might not have much to do with it, but do you know who has made the system MOST fair for writers thus far? Amazon. 

Amazon took the power out of publishers' hands, and decided to give it to us instead, to make life more fair for all the authors who had manuscripts stuck in a sock drawer.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Amber Rose said:


> A quick observation, not meant to agree or disagree with any other posts here:
> 
> Fairness might not have much to do with it, but do you know who has made the system MOST fair for writers thus far? Amazon.
> 
> Amazon took the power out of publishers' hands, and decided to give it to us instead, to make life more fair for all the authors who had manuscripts stuck in a sock drawer.


Agreed.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> I never said anything about fair. I only stated facts. Screaming "unfair" is a waste of time and energy.


Indeed. I seem to recall Mr Bezos himself state something along the lines of 'complaining isn't a strategy'.


----------



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

Amber Rose said:


> A quick observation, not meant to agree or disagree with any other posts here:
> 
> Fairness might not have much to do with it, but do you know who has made the system MOST fair for writers thus far? Amazon.
> 
> Amazon took the power out of publishers' hands, and decided to give it to us instead, to make life more fair for all the authors who had manuscripts stuck in a sock drawer.


I would like to +1 this many, many times. I'm grateful for the opportunities I've found on Amazon and I'll just keep ducking and rolling each time the landscape changes....... sorry for the mixed metaphor


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Amber Rose said:


> A quick observation, not meant to agree or disagree with any other posts here:
> 
> Fairness might not have much to do with it, but do you know who has made the system MOST fair for writers thus far? Amazon.
> 
> Amazon took the power out of publishers' hands, and decided to give it to us instead, to make life more fair for all the authors who had manuscripts stuck in a sock drawer.


Yes, exactly.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

Dalya / Mimi / etc. said:


> As a feisty self-publisher with several pen names in various genres, I've seen my sales dropping across the board since the beginning of July, even before Kindle Unlimited.
> 
> Lately, I've been sending screenshots of my personal sales charts to other indies who are in tears and on the brink of drastic measures.
> 
> ...


I love you, Mimi! Please come back for good!


----------



## N. Gemini Sasson (Jul 5, 2010)

Dalya / Mimi / etc. said:


> And, finally, I love all you guys, but I don't post on here because my sales are also plummeting and have been since July. If I ever want to own a house, I need to get more work out and selling. All this doom and gloom gives me hives. It's upsetting. But if a little fear makes you work smarter, so be it. Good luck to you all!
> 
> p.s. don't even look at the bestsellers lists. Don't even look.


I <3 you, Mimalya.  It's good to be aware of what's going on in our little virtual world so we can understand what's happening and take action, but at some point the most productive thing we can do is just apply a** to chair and write. I know how I'd like things to be, but there's only so much that each of us can control.

Bestseller list Be right back...


----------

