# NYT article: Amazon KU - with quotes from KB authors



## johnlmonk (Jul 24, 2013)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/technology/amazon-offers-all-you-can-eat-books-authors-turn-up-noses.html?_r=0

_"Authors are upset with Amazon. Again.

For much of the last year, mainstream novelists were furious that Amazon was discouraging the sale of some titles in its confrontation with the publisher Hachette over e-books.

Now self-published writers, who owe much of their audience to the retailer's publishing platform, are unhappy."_

Am I late to the game on this one?


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

All I know is personally my income doubled from KU.  But I'm a little fish; it doesn't seem to be good for big fishes.    If it starts losing me money, I'm out and going wide.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Not a very well balanced article. I guess balanced doesn't create as many clicks.


----------



## SB James (May 21, 2014)

I saw this article earlier today, and it tells only about a quarter of the story. NYT has had such a slant when it comes to Amazon...
No, KU is not spectacular for some people, for others it is. But I love (note the sarcasm) how NYT makes it seem like most indie authors only publish on Amazon...


----------



## johnlmonk (Jul 24, 2013)

SB James said:


> I saw this article earlier today, and it tells only about a quarter of the story. NYT has had such a slant when it comes to Amazon...
> No, KU is not spectacular for some people, for others it is. But I love (note the sarcasm) how NYT makes it seem like most indie authors only publish on Amazon...


Heh, I guess I was just impressed that she was mentioned in the NY Times. They also mentioned Kboards, and linked to us


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Not bothering to click the link.  
Summing up a previous post of mine.
HM Ward is a fairly big name.  Oh yes the borrows would kill her sales.  Readers were all great now I can catch up on her books without spending a pretty penny.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I didn't realize I only live 3 hours from Holly.


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2014)

I thought it was a great article.


----------



## KL_Phelps (Nov 7, 2013)

Saw the article earlier. Slanted? Sure, but are Holly' numbers even close to true. I don't mean about her income. I have no reason to doubt or question her financial status( after all she'd be the one to know) but her comment about readers spending 100 a week on books. I know romance readers tend to be voracious readers, but are there really that many people shelling out that kind of cash.

Of course I question this even though every time I get my credit card statement I see multiple pages of kindle purchases. (I guess I should add up my own spending habits, lol. I might be spending that myself and not even realize it!)


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2014)

Good article. But I think HM Ward, Hugh Howey and JA Konrath are million sellers and KU is destroying their revenue and that's the reason they are leaving KU. Others, who make less than say 20000 bucks a month seem to be doing ok with KU. I'm staying in and I also have picked up production.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

I agree with:

"Now any monkey with a computer can do it in hours."

Especially if that monkey has screech-recognition software.

And uses Word's spellcheck.

Being a slightly more advanced monkey, I could have written 1/100th of a book in the time it took me to write this post.


----------



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

Nice pic of our own Holly Ward.
Quotes by some KBoarders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/technology/amazon-offers-all-you-can-eat-books-authors-turn-up-noses.html

(Please merge if already posted)


----------



## Kenneth Rosenberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Hmm, maybe some bad press in the paper of record will put a little pressure on Amazon to rethink their strategy.  One can hope, anyway...


----------



## D-C (Jan 13, 2014)

Interesting exposure for our voices but I doubt Amazon care. If they were going to fix it, they'd have done it by now.


----------



## m.a. petterson (Sep 11, 2013)

Interesting that she's started working with four authors so as to be 'constantly putting stuff out there.'

Once you've got the brand established it's a sound business decision.

Wonder what the pay is?


----------



## NoahPorter (Sep 15, 2013)

drno said:


> Good article. But I think HM Ward, Hugh Howey and JA Konrath are million sellers and KU is destroying their revenue and that's the reason they are leaving KU. Others, who make less than say 20000 bucks a month seem to be doing ok with KU. I'm staying in and I also have picked up production.


I average much less than 20,000 per month, but used to be 5 figures still, before KU. After KU, I'm down to 4 figures a month - a significant drop. So, no, it's not just the million sellers who have been destroyed by KU. It affects sellers regardless of positions.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Threads merged . . . sorry for any confusion.


----------



## SkyScribe (Aug 18, 2014)

That thread title = David Streitfeld bait.

Now that I've got you here, I can tell you personally that I hate that part of my subscription fee goes to paying your salary. Didn't you learn anything when the editor reamed you out in her column? It's one thing to be critical of a large company, but you're so heavy handed with your personal sentiment that it all comes off as noxious. You might take a lesson from fiction writers. Fiction with an explicit agenda is never as good as fiction that allows readers to absorb information and draw their own conclusions. Consider taking up a topic that you aren't so personally tainted by and leave Amazon to someone who can be more objective.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hi, SkyScribe--

I merged your thread with the existing discussion of the NY Times article.  Thanks.

Betsy


----------



## SkyScribe (Aug 18, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Hi, SkyScribe--
> 
> I merged your thread with the existing discussion of the NY Times article. Thanks.
> 
> Betsy


Like there haven't been five different threads about BookBub every time I come here.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Well, something like Bookbub is a little different, though probably some of those can be merged--we'll take a look.  People posting questions about Bookbub or their experiences are more individual.  Discussions about a specific article currently in the news do get merged routinely.  Your post was directly related to this thread.

Sorry for any confusion--hope this clarifies things!  To not derail the thread, if you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to PM me.

Betsy


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

Thanks for sharing the article. It's positive that indies are getting attention. It's also positive that kboards Writers' Cafe made The New York Times.


----------



## johnlmonk (Jul 24, 2013)

Marian said:


> Thanks for sharing the article. It's positive that indies are getting attention. It's also positive that kboards Writers' Cafe made The New York Times.


Your welcome, and totally agree with you.


----------



## H.M. Ward (May 16, 2012)

I agree with the fact that authors who were able to write FT are now going back to work. Its a reflection of the industry. That wasn't a dozen folks. Many of them are/ were in here. If KU works for you, great. IMHO if you have ANY springboard to launch off of, KU gets lesser results while netting less profit. :/

The industry IS watching this board and indies are still part of the publishing community at large. I disagree with David on a lot of things, but the dude is sitting on the other side of the fence which puts a different lens in front of his eyes. We all have various lenses based on experience and life. That's nothing new. The NYT IS the other side of the fence (trad side).

I do expect Amazon to work the kinks out.



m p said:


> Interesting that she's started working with four authors so as to be 'constantly putting stuff out there.'
> 
> Once you've got the brand established it's a sound business decision.


In 2013 I put out 2.5 books a MONTH on average. This year was a little less (I think). I'm constantly putting stuff out there on my own anyway. The coauthor program isnt related to KU. It's part of my business paradigm. I'll fill you guys in on that in early 2015. So like, next week. 

PS, the article wasn't mean, in case you want to read it but are worried about bashing. It's noting an industry shift brought about by KU.


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2014)

H.M. Ward said:


> It's noting an industry shift brought about by KU.


But is that true? Oyster and Scribd were already offering subscriptions. I think Amazon was scared into following their example and the huge success of the subscription model for all three companies only shows they were wise to follow the other companies or perish. As Spotify is eating up iTunes, Apple is now trying to build its own music subscription model: Apple Beats.


----------



## devalong (Aug 28, 2014)

The article seemed pretty even handed to me, which I'd hope for from the NYT . I expect to hear that the sky is falling, the sun is burning out, and we are devolving into monkies due to KU soon from the DailyMail . 

In my heart, I agree with various people who've said that KU is more about Amazon getting people into the store to buy other things than about ebooks. 

It may also be as Hugh alluded to (I think?) that Amazon is trying to find a different way for author's to promote other than perma-free, though when I do many keyword searches everything that comes up is free. It seems to me that isn' the best thing for sales (for Amazon), but I'm totally new at this since August and probably I'm totally clueless.


----------



## H.M. Ward (May 16, 2012)

drno said:


> But is that true? Oyster and Scribd were already offering subscriptions. I think Amazon was scared into following their example and the huge success of the subscription model for all three companies only shows they were wise to follow the other companies or perish. As Spotify is eating up iTunes, Apple is now trying to build its own music subscription model: Apple Beats.


Bingo!

I think that's it exactly. KU was a post-preemptive move to retain their share of the ebook market. I would have liked to see them leap ahead of the curve and come up with something awesome that's win win for all parties. It wasn't in the article but right now a person can borrow my books for free w/o KU.

Reacting isn't Amazons usual spot with ebooks. They've been the ones other companies react to.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Holly, I was interested in your comment about co-authors and your belief that 'people forget you're there' if you're not constantly putting out new material. Do you think that sentiment is particular to your genre? It seems a hugely pressurized environment.


----------



## Deke (May 18, 2013)

The article mentioned a proposed writers union, but what I think we really need is a writer-run marketplace website. BTW, the article was printed on the front page of today's Seattle Times.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

My favorite part of the whole article:



> "In the old days, you had to type the story on actual paper," said *Michael Henderson*, a former lawyer now living in Venice, Italy. "Make your changes and retype it, or hire someone to do it. It was a herculean effort to get a 400-page manuscript ready. *Now any monkey with a computer can do it in hours. Shazam, everyone is a writer.*"


Followed immediately by:



> *Mr. Henderson's* "Self-Portrait of a Dying Man" came out at the beginning of the month on Amazon. *It has sold exactly zero copies*.


I'm just going to say it right here: KU did not kill Mr. Henderson's book.


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

Why don't they report on the indie authors who have tried in vain for months or even years to get regular sales and have finally managed to reach their goal thanks to KU? There are plenty of KB authors saying just that and I'm happy for them. Would be nice to see the media reporting these success stories instead of the "fight the empire" nonsense. First line of the article: "Authors are upset with Amazon. Again." No they are not. Some are. For others it was the beginning of a career they always wanted.


----------



## J.B. (Aug 15, 2014)

Richardcrasta said:


> I agree with:
> 
> "Now any monkey with a computer can do it in hours."
> 
> ...


Based on this post, I will now have to delete a book from my KU library, so I can borrow something from you (assuming you're in KU) because, you're obviously very funny and I want to read more. LOL. Thanks!


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

bobfrost said:


> My favorite part of the whole article:
> 
> Followed immediately by:
> 
> I'm just going to say it right here: KU did not kill Mr. Henderson's book.


By his rank, Mr. Henderson's book is now selling (or getting borrowed).


----------



## Deke (May 18, 2013)

"Why don't they report on the indie authors who have tried in vain for months or even years to get regular sales and have finally managed to reach their goal thanks to KU?"

Who are these people?  Just how is getting borrows better than sells? Is there some better marketing that Amazon does for titles in KU?  

And I'd like to know how Mr. Henderson was picked for the article from all the authors in the world who have published a book or two and sold nothing.


----------



## H.M. Ward (May 16, 2012)

thesmallprint said:


> Holly, I was interested in your comment about co-authors and your belief that 'people forget you're there' if you're not constantly putting out new material. Do you think that sentiment is particular to your genre? It seems a hugely pressurized environment.


I think that's the market in general. There's so much competition and nonstop noise pulling on the readers. At the end of the day this is about readers and making it easy and fun to read. Easy is key. No one forgets you if they see your name every other week. The thing is, writing like that will burn most ppl out. I write bc I have to, it's part of me. I favor writing the shorter books bc it's more challenging not b/c of KU. Im still going with the write what u like at your pace, but frequency of publication is a factor.

***

Added: I just realized that some ppl took this in a way that wasn't intended. Cranking out crappy books is not what I'm doing or saying anyone else should do either. I write because I love to write. Period. I can write a NOVEL in a week. That's me.

'people forget you're there' if you're not constantly putting out new material' - I do think that, but not in a malicious way. We're busy with children, bills, and life. As a culture we tend to forget quickly, even if it was something we loved. There has to be a prompt to enable recall. I was in CA, NYC, and Austin in one week. I talked to tons of people. I had fun doing lots of things, and have already forgotten some of it until someone reminds me. Then we laugh and talk about it again. Books are the same way. You can write something great, but stick a year in the middle and life happens. So I add reminders - pictures, cameos in other books I'm writing, quotes, teaser trailers, etc. Books have their own ecosystem and it's not limited to a new manuscript.


----------



## Gennita Low (Dec 13, 2012)

The mention of Bob Mayer in that article is inspiring me to put one of my books in KU in several parts for 99cts each. Maybe I'll regain some lost income in January. And it's only for 3 months.

Off to start this project tonight....


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

*raises her hand*

I am an indie that absolutely used Kindle Unlimited this summer to rocket launch my return. My first book published this summer was up on Amazon and Nook for the same amount of time in July 2014. For two weeks before I pulled the plug and went KU (because I remembered LAST time first adopters made the most), Nook sold 18 copies, Amazon sold over 200. For July alone, I had 326 borrows on two titles, that escalated to 620 borrows on 2 titles in August.

If I hadn't jumped right in and written and published SIX titles this year, I would not be making preparations now to go wide with all of my books. Around October is when my borrows stabilized to about 300-400 a month, but the problem is I was adding more books into the program. So with six books and a seventh, eighth and ninth release planned just in the next two months, MY question became can I make more with other outlets?  I think I can, but ONLY because I now have an actual catalog of books in a niche genre. If I was releasing more slowly because I was writing part-time etc. I don't think I could walk away from the Prime borrows earnings because I wouldn't HAVE the catalog I do.

But I've been published for 3 years. I was around for the first disruption that was Kindle Select. It changed things then, and all the permafree people were TICKED that now anyone in KDP could do 5 days free, thus diluting their permafree earnings on sell through rates because they were losing valuable ranking spots (anyone else remember?). Now, most readers in Prime don't even remember to borrow a book a month. And free runs have lost a lot of punch they once had. And I'm in KU as a reader and I don't read 10 books a month, I mostly have it as a convenience to keep myself to a $10 a month spending limit on fiction. 

KU isn't designed to be a great marketing device for everyone. It's for authors not yet established. Or for established authors to energize an aging backlist. It's not for new releases of established authors, or at least authors in THAT category will certainly see a cannibalization of their sales at regular price in my observations.

Amazon is a mountain. None of us can have the arrogance that once we make it to the top we just should get to stay there. That's always going to disappoint an author. It's an ever-evolving thing that is the general reading populations' taste at the time. No one author is going to always see their earnings stay the same, it's just not possible. Even writers of series or serials, eventually some readers just lose interest, there is always going to be a loss of readers from book to book to book. Unless you can bring NEW readers to the series at a faster rate than the loss of readers, you will see a decline in your earnings. And even then, you will still see MORE people have bought book 1 than say book 8.

Facebook has changed dramatically since 2012 and 2013. There is more competition in most categories as MORE books have been written. There are also more readers with more devices out there than 2012 and 2013. It stinks when things change, but anytime something changes, there are winners and losers. And if you find yourself on the losing side, you have to adapt and find another way. That's all we can do.


----------



## H.M. Ward (May 16, 2012)

Why are people trying to make this into a fight? Us vs Amazon. Not what I said, not how I feel. The comments see the worst in this and made assumptions that are just false. Why would I want a coauthor? Of course it has nothing to do with helping other authors be seen/ discovered. I'm in the turning out crap mill. That explains why I turned down over $1.5 million from trad pubs who tried to buy my books last year, cuz I write crap and they like crap too. *rolls eyes* 

KU kicked me in the teeth. My OP about this was a warming, that's it. KU helped some other people, and it's a paradigm shift. That's it. What's with the ppl wanting Indies to go batshit crazy on Amazon? They're a business partner. 

I personally like the person who put what I should have said in quotes, as if I really said it. (I didn't). I'm not Hatchette. I'm Holly. And I know Amazon is willing to take a loss to increase their reach. And I know what I'm willing to do as an artist and a business woman. Holy shit! A person can be both? Yes. Some ppl took my last line to mean cranking out crap is the way to go. If you know me at all, that's not what I do or think. 

Why am I rambling? Because it seems like we're in high school and people are chanting 'fight, fight, fight.' If KU has worked for you - great! Kudos. And if you can write a novel a week, more power to you. The industry is in a free fall and has been since I walked into it. More change is coming. The more we know, the better we'll do.  Peace out.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

Talk about biting the hand that feeds.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

H.M. Ward said:


> Why am I rambling? Because it seems like we're in high school and people are chanting 'fight, fight, fight.' If KU has worked for you - great! Kudos. And if you can write a novel a week, more power to you. The industry is in a free fall and has been since I walked into it. More change is coming. The more we know, the better we'll do.  Peace out.


It's good that you've shared. It does seem that things can get...intense...sometimes. It's good to know more and sometimes, frankly, I think this business is terrifying (both as a businessperson and an artist). Telling the stories I want to tell, trying to make it pay, and figuring out the constant changes (and the things everyone else seems to know but I can't figure out!!)  Glad you don't resent that it's helped some of us. *raises hand* But I do wonder how they'll change it in the future. Would be a shame if Scribd offers all sorts of authors and KU only offers newer folks. (Personally, I actually want them both to succeed...although that will probably mean I end up subscribing to both as a reader!)


----------



## anotherpage (Apr 4, 2012)

H.M. Ward said:


> Why are people trying to make this into a fight? Us vs Amazon. Not what I said, not how I feel. The comments see the worst in this and made assumptions that are just false. Why would I want a coauthor? Of course it has nothing to do with helping other authors be seen/ discovered. I'm in the turning out crap mill. That explains why I turned down over $1.5 million from trad pubs who tried to buy my books last year, cuz I write crap and they like crap too. *rolls eyes*
> 
> KU kicked me in the teeth. My OP about this was a warming, that's it. KU helped some other people, and it's a paradigm shift. That's it. What's with the ppl wanting Indies to go bat[crap] crazy on Amazon? They're a business partner.
> 
> ...


I just think Holly is lovely. That's all i have to say. Thanks i'll go back to my popcorn now. lol


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

Someone said:


> Talk about biting the hand that feeds.


Geez. Right? I think the article might have done a little fact-checking, or better yet, asked some of the new crop of bestsellers how they feel about KU.


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

wtvr said:


> Geez. Right? I think the article might have done a little fact-checking, or better yet, asked some of the new crop of bestsellers how they feel about KU.


I read the article. It seemed that the writer did a considerable amount of fact-checking. The article had a number of links as well. The New York Times isn't a fly-by-night newspaper. They aren't going to run an article without substantiating facts.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

Marian,
There is a difference between fact checking, presenting an unbiased piece backed up by all the facts known to the writer, and presenting a bias view by leaving out information the writer is aware of. Considering he discovered HM Ward's unhappiness with KU within pieces that also included comments by others who were expressing happiness with KU but he never mentioned those comments or sought their speakers out, which of the 3 do you think occurred here?

Holly, 
Did you tell him that the benefits and effectiveness of KU varies with the type of author,  as you have stated here, and that you were only speaking to your author experiences with it?


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

H.M. Ward said:


> Why are people trying to make this into a fight? Us vs Amazon. Not what I said, not how I feel. The comments see the worst in this and made assumptions that are just false. Why would I want a coauthor? Of course it has nothing to do with helping other authors be seen/ discovered. I'm in the turning out crap mill. That explains why I turned down over $1.5 million from trad pubs who tried to buy my books last year, cuz I write crap and they like crap too. *rolls eyes*
> 
> KU kicked me in the teeth. My OP about this was a warming, that's it. KU helped some other people, and it's a paradigm shift. That's it. What's with the ppl wanting Indies to go bat[crap] crazy on Amazon? They're a business partner.
> 
> ...


Holly,

I understood what you meant, but there are still those who are under the false impression that churning books out quickly qualifies those works as crap, because you couldn't ~possibly write something really good or great in such a short period of time. Keep on rocking, Holly!


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

Before I begin, I have no agenda here but the pursuit of truth. There's an author on another forum that I frequent who brought it to my attention that, for all the respectable news outlets reporting on this "indie falling out" with Kindle Unlimited, there hasn't been a whole of fact checking going on. In fact, during a search, I haven't found a single news organization that has critically looked at Ms Ward's often-repeated "75% loss". From Ms Ward's own posts (and please excuse me for cherry picking):



H.M. Ward said:


> Ok, some of you already know, but I had my serials in it for 60 days and lost approx 75% of my income. Thats counting borrows and bonuses.





H.M. Ward said:


> both months I was an 'All Star'





H.M. Ward said:


> It effected the entire list including books not enrolled bc buyers changed into borrowers, who in turn did not spend money on my other titles.





H.M. Ward said:


> That was my thinking, but nope. The only titles I enrolled were priced at $2.99 or lower and shorter works.





H.M. Ward said:


> There was a decline in sales when KU launched, but not 75% worth.
> 
> I had non exclusive terms, so this doesn't account for other platforms, only amazon while in KU for 60 days.





H.M. Ward said:


> Yes, it was only Amazon and it occurred AFTER enrolling the books in KU. So I lost 75% of my income from kdp in 60 days. As soon as the books were withdrawn, sales began to perk back up.


So, to sum up: Ms. Ward's series "The Arrangement", all volumes of which are priced at $2.99, were enrolled in Kindle Unlimited on or around September 5. No works higher priced than $2.99 were ever enrolled.

The following graph shows the sales rank of several of The Arrangement's volumes over the course of 2014. This information was obtained from Novelrank and can be verified independently.










Note the time period between September 7 and November 4, in which the sales rank went from around 4000 to around 500. A low sales rank indicates more sales and borrows. No other author has come up with credible evidence that borrows are weighted higher than sales, so we're left with the conclusion that her sales plus borrows increased to about 800% of their previous level. Of course, as people will be quick to point out, a reader doesn't have to actually read the book for the borrow to affect sales rank, thus creating the "phantom borrows" effect. And I could believe that it could be a pronounced effect for the first book, maybe even the second book. But not the seventh book, and certainly not the thirteenth book. This graph is for The Arrangement 13 and was also taken from Novelrank and can be verified independently.










With an increase to 800% of sales and borrows, if we assume that every one of those was a borrow and an average loss of revenue of 33% per borrow versus a sale, it would take a ratio of twenty unread borrows for every copy read to at least 10% to account for a 75% loss in revenue. This is simply unrealistic.

But, as noted above, Ms. Ward also takes into account the fact that, now that her shorts were in Kindle Unlimited, nobody bought her novels anymore. However, the data that I was able to find showed a natural decay in sales, no different than anyone else experiences with their books. For every novel that we were able to get data on, we got similar results. This graph was also taken from Novelrank and can be verified independently.










She specifically points out that this was Amazon only. With the data that I have (which can not be verified independently, I apologize), I have speculated that she easily made the Top 10 KDP All Star list in September, and probably landed between 9 and 12 on the list in October, with several of her books receiving individual All Star bonuses. If we add that into her sales figures, it adds something like 75 cents per borrow for that time period, bringing her average rate per borrow to parity with the royalty received from a $2.99 sale during the months of September and October.

There are other factors, of course. The Arrangement 16 was released in late August and remained in the top 100 for the first part of her Kindle Unlimited stint, but fell out quicker than usual. This may be due to a myriad of factors (including other authors taking advantage of Kindle Unlimited) but, with no release in October, her sales began to flag, though not even close to the level we saw in early September (the time before she entered Kindle Unlimited).

I've never seen when this 75% drop is supposed to cover, exactly. If she's talking about a 75% drop from October 2013 to October 2014, that's a pretty disingenuous statement. If she's talking about a drop from March 2014 to October 2014 (the earliest time period that I can see this possibly being true), that's still disingenuous. The only honest time frame is comparing sales of August 2014 with sales of September 2014 or October 2014, the time immediately preceding her time in Kindle Unlimited compared with the time that she was in it. And I'm not seeing it.

I don't know what Ms. Ward's motives are in misrepresenting this data and I don't care to speculate, but I think that it would behoove the multiple establishment newspaper and other reporting agencies to do the minimum required fact checking before running articles such as this. Marie Force recently ran her own experiments with Kindle Unlimited, and found that her revenue was slightly lower without the All Star Bonus and slightly higher when including it, a figure that my own data supports. I don't expect Ms. Ward to respond to this post but I would be curious to see what kind of explanation she has for this huge disconnect in numbers.

_Edited to shrink image to accommodate those using mobile devices or older monitors. Thanks for understanding. --Betsy_


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

Edward M. Grant said:


> But Scribd claim to be making money, even though they pay much higher royalties than Amazon do on a subscription borrow.


What exactly are we angry about? The very existence of the subscription model or the very low pay-out? Getting rid of KU is impossible as long as Oyster and Scribd exist, but a higher pay-out per borrow is something most indies will want, including me and I'm happy with KU as a model.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

drno said:


> What exactly are we angry about? The very existence of the subscription model or the very low pay-out? Getting rid of KU is impossible as long as Oyster and Scribd exist, but a higher pay-out per borrow is something most indies will want, including me and I'm happy with KU as a model.


My guess is that many authors don't like KU exclusivity, and not knowing in advance what the borrow rate will be and the feeling that they are being used as pawns in a battle between Amazon and Oyster and Scribd. Also they probably don't like the fact that a 5000 word book gets the same per borrow payout as a full length novel. But otherwise I'm sure they think that it's a good model!


----------



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

SamSpade said:


> With an increase to 800% of sales and borrows, if we assume that every one of those was a borrow and an average loss of revenue of 33% per borrow versus a sale, it would take a ratio of twenty unread borrows for every copy read to at least 10% to account for a 75% loss in revenue. This is simply unrealistic.


I have no idea how many sales it takes to move a line on a graph, but I do know it doesn't take 800%. 1 sale can move a line from the millions to the hundred 1000s. My own sales of a book would be something like 10 a day = #10,000 ish I think. So would it take 80 a day to get into the top 20 let's say? I doubt it. It would take 100s a day probably.

I really don't know the answers. I DO know that my audio and kindle revenue (total across 12 titles) halved when KU came out. It has rebounded a little since then, but not enough to cover what disappeared. It doesn't matter anyway. KU is here to stay. I'll just have to run faster to stay in place.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

The problem with the article is that it generalizes from the extremes - a best-selling author, and an author who (sadly) had zero sales (though I bet he gets a few after being quoted in this article).  But the truth, as it usually does, resides in the mean, or the many more authors in between the best- and zero-sellers.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

H.M. Ward said:


> Reacting isn't Amazons usual spot with ebooks. They've been the ones other companies react to.


Actually, I'd argue this. I'd say Amazon's history with ebooks is to enhance not innovate. And I say this as a total Amazon and Kindle fangirl.

Amazon didn't invent ebooks ...I'd been reading ebooks on my Palm device years before the Kindle came out. They didn't invent the first dedicated ereader. Among others, the Sony was out before the Kindle. When the Nook came out, it actually innovated several features that Amazon added later--the ability to read library books being one of them; the ability to loan books another. And there was a lighted Nook (April 2012) before there was a lighted Kindle. (October 2012)

But when Amazon does do something, in most cases, it seems to be just plain better than the previous iterations or the eventually change it so that it is. I suspect KU is here to stay, but I think they'll continually be improving it, at least from the reader's point of view. Which probably means there is going to have to be some way to make it more attractive from the publishers' (including self-publishers) point of view in order to have good content for the readers.

As a reader.... I subscribe to KU...like Elizabeth, I do it to keep my costs down on buying fiction. I was buying many Kindle Daiy Deals; now I get many of those books available (for the time being, anyway) as part of my KU subscription. It actually saves me money, as I was buying more than five books a month before KU at $1.99 to $2.99. And I only read novels and longer ones at that. But I read a lot of mysteries and thrillers, (and sci-fi and romance) and there seems to be plenty of content for me in KU. If it all changes to short reads, not so much. Even if I could get all the parts within KU and read them--that's more work--I have to track down the parts and keep track of the order (though Kindle makes that easier these days). If a book is less than about 250 pages, I seldom borrow them.

Betsy


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

PaulLev said:


> The problem with the article is that it generalizes from the extremes - a best-selling author, and an author who (sadly) had zero sales (though I bet he gets a few after being quoted in this article). But the truth, as it usually does, resides in the mean, or the many more authors in between the best- and zero-sellers.


Someone has one-starred him and used the "monkey with a typewriter," line. This time round it's nothing to do with us, guv! Imagine agreeing to be quoted thus in the NYT. Mr Henderson should learn the benefits of judicious silence - which is ironic.


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

Someone said:


> There is a difference between fact checking, presenting an unbiased piece backed up by all the facts known to the writer, and presenting a bias view by leaving out information the writer is aware of. Considering he discovered HM Ward's unhappiness with KU within pieces that also included comments by others who were expressing happiness with KU but he never mentioned those comments or sought their speakers out, which of the 3 do you think occurred here?


I haven't re-read the thread that the reporter used as the basis for his article, but as I recall it was very, very long and more writers on this board expressed their unhappiness with KU, echoing Holly's, than their satisfaction with it. Many cited a precipitous drop in income. Even Rosalind posted that she was pulling some of her books. KU hurt best-selling authors as well as writers who were doing moderately well.

It has long been my observation that happiness isn't newsworthy; however, unhappiness gets attention. When a writer as successful as Holly expresses her unhappiness, attention is paid. I might have missed the posts because the thread was so long, but I don't recall any posts made by writers who have achieved Holly's level of success expressing their happiness with KU. The writers who expressed their happiness with it did so because their incomes had suddenly risen, but they weren't the focus of the article.

The hook for the reporter's article came from Holly's unhappiness with KU, which was the seed for the thread. He didn't discover it "within pieces that included comments by others." This was the reporter's logical focus. I think it was brave of Holly to post her decision and to agree to be interviewed.


----------



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

Something that I think is worth noting: quite a few (maybe close to all) of the authors who have expressed positive feelings about KU and increased income as a result of being in Select/KU post anonymously. Which makes them more difficult to verify as sources (not saying they're lying--I know a lot of them are legit and doing VERY well). No one reading the NY Times is going to take, "Kboards poster BobblyWobbly adores KU ..." seriously. Without actual names it's meaningless and unverifiable.


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

Marian said:


> I haven't re-read the thread that the reporter used as the basis for his article, but as I recall it was very, very long and more writers on this board expressed their unhappiness with KU, echoing Holly's, than their satisfaction with it. Many cited a precipitous drop in income. Even Rosalind posted that she was pulling some of her books. KU hurt best-selling authors as well as writers who were doing moderately well.


And there were lots of authors who never saw any success before KU and found readers thanks to KU. You can find their posts here on KBoards. Just because they aren't big names doesn't mean their success should not be taken into account when judging KU. Also: many authors have stated that KU had no impact on their sales. And others (such as YodaRead) have seen an exponential increase.


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

SevenDays said:


> Something that I think is worth noting: quite a few (maybe close to all) of the authors who have expressed positive feelings about KU and increased income as a result of being in Select/KU post anonymously. Which makes them more difficult to verify as sources (not saying they're lying--I know a lot of them are legit and doing VERY well). No one reading the NY Times is going to take, "Kboards poster BobblyWobbly adores KU ..." seriously. Without actual names it's meaningless and unverifiable.


This


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

books_mb said:


> And there were lots of authors who never saw any success before KU and found readers thanks to KU. You can find their posts here on KBoards. Just because they aren't big names doesn't mean their success should not be taken into account when judging KU. Also: many authors have stated that KU had no impact on their sales. And others (such as YodaRead) have seen an exponential increase.


Again, the reporter's focus was on big names, and on authors who use their real names. I don't know how he could be expected to read through hundreds of posts on this board to find the ones who have had success with KU. It would take ages.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

SamSpade said:


> Before I begin, I have no agenda here but the pursuit of truth. There's an author on another forum that I frequent who brought it to my attention that, for all the respectable news outlets reporting on this "indie falling out" with Kindle Unlimited, there hasn't been a whole of fact checking going on. In fact, during a search, I haven't found a single news organization that has critically looked at Ms Ward's often-repeated "75% loss". From Ms Ward's own posts (and please excuse me for cherry picking):
> 
> So, to sum up: Ms. Ward's series "The Arrangement", all volumes of which are priced at $2.99, were enrolled in Kindle Unlimited on or around September 5. No works higher priced than $2.99 were ever enrolled.
> 
> ...


Very interesting. I don't have the experience with Amazon sales rank to check this, but can someone else?


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

Someone said:


> Talk about biting the hand that feeds.


THIS.

And think for yourselves, folks, please. You have your OWN businesses and your OWN writing lives. Remember that when you get drawn into other people's dramas.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> I have no idea how many sales it takes to move a line on a graph, but I do know it doesn't take 800%. 1 sale can move a line from the millions to the hundred 1000s. My own sales of a book would be something like 10 a day = #10,000 ish I think. So would it take 80 a day to get into the top 20 let's say? I doubt it. It would take 100s a day probably.


As a book moves up in rankings, it takes significantly more sales to continue the upward trend. One sale of a particular book, in a particular category, with particular keywords--yes, all of those factors make a big difference in rank--may move that book from a rank of 1,000,000,000 to 100,000, but that same book would need something like an 800% increase in sales to go from a rank in the low thousands to even lower in the thousands.


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

I'm not anonymous, and I've found that KU is additive, based on my past sales, not subtractive. Not that any of it is particularly high in the first place, but borrows definitely don't seem to be taking away sales. 

Just as an experiment, I've taken one of my poorer selling books (the Snarls) and gone wide with it through D2D - I'll take out some ads for it in January, and see if I get any traction on other sites. If not, it'll probably go back into Amazon Select again. I figure I'll give it a 3-month trial to see whether I get sales on any of the other sites.


----------



## tessblunt (Jan 29, 2014)

The people posting anonymously are the old school self pub Rockstars who have been in this game long enough to know that you can't expect to stay on top all the time, and that publicly whining about revenue volatility does nothing but draw negative attention to yourself and your brand. We've seen many authors get doxxed and their credibility  destroyed forever. You have to be a glutton for pain to post online using your real info.

I'm all in on KU and made well into the upper six figures this year. I don't need the approval of anyone on this board or the NYT to verify my success. I also understand that a $70k month can be immediately followed by a $20k month. That's beautiful.

You know why? Because that means that no one author can dominate the top 100 for long, which means more opportunity for everyone else.

I'm sorry Holly isn't making what she thinks she deserves to be making, but I have more bad news for her: Amazon doesn't care, the wider market doesn't care, and the consumer masses certainly don't care. I'm waiting with baited breath to see her refute the analysis previously posted on the last page.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

I am so glad someone had a way to prove those 75% loss claims were false. Thank you for the solid third-party info! Let's hope NYT is no longer reading this board!

It would have only taken a few private messages to KU supporters to get someone willing to go on record and out their name. Being in an NYT article would have been a pretty good balance to the 1-star brigade.


----------



## Vermicious Knid (Apr 1, 2013)

Crayola said:


> * fear of the 1 star mob*.


Yeppers. I have personally seen a drastic increase in my writing income since KU launched, with my peak month being six times the previous peak. Averaged over the life of KU, my income has increased by about two and a half times. But I won't be putting my pen names out here, because the last thing I need is the sycophant squad going after my catalogue. I *definitely * wouldn't put my real name out here, because some posters on this board come across as just crazy enough to make real life threats because I don't worship at the same cult of personality as they do. If that invalidates my experience in the eyes of some, what do I care?

It's been interesting watching author reactions to KU. It seems to bring some low-income authors more money, while some high-income authors are having their expectations adjusted. I try to remember that none of us are owed anything at all. It keeps me grateful for what I have.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

tessblunt said:


> The people posting anonymously are the old school self pub Rockstars who have been in this game long enough to know that you can't expect to stay on top all the time, and that publicly whining about revenue volatility does nothing but draw negative attention to yourself and your brand....


If they are posting anonymously, tell me, what special powers do you possess to enable you to know who they are?


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

As someone who switched to an anonymous account for the better part of this year before switching back to my real name, I don't believe for a second that every anonymous poster on KBoards is a clandestine bestseller, nor that anonymous posters here deserve any more respect than anonymous posters elsewhere on the internet (which is to say, not much). 

If you don't attach your name to what you post online, you're a coward. Full stop. The only reasonable exception to that is if you're fighting against a totalitarian regime that will torture and/or kill both you and everyone you love if your identity is revealed.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> I have no idea how many sales it takes to move a line on a graph, but I do know it doesn't take 800%. 1 sale can move a line from the millions to the hundred 1000s. My own sales of a book would be something like 10 a day = #10,000 ish I think. So would it take 80 a day to get into the top 20 let's say? I doubt it. It would take 100s a day probably.


It takes a lot more than that. Remember the lady who make 40K in 10 days (without KU btw)? She was at the top of the charts. The higher you go, the more sales it takes to move a notch.



Colin said:


> If they are posting anonymously, tell me, what special powers do you possess to enable you to know who they are?


Special powers of friendship, yo! The Power of Greyskull!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK, folks...

we're getting a bit far afield from the topic--let's not get into reasons people have for being anonymous here--they have their reasons and it's not for us to judge or name call.  

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Joe Vasicek said:


> The only reasonable exception to that is if you're fighting against a totalitarian regime that will torture and/or kill both you and everyone you love if your identity is revealed.


Amazon?


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

Colin said:


> Amazon?


Unless you can order kidneys on Amazon harvested from prisoners of conscience, I'm going to say no.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

beccaprice said:


> I'm not anonymous, and I've found that KU is additive, based on my past sales, not subtractive. Not that any of it is particularly high in the first place, but borrows definitely don't seem to be taking away sales.


That has been my experience, too. My sales have consistently increased at the same rate as before KU, with the exception of a dry spell in ...I believe it was October. I addition, my borrows are close to equal my sales. So far, sales have still outnumbered borrows by a little bit. I feel that, for me, KU has expanded my audience.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

wtvr said:


> I am so glad someone had a way to prove those 75% loss claims were false.


I believe Holly and she did lose 75 percent of the money she was making on Amazon, due to borrows eating her sales. She is not exclusive KU, so she is also selling the same books outside of KU. Too many major indie writers are saying the same thing. I just don't see any remedy, though. If you leave KU, will your loyal readers still want to read your books, even if they have to pay a high price or do they move to another similar writer in the same genre, who is in KU? Love to hear what Holly's experiences will be.

I think in the end, if the price per borrow goes back to around $2 everyone will come back to KU. I will argue with fellow indies about the right of KU to exist. KU has been good to me. I won't argue with fellow indies about the price we receive per borrow. It should be as high as possible. That is good for me.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

Joe Vasicek said:


> As someone who switched to an anonymous account for the better part of this year before switching back to my real name, I don't believe for a second that every anonymous poster on KBoards is a clandestine bestseller, nor that anonymous posters here deserve any more respect than anonymous posters elsewhere on the internet (which is to say, not much).


I tend to agree. Indeed, in this case, I not only posted what I thought here under my name, as I always do, but put those thoughts in a comment to the NY Times article, which, to their credit, they published as an "NYT Pick" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/technology/amazon-offers-all-you-can-eat-books-authors-turn-up-noses.html?comments#permid=13693073

The general issue of pseudonyms is complex, though - I can understand, for example, who someone who writes YA and erotica might want to write at least one under a pseudonym. I write science fiction as well as scholarly nonfiction, and people sometimes ask me why I don't use a pseudonym for at least one of them. I always respond that I want the girl who sat next to me in 7th grade and didn't laugh at my best jokes to see what she missed - that, and I think using anything other than your own name in everything you write does dilute your brand.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Joe Vasicek said:


> If you don't attach your name to what you post online, you're a coward. Full stop. The only reasonable exception to that is if you're fighting against a totalitarian regime that will torture and/or kill both you and everyone you love if your identity is revealed.


Some people just like their privacy. There's nothing wrong with that and I certainly wouldn't consider it cowardice.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Joe Vasicek said:


> Unless you can order kidneys on Amazon harvested from prisoners of conscience, I'm going to say no.


They could be launching Kidney Unlimited soon. 

Runs off in an unprodwardly direction...


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Joe Vasicek said:


> Very interesting. I don't have the experience with Amazon sales rank to check this, but can someone else?


She never said she lost rank but that she lost income. Her books sell for $2.99 which is a profit of $2.00. Now average borrow was $1.37 during her two months. That is a loss of 63 cents per book. Those numbers add up quick especially if no one is buying and only borrowing.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

drno said:


> I believe Holly and she did lose 75 percent of the money she was making on Amazon, due to borrows eating her sales.


So do I. When a person goes from a $3 sales profit to a $1.33 borrow, it eats profts pretty quickly.

And something to consider with regards to that chart. Novelrank uses a book's rank to _estimate_ the number of sales the book made. Since borrows do impact rank, it is fair to assume that the chart includes borrows in their estimation--they have no way to separate them. How many borrows, we don't know. So it is absolutely possible that, even though the chart shows an increase in sales/borrows, her income could be lower.

It certainly does not prove to me that she is being dishonest.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Colin said:


> Runs off in an unprodwardly direction...


The prod has a very long reach...
http://www.farmandranchdepot.com/farm-equipment/Red_Horn_Shaft_f-_72-_Prods.html


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> She never said she lost rank but that she lost income. Her books sell for $2.99 which is a profit of $2.00. Now average borrow was $1.37 during her two months. That is a loss of 63 cents per book. Those numbers add up quick especially if no one is buying and only borrowing.


63c per book isn't 75% of anything. But a huge rank increase is a lot more sales and borrows, which shouldn't have been a loss of revenue at all until she left. And by her own quote, she was including sales + borrows in her "loss." So where is it?

Maybe there's a way that her statement is true that she lost 75% of something somewhere, but she laid it squarely at KUs feet. That part - that KU cost her a 75% drop in monthly revenue - should be proven, if it's going to be repeated. It seems to really be making the rounds right now, even though it's not verified.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> The prod has a very long reach...
> http://www.farmandranchdepot.com/farm-equipment/Red_Horn_Shaft_f-_72-_Prods.html


Oh no....it's the Trans-Atlantic XP2-1216K prodder with satnav and GPS limey detection radar!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

vlmain said:


> Some people just like their privacy. There's nothing wrong with that and I certainly wouldn't consider it cowardice.


Agree. I don't have any issue with anonymity; there are many reasons for doing so. I know that we have had members here who have created secondary accounts (even though that's not allowed) for the purposes of posting anonymously.

I do have a problem however, with someone creating an anonymous account for, apparently, the sole purpose of making one controversial post in a thread and never returning for discussion. Not an author, don't know much about rankings and how they are achieved--relying upon our author-members to decode all that--but drive by posts make my cattle-prod trigger finger itchy.

Just sayin'.

Betsy


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

If someone really wants to crunch the numbers for Holly, then rather than just looking at a few of her books one would need to look at all of them.  I have no clue of her actual numbers but if she had 10 books in and 10 books out that were all selling before KU but the 10 out didn't sell during her KU time that could account for a serious amount of revenue loss.    She said her sales dropped across the board not just the books in KU.


----------



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

wtvr said:


> 63c per book isn't 75% of anything. But a huge rank increase is a lot more sales and borrows, which shouldn't have been a loss of revenue at all until she left. And by her own quote, she was including sales + borrows in her "loss." So where is it?


One additional thing everyone is forgetting is that rank increases when the reader borrows a book. But payout doesn't happen until they reach 10%. There's no knowing how many readers borrowed the book without hitting the 10% mark. So theoretically the rank could take a huge jump without Holly (or any other author) seeing a cent if those readers don't read past 10%.


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Agree. I don't have any issue with anonymity; there are many reasons for doing so. I know that we have had members here who have created secondary accounts (even though that's not allowed) for the purposes of posting anonymously.
> 
> I do have a problem however, with someone creating an anonymous account for, apparently, the sole purpose of making one controversial post in a thread and never returning for discussion. Not an author, don't know much about rankings and how they are achieved--relying upon our author-members to decode all that--but drive by posts make my cattle-prod trigger finger itchy.
> 
> ...


Some people have learned the hard way not to share too much information online. Years ago, when I was involved in the activist community, my mother received threats from people who disagreed with me. I wasn't living with my mother; we weren't even in the same city.

We share stories here about people being targeted by other authors, readers, or journalists. People frequently use "YMMV" when discussing business strategy, but that same concept doesn't seem to extend to one's personal choice to remain anonymous.


----------



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

cinisajoy said:


> If someone really wants to crunch the numbers for Holly, then rather than just looking at a few of her books one would need to look at all of them. I have no clue of her actual numbers but if she had 10 books in and 10 books out that were all selling before KU but the 10 out didn't sell during her KU time that could account for a serious amount of revenue loss. She said her sales dropped across the board not just the books in KU.


I'm pretty sure this is what was meant. I am not in KU, yet all of my Amazon and Audible sales dropped 50%. As I say, it has rebounded some. I saw the drop just before KU was announced, so I am guessing a pre-emptive algo change caused it, one designed to position KU titles in their best light.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> If someone really wants to crunch the numbers for Holly, then rather than just looking at a few of her books one would need to look at all of them. I have no clue of her actual numbers but if she had 10 books in and 10 books out that were all selling before KU but the 10 out didn't sell during her KU time that could account for a serious amount of revenue loss. She said her sales dropped across the board not just the books in KU.


If that's what it is - that her sales on non-KU books dropped dramatically - then fine. Let's just hear that. That's not really an indictment of KU so much as it is a suggestion that KU is awesome unless you're not in it.


----------



## HillOnLong (Oct 11, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I do have a problem however, with someone creating an anonymous account for, apparently, the sole purpose of making one controversial post in a thread and never returning for discussion. Not an author, don't know much about rankings and how they are achieved--relying upon our author-members to decode all that--but drive by posts make my cattle-prod trigger finger itchy.
> Just sayin'.
> Betsy


This is wrong on so many levels it has made me come out of lurking mode.

A better answer, in my opinion, would be to prove the information wrong, not to start a witch hunt because someone made an account to refute what everyone took as gospel. If the data that the poster provided can't be refuted, the problem should not be him making an account for posting on this single subject that you consider controversial, should it? Just suggesting something like that (by a mod nonetheless) is mind-boggling.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Not a author so not going into the nuts and bolts, not qualified for that. But I am a reader and I was, up until a couple of weeks ago, a subscriber of KU. With all these losses being talked about, as in instead of buying the readers are borrowing, don't also forget the other side of it. The extra borrows. Those that would never have been a sale to begin with, so not a loss, but an additional income. Even if it was lower than a sale, it wasn't instead of. It was in addition of.

I read some of such books while subscribing to KU. And just so staying with the theme, 3 of those were of HM Ward. I had no intention of buying those to read, but because I had KU, I read 3 of them. So my borrows were not a lost sale, they were an additional money coming in. There were quite a few books like that I read in KU that I never thought about buying before or after KU. 

So not all borrows are a loss of sale. I read all the time how KU subscribers read stuff they normally wouldn't, or wouldn't have purchased, etc. I would think that number of readers and books would make up for some of the loss of royalty.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I do have a problem however, with someone creating an anonymous account for, apparently, the sole purpose of making one controversial post in a thread and never returning for discussion.


That definitely falls into the cowardice category. My feeling has always been that if you're going to say something that requires an alternate ID, it's probably something that shouldn't be said.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

wtvr said:


> If that's what it is - that her sales on non-KU books dropped dramatically - then fine. Let's just hear that. That's not really an indictment of KU so much as it is a suggestion that KU is awesome unless you're not in it.


Now I cannot be 100% sure on this post but I think part of her drop was due to the fact that she is a fairly big name. The books she put in KU were getting borrows but readers were not buying any of her books because the readers figured they would eventually all be able to be borrowed. I figure this since she said her sales went back up after she left KU. 
Her problems were specifically her name and reader behavior.

I would bet you a dollar right now that the average reader has no clue or even cares what an author makes off of a book. Borrowers probably don't even know about the 10% read payout.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Agree. I don't have any issue with anonymity; there are many reasons for doing so. I know that we have had members here who have created secondary accounts (even though that's not allowed) for the purposes of posting anonymously.


Well, that's certainly their choice and I appreciate you making it available to us, but at the same time this is a public forum. If privacy is the main concern, maybe they should take the discussion to a private space and not a public one.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Totally OT but this thread is making me hungry for Mexican food.


----------



## Jake Kerr (Aug 6, 2014)

> I figure this since she said her sales went back up after she left KU.
> Her problems were specifically her name and reader behavior.


This is my big problem with all the press out there right now. They are making sweeping generalizations about losses across the board and how KU is horrible and other things that are only partially right and even then in specific circumstances.


----------



## H.M. Ward (May 16, 2012)

Wow. I've been a member here how long, and Im getting called out for lying. Wth? Look at my posts. They tend to state changes w/I the industry or are answering ppl asking for help. 

Dude trying to prove with Novelrank that my statements are false-your assumptions are incorrect. Therefore your data is flawed and also wrong. 

For the rest of you that are hoping my info is false, that seems counterproductive. We're either going to have to live with KU or Amazon will tweak it.

If KU works for you, great. As for program changes-ditching the 10% rate, subscribe to an author, and other changes would help those already benefiting from KU. 

Someone asked if I mentioned ppl doing well w KU-I did, as well as many other things that were not put into this article.

Those who messaged me bc they were too afraid to post, thank you.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Joe Vasicek said:


> Well, that's certainly their choice and I appreciate you making it available to us, but at the same time this is a public forum. If privacy is the main concern, maybe they should take the discussion to a private space and not a public one.


Because some of the best forums are public. And just because a person chooses to engage in conversation on a public forum does not mean they should have to give up their right to privacy.


----------



## HillOnLong (Oct 11, 2014)

H.M. Ward said:


> Wow. I've been a member here how long, and Im getting called out for lying. Wth? Look at my posts. They tend to state changes w/I the industry or are answering ppl asking for help.
> 
> Dude trying to prove with Novelrank that my statements are false-your assumptions are incorrect. Therefore your data is flawed and also wrong.


As much as I respect you for what you have achieved as an author, your answer failed to deliver anything that could be used to disprove what was presented. Sure, you could not want to get into an argument with a stranger on the internet and that is OK. However, at the same time you must understand that not actually saying why it was wrong makes it seem like he was in fact right. And that is just my 2c.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

I was never a KU fan, but I do have to admit when I put a 99 cent short erotica in for the select free days I got 47 borrows and actually made far more money on my free promo than I would have selling it, so there's that. Right now I'm working on a full length novel to be priced at 3.99 and wouldn't go near KU with it. I also have a novella for 2.99 coming out later this week and it won't be in Select, but I'll probably put another short in to promote. Everyone just calls it KU these days, but a lot of authors just keep using Select for the promo perks like they've always done. We need the free days and we're sucked into KU whether we like it or not. That being said, no I am not complaining that my 99 cent story is earning 1.39. I just don't see how a big name or anyone priced at 2.99 or above wouldn't lose money.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

H.M. Ward said:


> Wow. I've been a member here how long, and Im getting called out for lying. Wth? Look at my posts. They tend to state changes w/I the industry or are answering ppl asking for help.
> 
> Dude trying to prove with Novelrank that my statements are false-your assumptions are incorrect. Therefore your data is flawed and also wrong.
> 
> ...


I think it's fair, though, to point out inconsistencies between the changes in your historic sales rank and the claims that you made both in the original KU thread and in the NYTimes article. It's not so much that people are accusing you of lying so much as applying critical reasoning to your argument that KU caused a 75% decrease in your revenue. Given the apparent inconsistencies and how public you've been about this, it's something that deserves to be addressed and explored.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

C.S. Longhill said:


> As much as I respect you for what you have achieved as an author, your answer failed to deliver anything that could be used to disprove what was presented. Sure, you could not want to get into an argument with a stranger on the internet and that is OK. However, at the same time you must understand that not actually saying why it was wrong makes it seem like he was in fact right. And that is just my 2c.


Exactly.

I'd also like to say that a mod threatening to ban/censor someone for posting publicly available info under an anonymous account is ridiculous. The person posting the info does not matter. The info itself is what matters. Its sources are referenced and it's all publicly available. One needs nothing more to refute it with a cogent, rational response.

If you're really itching to know who Sam Spade is, it makes me wonder what virulent stream of ad hominem attacks you have lined up for him.

If you want to argue like an adult, you argue using data and logic. Identities figure nowhere into that.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

Colin said:


> They could be launching Kidney Unlimited soon.


With a sense of humor like that, I can't tell if you're British or Estonian.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

genrehopper said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I'd also like to say that a mod threatening to ban/censor someone for posting publicly available info under an anonymous account is ridiculous.


Where did she do that? All I saw was a comment about her cattle prod finger getting itchy, and we were speaking generally, about people who create new accounts for the purpose of making controversial statements. I saw no threat to ban or censor.


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

Joe Vasicek said:


> If you don't attach your name to what you post online, you're a coward. Full stop. The only reasonable exception to that is if you're fighting against a totalitarian regime that will torture and/or kill both you and everyone you love if your identity is revealed.


Or you're a woman, just about anywhere on the Internet.


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

H.M. Ward said:


> Someone asked if I mentioned ppl doing well w KU-I did, as well as many other things that were not put into this article.


I think the above is worth highlighting. Journalists have a habit of taking only what fits the narrative, it's how they make controversial articles that generate a lot of clicks. Of course this means that the somewhat one-sided tone of the article is not necessarily a result of what the authors mentioned in the article said, it's a result of what the journalist chose to put in there.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Colin said:


> My guess is that many authors don't like KU exclusivity, and not knowing in advance what the borrow rate will be and the feeling that they are being used as pawns in a battle between Amazon and Oyster and Scribd. Also they probably don't like the fact that a 5000 word book gets the same per borrow payout as a full length novel. But otherwise I'm sure they think that it's a good model!


I never understood the problem with shorts in KU. The Tell Tale Heart is short and blows away a lot of 60k novels on Amazon. Most erotica writers do short and erotica is a big hit in KU, so Amazon hasn't made it against the rules and probably won't. Length doesn't matter. It's quality and some readers enjoy those shorts as much or more than a novel. I edited to add a lot of Holly's stories are short compared to the 60k novel, but they're good. I buy them because I enjoy them more than if she added a 100 more pages of boring filler.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

EC said:


> Someone has one-starred him and used the "monkey with a typewriter," line. This time round it's nothing to do with us, guv! Imagine agreeing to be quoted thus in the NYT. Mr Henderson should learn the benefits of judicious silence - which is ironic.


True enough - though there is old principle that the worst publicity is no publicity


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

books_mb said:


> I think the above is worth highlighting. Journalists have a habit of taking only what fits the narrative, it's how they make controversial articles that generate a lot of clicks. Of course this means that the somewhat one-sided tone of the article is not necessarily a result of what the authors mentioned in the article said, it's a result of what the journalist chose to put in there.


Absolutely. Due to the imperative of gaining maximum clicks and maximum advertising revenue, objective journalism (particularly in the internet age) has become of secondary importance to even the most respected publications.

Clickbait rules!


----------



## Cookie Monster (Apr 6, 2014)

I really don't understand what people think H.M. Ward would have to gain by not being upfront about her numbers after KU. She clearly started with an open mind about KU since she went into it for two months. The results were not what she'd hoped for and she pulled out because of declining revenue. That's just business. She told Kboards about those results in the spirit of generosity.

Frankly, I'm appalled at the discourtesy being shown to her in this thread based on Novelranks, which is not a tool that can accurately measure possible revenue when you're talking about borrows and sales. Since many indies have experienced a drop in revenue related to KU and reported that here and on private loops, I'm not sure why H.M. Ward's revenue drop is controversial at all.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

C.S. Longhill said:


> This is wrong on so many levels it has made me come out of lurking mode.
> 
> A better answer, in my opinion, would be to prove the information wrong, not to start a witch hunt because someone made an account to refute what everyone took as gospel. If the data that the poster provided can't be refuted, the problem should not be him making an account for posting on this single subject that you consider controversial, should it? Just suggesting something like that (by a mod nonetheless) is mind-boggling.


CS-

I appreciate that you came out of lurk mode to respond to me; I'm sorry that I offended you. However, it is precisely AS a mod that the post in question disturbs me. I believe strongly that if a member is going to question the accuracy or honesty of another member's post, that member should hang around for followup. This was not a casual comment; it was a researched (apparently) post that the member took a great deal of time in creating. Other members here have had questions and comment about it.

It's not the anonymity in and of itself I have a problem with; I thought I made it clear that I have no problem with anonymity. It's creating an account for the purpose of posting something this controversial and then not responding to questions about the post. Believe me, I've had the same stance before when accounts were created to attack members, some not nearly as well liked as Holly and some not liked at all, sadly.

And keep on posting!



genrehopper said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I'd also like to say that a mod threatening to ban/censor someone for posting publicly available info under an anonymous account is ridiculous. The person posting the info does not matter. The info itself is what matters. Its sources are referenced and it's all publicly available. One needs nothing more to refute it with a cogent, rational response.
> 
> ...


genrehopper,

Also sorry for any misunderstanding--I had to go back and re-read what I had posted because I didn't remember threatening to ban or censor anyone, nor any demand to know who SamSpade was. The comment about my trigger figure was a (apparently ill-advised) quip, as all of my cattle prod comments are (quips, not ill-advised, I don't think). I don't really have a cattle-prod, though don't tell Colin that.

Again, as I said to CS, I believe that if a member is going to question another member's veracity, it behooves the member to engage. I stand by that; as I stand by the right of members to post anonymously. You disagree; and that's your right. I won't fight you on it. I agree completely that one should argue using data and logic. I just would have liked to see SamSpade answer some of the points made about the data posted.

I apologize to the membership as a whole for derailing this thread; I want to keep it open. I welcome PMs giving feedback on my work here as a moderator; or you can PM Harvey. Let's get this thread back on track discussing the NYT article.

Thanks,

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

H.M. Ward said:


> Wow. I've been a member here how long, and Im getting called out for lying. Wth? Look at my posts. They tend to state changes w/I the industry or are answering ppl asking for help.
> 
> Dude trying to prove with Novelrank that my statements are false-your assumptions are incorrect. Therefore your data is flawed and also wrong.
> 
> ...


Just want to meet at Oscar's for some good mexican food?


----------



## HillOnLong (Oct 11, 2014)

CMD said:


> I really don't understand what people think H.M. Ward would have to gain by not being upfront about her numbers after KU. She clearly started with an open mind about KU since she went into it for two months. The results were not what she'd hoped for and she pulled out because of declining revenue. That's just business. She told Kboards about those results in the spirit of generosity.
> 
> Frankly, I'm appalled at the discourtesy being shown to her in this thread based on Novelranks, which is not a tool that can accurately measure possible revenue when you're talking about borrows and sales. Since many indies have experienced a drop in revenue related to KU and reported that here and on private loops, I'm not sure why H.M. Ward's revenue drop is controversial at all.


If you know why Novelrank is incorrect, please tell us why it is wrong in this particular case. While you might be right that it isn't 100 % correct, it does not mean that it is so wrong that the data it provides can't be used to make any rational arguments. Saying that it can't measure sells and borrows accurately doesn't really mean anything unless you can tell us a reason why it is wrong in this case.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

CMD said:


> I really don't understand what people think H.M. Ward would have to gain by not being upfront about her numbers after KU. She clearly started with an open mind about KU since she went into it for two months. The results were not what she'd hoped for and she pulled out because of declining revenue. That's just business. She told Kboards about those results in the spirit of generosity.
> 
> Frankly, I'm appalled at the discourtesy being shown to her in this thread based on Novelranks, which is not a tool that can accurately measure possible revenue when you're talking about borrows and sales. Since many indies have experienced a drop in revenue related to KU and reported that here and on private loops, I'm not sure why H.M. Ward's revenue drop is controversial at all.


I don't understand using novelranks to disprove anything. They state clearly on their site that they are fairly accurate on books with lower sales, but not always with higher volume sales. They themselves urge you not to rely on their data as sole proof of sales, so that says it all.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

The problem I see is someone posted 4 of Holly's books.  Now I know she has more books out than that.    To do any kind of analysis,  we need all the numbers.    Now back off of Holly since she has absolutely no reason to lie.    
I am glad Amazon let her pull out of KU when they and she noticed what happened.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> CS-
> 
> I appreciate that you came out of lurk mode to respond to me; I'm sorry that I offended you. However, it is precisely AS a mod that the post in question disturbs me. I believe strongly that if a member is going to question the accuracy or honesty of another member's post, that member should hang around for followup. This was not a casual comment; it was a researched (apparently) post that the member took a great deal of time in creating. Other members here have had questions and comment about it.
> 
> ...


My comment "If you're really itching to know who Sam Spade is..." was directed at no one in particular. The repetition of the word "itch" made it seem directed at you--that wasn't my intention. I didn't mean to accuse you of wanting to fling ad hominems. For that misunderstanding, I apologize.

The first paragraph of that post was meant as a response to your apparent consideration of moderator action against someone for posting anonymously.

To no one in particular--anonymity used to be one of the great values of the Internet. Now, people are called cowards for attempting to maintain any shred of privacy. What happened?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK, really, if I wasn't clear enough earlier--there are many reasons someone might want to post anonymously.  

Let's drop the whole "cowardly" thing and also anonymity, for that matter.  Discuss the article or move on or we are going to have to lock the thread.

Betsy


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

Holly made two extraordinary claims: that her revenue (that's actual dollars, not units) dropped 75%, and that KU caused that drop. She posted this on her site, Facebook, and here (and maybe elsewhere.) She was never asked for proof. 

Now those claims are being posted in the NYT, and instantly there is compelling third-party evidence that a 75% drop in revenue is extremely unlikely. It's not precise, but it's extremely compelling and it's the closest thing to proof that's been presented.

Maybe there's some wiggling around here. Maybe her statements are being understood as "all my revenue dropped 75%" but really it means "if all those borrows had been sales, and my sales continued to increase the way my estimates predicted pre-KU, I would have a whole lot more." I hope it turns out to be something like that, a misunderstanding.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> The problem I see is someone posted 4 of Holly's books. Now I know she has more books out than that. To do any kind of analysis, we need all the numbers. Now back off of Holly since she has absolutely no reason to lie.
> I am glad Amazon let her pull out of KU when they and she noticed what happened.


I'm pretty sure a bestselling author has something better to do than lie on Kboards. Actually, we should all be grateful she sticks around and offers knowledge of what she's learned through experience. Most big names leave Kboards. I imagine this is why.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

katrina46 said:


> I don't understand using novelranks to disprove anything. They state clearly on their site that they are fairly accurate on books with lower sales, but not always with higher volume sales. They themselves urge you not to rely on their data as sole proof of sales, so that says it all.


No, it doesn't.

They are 100% accurate as to sales rankings, since they get them directly from Amazon.

They then use an algorithm to deduce sales. It's this algorithm that isn't 100% accurate.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Andrew Ashling said:


> No, it doesn't.
> 
> They are 100% accurate as to sales rankings, since they get them directly from Amazon.
> 
> They then use an algorithm to deduce sales. It's this algorithm that isn't 100% accurate.


They say they are not always accurate with large sales. I read it with my own eyes about an hour ago. It doesn't matter why. Not accurate is not accurate.


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

katrina46 said:


> I'm pretty sure a bestselling author has something better to do than lie on Kboards. Actually, we should all be grateful she sticks around and offers knowledge of what she's learned through experience. Most big names leave Kboards. I imagine this is why.


THIS


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

katrina46 said:


> They say they are not always accurate with large sales. I read it with my own eyes about an hour ago.


Yes, their algorithms can't translate large *sales numbers* accurately from the 100% accurate *sales rankings* they mention.

SamSpade gave graphs of the *sales ranking*, not the *sales numbers*. You can easily deduce, albeit in a general way, how a book is doing from that.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

If KU borrows are now influencing algorithms, to a degree we have yet to determine, it's impossible to say how much money anyone made at a given rank since we don't know the borrows/sales ratios to estimate commissions.

And also what Katrina said.



katrina46 said:


> I'm pretty sure a bestselling author has something better to do than lie on Kboards. Actually, we should all be grateful she sticks around and offers knowledge of what she's learned through experience. Most big names leave Kboards. I imagine this is why.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

I think we can all agree that more = more.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Is there some hidden line in the KDP TOS that we are to protect Amazon to our last breath, even if it means ripping someone else limb from metaphorical limb?

Some people have very clearly been waiting for some smoking gun to 'prove' Holly's claims false. They've been promoting a narrative that it wasn't KU that caused it, or that KU was never meant for -literally everyone who it's hurt- and thus what did she expect, for weeks now. There has been a desperation to sweep Holly under the carpet and it has been very easy to identify as organized for anyone used to this kind of thing.

That it came from a parachute account (citing 'another author' no less!) and a bunch of other accounts teleported in to proclaim it gospel AND try to discredit local moderation (a popular tactic that's been used by certain spellcasters who live by the sea [You'll get that if you're a gamer] for years to discredit third-party industry forums) _just_ as the story hits the mainstream doesn't pass the smell test.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

My data stands on its own and needs no name standing behind it. Refute it with more data without calling my character into question. We are all equals here on KBoards, or so everyone says anyway.

Novelrank is absolutely accurate when it comes to recording sales ranks, it is simply a daily snapshot of a book's sales rank at that time. It is completely inaccurate when it comes to estimating the number of sales that has come from those sales ranks, and I would never use that. However, unless someone wants to challenge the assertion that a change in sales rank from 4000 to 500 means anything other than a huge increase in borrows and sales, the data regarding the increase in sales is good.



cinisajoy said:


> She never said she lost rank but that she lost income. Her books sell for $2.99 which is a profit of $2.00. Now average borrow was $1.37 during her two months. That is a loss of 63 cents per book. Those numbers add up quick especially if no one is buying and only borrowing.


In an environment where the number of sales/borrows doesn't change, that's a 33% loss, not a 75% loss.



cinisajoy said:


> The problem I see is someone posted 4 of Holly's books. Now I know she has more books out than that. To do any kind of analysis, we need all the numbers. Now back off of Holly since she has absolutely no reason to lie.
> I am glad Amazon let her pull out of KU when they and she noticed what happened.


All books that I was able to obtain data for showed the same thing. Please provide data to the contrary, even five books out of a fifty book catalog should be enough to show a trend that I was wrong. Either a book priced higher than $2.99 whose average sales rank increased to 400% of its previous value (thus indicating a 75% loss in revenue) or a $2.99 book that approximately doubled in sales rank (indicating a 50% loss in total sales and an estimated 33% in lost revenue per sale, assuming all borrows and no sales). There's no such graph that exists.



SevenDays said:


> One additional thing everyone is forgetting is that rank increases when the reader borrows a book. But payout doesn't happen until they reach 10%. There's no knowing how many readers borrowed the book without hitting the 10% mark. So theoretically the rank could take a huge jump without Holly (or any other author) seeing a cent if those readers don't read past 10%.


I am shocked that anyone brought this up, considering that if you agree with the rest of the data, I addressed this point. It would take twenty readers like this for every one that actually read the book for this to be a plausible theory. And that's for every book in the series.

If there are any critiques of the data, I will be around to respond. However, I will not respond to "well maybe" and "what if" questions, and if that makes the moderator's cattle prod trigger finger itchy, it speaks more to the toxicity of this environment than anything else.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

The interviewer asked a lot of questions and also got a lot of information.  Ultimately, it was his, and his editor's, decision, what to put into the article.  In the comments section of the article, someone called me a "bozo" who didn't know how to write; someone else claimed I was lying about my publishing history, apparently not realizing I wrote under a number of pen names in traditional publishing.  

I think Ms. Ward knows her own revenue stream better than anyone else.  To accuse her of lying, well hmm.  I know I don't like being accused of that.

I've been in publishing over a quarter century.  There has NEVER been a single thing happen that was all good or all bad.  Everything has angles to it.  Some people will benefit; others not so much.  And every single author is in a unique position, now more so than ever, because the great news is we have so many more choices.  I still believe, as has been my mantra for the past 6 years, it's the best time ever to be a writer.

My focus to the reporter wasn't so much on KU.  I think that's not the main matter of concern.  It's the content flood.  I used to talk to Jon Fine of Amazon about it (going to miss him working there).  He called it a tsunami.  I said that wasn't correct because a tsunami recedes.  This flood will only get deeper and deeper.  I have no opinion on that; it's a business reality.  It's the other edge of the sword of self-publishing.  I factor it into my business model and my goals during my strategic planning as an author and as a publisher.

Rather than try to prove 'right' or 'wrong' I try to cull through information, opinions, and theories.  Take what I need.  Leave the rest.  I don't need to disprove what I don't agree with.  I just don't have to do it.


----------



## HillOnLong (Oct 11, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Is there some hidden line in the KDP TOS that we are to protect Amazon to our last breath, even if it means ripping someone else limb from metaphorical limb?
> 
> Some people have very clearly been waiting for some smoking gun to 'prove' Holly's claims false. They've been promoting a narrative that it wasn't KU that caused it, or that KU was never meant for -literally everyone who it's hurt- and thus what did she expect, for weeks now. There has been a desperation to sweep Holly under the carpet and it has been very easy to identify as organized for anyone used to this kind of thing.
> 
> That it came from a parachute account (citing 'another author' no less!) and a bunch of other accounts teleported in to proclaim it gospel AND try to discredit local moderation (a popular tactic that's been used by certain spellcasters who live by the sea [You'll get that if you're a gamer] for years to discredit third-party industry forums) _just_ as the story hits the mainstream doesn't pass the smell test.


Yet, rather than trying to argue the facts, you decided to make your message about the people having the conversation. How ironic is that?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

C.S. Longhill said:


> Yet, rather than trying to argue the facts, you decided to make your message about the people having the conversation. How ironic is that?


I'd argue facts if there were any.

All we have are some graphs measuring _something completely different_ from what Holly was talking about and trying to discredit her with it.

Hey look, I have a bagel. Let me tell you how that proves there's no such thing as lox.


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> That it came from a parachute account (citing 'another author' no less!) and a bunch of other accounts teleported in to proclaim it gospel AND try to discredit local moderation (a popular tactic that's been used by certain spellcasters who live by the sea [You'll get that if you're a gamer] for years to discredit third-party industry forums) _just_ as the story hits the mainstream doesn't pass the smell test.


I agree with this.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

I just want to understand how a massive spike in popularity translates into 75% less dollars. If that's true, holy cow, something really is wrong here. Holly, can you please explain?


----------



## HillOnLong (Oct 11, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> I'd argue facts if there were any.
> 
> All we have are some graphs measuring _something completely different_ from what Holly was talking about and trying to discredit her with it.
> 
> Hey look, I have a bagel. Let me tell you how that proves there's no such thing as lox.


If there are no facts to argue, why didn't you start by disproving them? I'm perplexed.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

1. Two-time poster is wrong, if for no other reason than it would make zero fracking sense to pull out of KU if she was indeed making more money than before. That's foolproof data that carries far heavier weight than the word of the disgruntled with an axe to grind. The last thing I would want is for Holly to stop coming here because of this smear campaign, because she is by and far one of the most successful indies and she provides invaluable advice. She doesn't have to. 

2. In business, you can forecast loss. I'm not speaking for Holly, and if we are to blindly walk into this limited-data trap, producing the, perhaps, wrong assumptions, then there could easily be an answer that satisfies all parties. Top-selling indies were given a trial run in the program, but after the trial, they had to decide if they wanted to continue with the program, and sign onto be exclusive with Amazon. I could see how that could easily constitute a 75% loss when the lower payout of a borrow compared to a sale is factored in.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

SamSpade said:


> My data stands on its own and needs no name standing behind it. Refute it with more data without calling my character into question. We are all equals here on KBoards, or so everyone says anyway.
> 
> Novelrank is absolutely accurate when it comes to recording sales ranks, it is simply a daily snapshot of a book's sales rank at that time. It is completely inaccurate when it comes to estimating the number of sales that has come from those sales ranks, and I would never use that. However, unless someone wants to challenge the assertion that a change in sales rank from 4000 to 500 means anything other than a huge increase in borrows and sales, the data regarding the increase in sales is good.
> 
> ...


You just admitted you only looked at 5 books. Were all 5 of those books in KU? If so, then that only proves she was getting borrows. I want to see the rankings of 5 of her books that were not in KU. 
You cannot do an accurate analysis on 10%. Either bring me all the numbers or take Holly at her word. Every book will have a different number of sales. 
If you want to prove someone wrong, show ALL data, not what just fits your argument. 
And I want exact numbers from you, not a hypothesis.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

C.S. Longhill said:


> If there are no facts to argue, why didn't you start by disproving them? *I'm perplexed.*


Doesn't seem to take too much .


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

Did everyone here, except Sam Spade, fail debate class in high school?  So many people are proclaiming his argument patently false, yet no one is even attempting to offer similarly robust evidence.  In an organized, moderated debate, he's winning by default simply because he's the only one who brought anything to the table other than assumption and faith.


----------



## HillOnLong (Oct 11, 2014)

K.B. said:


> Doesn't seem to take too much .


Let the facts argue. No need to make it personal.

On your first point: It is my understanding she was allowed to have her books on sale on other markets besides KU during her time in KU. This is not normally allowed, and when that special period had came to end, she pulled her books from KU as she would have had to go exclusive with KU if she were to stay in KU. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## JessieVerona (May 10, 2013)

I think the bottom line for me is the cold hard fact that math is math. A $2.99 book sold earns the author $2.093 and the same book borrowed earns the author as low as (so far) $1.33 each. Earning $1.33 instead of $2.09 is a 36.5% drop in income.

It doesn't matter how many books we're talking about -- it's still just a 36% drop in income.

If Ms Ward's sales rank got significantly better during the KU period we *know* that her total sales/borrow numbers improved _compared to other authors during the period_ since that's what sales rank is and Novelrank is simply a history of a book's sales rank as reported by Amazon.

So at the very least we can surmise that her total sales/borrows did not drop measurably during the time frame in question. We have no idea what the make up was for each book as far as sales vs. borrows of course. But as we have seen above, even if each book was 100% borrows with no sales whatsoever.... that's still just a 36% drop in income.

I don't really care whether Ms. Ward's income dropped 12% or 36% or 97% because of KU -- it's none of my business. But before I can take her opinions concerning KU as valid, I have to be able to understand her situation. That's not something I can do if the math won't add up.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)




----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

genrehopper said:


> Did everyone here, except Sam Spade, fail debate class in high school?


Did you fail reading class? 



> So many people are proclaiming his argument patently false, yet no one is even attempting to offer similarly robust evidence. In an organized, moderated debate, he's winning by default simply because he's the only one who brought anything to the table other than assumption and faith.


He doesn't have proof. He has assumptions and nothing more. Weak assumptions at that.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

genrehopper said:


> Did everyone here, except Sam Spade, fail debate class in high school? So many people are proclaiming his argument patently false, yet no one is even attempting to offer similarly robust evidence. In an organized, moderated debate, he's winning by default simply because he's the only one who brought anything to the table other than assumption and faith.


Never took debate in high school.
If his argument is valid, I need more proof. More than a small sample that works in his favor.

The big loss is coming from her books that were not in KU were not selling.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

genrehopper said:


> Did everyone here, except Sam Spade, fail debate class in high school? So many people are proclaiming his argument patently false, yet no one is even attempting to offer similarly robust evidence. In an organized, moderated debate, he's winning by default simply because he's the only one who brought anything to the table other than assumption and faith.


He didn't offer robust evidence. He offered *sales rank* on a tiny sample of her work to refute her claims about her across the board *revenue*.

His argument isn't just patently false, it's flawed in the same way Galloping Gertie was flawed.


----------



## JessieVerona (May 10, 2013)

K.B. said:


> Did you fail reading class?
> 
> He doesn't have proof. He has assumptions and nothing more. Weak assumptions at that.


I'm sorry to disagree, but math is math. Even if every sale suddenly turned into a borrow, that's still just a 36% drop in income. I think that's why some people are confused by her statements.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

C.S. Longhill said:


> Let the facts argue. No need to make it personal.
> 
> On your first point: It is my understanding she was allowed to have her books on sale on other markets besides KU during her time in KU. This is not normally allowed, and when that special period had came to end, she pulled her books from KU as she would have had to go exclusive with KU if she were to stay in KU. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.


That's the same damn thing I already said. So... Cookie? If she stayed in KU, and thus went exclusive, there could EASILY be a 75% loss from the other channels. That's the alternative argument to the one that has yet to actually be disproven. And no, novel rank isn't proof. It's wildly inaccurate at times. I had a book that peaked over there at a ranking of less than 1K - that's not my reality, and it never has been.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

genrehopper said:


> Did everyone here, except Sam Spade, fail debate class in high school? So many people are proclaiming his argument patently false, yet no one is even attempting to offer similarly robust evidence. In an organized, moderated debate, he's winning by default simply because he's the only one who brought anything to the table other than assumption and faith.


This.

Let's focus on the data, folks.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

K.B. said:


> Did you fail reading class?
> 
> He doesn't have proof. He has assumptions and nothing more. Weak assumptions at that.


Worst-case scenario, the numbers work out to a 36% drop in income. 36<75.

Refute the information. The fact that no one here is trying to refute the only data available to us is a sign that no one here knows how to debate properly, or just isn't trying.

I'm out.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

I don't think there should be an issue with someone questioning the claim of a 75 percent drop in revenue.  If I make an astounding claim, I can expect for people to have questions about my claim.

In fact, about five months ago I claimed that KU had gamed the ranking system and caused the entire Amazon landscape to shift in favor of KU.  I claimed some things that people went on to disprove by showing ghost borrows.

It was quite all right for people to question my claim.  In fact, people from kboards piled on me quite a bit because of my anonymity as well.  So not only was my claims questioned, but my anonymous status made it easier for people to simply laugh me off as full of it.

Now, Holly is a huge star.  But she's still just another poster here, and she made a big claim.  Someone came in and showed some evidence that indicates her statements might have been either exaggerated or perhaps based on certain projections or historical data that made her reference the 75% number.

Why is it bad to question that?  Is it bad for people to question my statements that Amazon gamed its own system with KU?  

I never thought so.  We're here to try and figure out this industry, not to canonize people as saints.

Get a grip, people.  Nobody should use character assassination on Holly or someone who argues against her claims.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Also, for those who didn't take debate in high school: When your opponent presents irrelevant evidence, you are _supposed_ to attack that fact. You don't just give them the benefit of the doubt and let the false argument stand.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Not a battle I'm personally going to get sucked into, but for those who want to work the numbers, here's a start point.

1. NovelRank tracks RANK quite precisely. 

2. Very roughly, it takes about 1000 sales-equivalents to HIT a rank of #100 and 1500 to hit a rank of #60. The number to maintain that rank decreases over time till it takes only 50-60% of the number to hit a rank to maintain one.

3. Unread borrows contribute to rank. 

4. A percentage of those borrows will never turn into paid reads.

5. A percentage of unread borrows will take several days to weeks to turn into paid sales. 

6. Assuming a $10K All-Star Author Bonus with a $2500 Title Bonus, that means on just the bonus alone, to lose 75% in a month on one venue means starting from a base of $50,000.

7. If we assume 1000 sales+borrows per day across an inventory at the least rate of $1.39 per, that's $41,700/month. Add the$12,500 bonus, and that's $54,200. That puts the base start for losing 75% at $216,800 per month or $2.6 million per year.

8. If we up that to 1500 sales+borrows per day at $1.39, then the base start rate has to be $300,200/month or $3.6 million/year to be losing 75%.

9. Assuming a $25K Author Bonus plus a $2500 Title bonus, then the base in the examples above goes up to $110,000, $276,800 ($3.3M/yr) and $360,200 ($4.3M/yr).


----------



## JessieVerona (May 10, 2013)

K.B. said:


> That's the same damn thing I already said. So... Cookie? If she stayed in KU, and thus went exclusive, there could EASILY be a 75% loss from the other channels. That's the alternative argument to the one that has yet to actually be disproven. And no, novel rank isn't proof. It's wildly inaccurate at times. I had a book that peaked over there at a ranking of less than 1K - that's not my reality, and it never has been.


Oh! I stand corrected then. I thought Ms Ward said that she HAD lost 75% of her income. I didn't realize that she said she WOULD lose 75% of her income if she stayed in KU and pulled her books from other vendors. That's a completely different situation.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

Phoenix Sullivan said:


> Not a battle I'm personally going to get sucked into, but for those who want to work the numbers, here's a start point.
> 
> 1. NovelRank tracks RANK quite precisely.
> 
> ...


This is how you do it.
Unfortunately, there are way too few Phoenix Sullivans around here and way too many everyone else's.


----------



## HillOnLong (Oct 11, 2014)

JessieVerona said:


> Oh! I stand corrected then. I thought Ms Ward said that she HAD lost 75% of her income. I didn't realize that she said she WOULD lose 75% of her income if she stayed in KU and pulled her books from other vendors. That's a completely different situation.


I'll just quote this as a response to you K.B.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

"Ok, some of you already know, but I had my serials in it for 60 days and lost approx 75% of my income. Thats counting borrows and bonuses"

-Holly in her post here on kboards


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

genrehopper said:


> Worst-case scenario, the numbers work out to a 36% drop in income. 36<75.
> 
> Refute the information. The fact that no one here is trying to refute the only data available to us is a sign that no one here knows how to debate properly, or just isn't trying.
> 
> I'm out.


Exactly. *The only data available to you*. Until you sneak a peak at Holly's dashboard, it's all speculation. And the speculation isn't worth the character assassination of someone that IS a member of this board.



JessieVerona said:


> I'm sorry to disagree, but math is math. Even if every sale suddenly turned into a borrow, that's still just a 36% drop in income. I think that's why some people are confused by her statements.


I guess I'm just not someone who is willing to turn my confusion into someone else's lie.


JessieVerona said:


> Oh! I stand corrected then. I thought Ms Ward said that she HAD lost 75% of her income. I didn't realize that she said she WOULD lose 75% of her income if she stayed in KU and pulled her books from other vendors. That's a completely different situation.


It's been so long since I've read her statement, but I doubt that's in there. I'm giving alternatives because people don't always spit out what they mean to say. If she didn't say those words, and I don't think she did, a reasonable person could assume that's what she meant. And certainly, if it weren't what she meant, it could still easily ring true.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

genrehopper said:


> Worst-case scenario, the numbers work out to a 36% drop in income. 36<75.
> 
> Refute the information. The fact that no one here is trying to refute the only data available to us is a sign that no one here knows how to debate properly, or just isn't trying.
> 
> I'm out.


- Rank isn't based on the 10% borrowed, but on borrows total.
- The income hit isn't purely from the awful payout, but from KU skewing visibility.
- Amazon black boxes how KU is skewing visibility.

Therefore the rank numbers are worthless in this discussion.

The actual math we need on this is being purposefully obfuscated by Amazon while mysterious newcomers try to keep us off-balance with frippery.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

gorvnice said:


> This is how you do it.
> Unfortunately, there are way too few Phoenix Sullivans around here and way too many everyone else's.


Word.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

K.B. said:


> I guess I'm just not someone who is willing to turn my confusion into someone else's lie.
> It's been so long since I've read her statement, but I doubt that's in there. I'm giving alternatives because people don't always spit out what they mean to say. If she didn't say those words, and I don't think she did, a reasonable person could assume that's what she meant. And certainly, if it weren't what she meant, it could still easily ring true.


Forget whether its a lie. Clearly, she meant what she said. She may have been working off of historical sales at her peak, and calling it a 75% loss. Who knows? But its okay to question the number. It really is...


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

gorvnice said:


> Forget whether its a lie. Clearly, she meant what she said. She may have been working off of historical sales at her peak, and calling it a 75% loss. Who knows? But its okay to question the number. It really is...


There's is a clear difference between questioning her numbers, or asking a question out of confusion. The part I'm having a problem with is the automatic jump to point fingers by phantom members whose only purpose is to stir the pot. Her figures could be off, and I'll admit that the math doesn't make complete sense to me.

That's why I offered the alternative, that the dropped income could be projected, or it could be based on peak performance.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

It is possible that Amazon is counting each KU borrow as more than a sale. We're working from the assumption that borrow = sale for purposes of rank. If that isn't true, then how does that shuffle the deck?


----------



## JessieVerona (May 10, 2013)

I'm pretty sure she's had more than enough opportunity to clear things up if she misspoke concerning the 75% figure. So I don't really feel like it's reasonable to expect people to stumble around looking for random arguments that COULD explain what she meant if she didn't actually mean to say what she did say which doesn't fit the evidence at all.

Math is available to all of us. A book's sales rank is right out there for everyone to see. A sales rank that jumps dramatically means that book is enjoying increasing sales/borrows. Since 100% borrows still only equals a 36% drop in income, it doesn't really matter what percentage of that rank is borrows and what is sales. These are all facts.

I never said Ms Ward was lying. I said I'm confused by the FACT that her statements don't mesh with the facts.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

Phoenix Sullivan said:


> Not a battle I'm personally going to get sucked into, but for those who want to work the numbers, here's a start point.
> 
> 1. NovelRank tracks RANK quite precisely.
> 
> ...


Thank you very much for this post.

I would say that your scenario 9 is mostly accurate for October but that she actually made more than that in September. Therefore, the question is, did she make $400,000 or more on Amazon in August?


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

K.B. said:


> There's is a clear difference between questioning her numbers, or asking a question out of confusion. The part I'm having a problem with is the automatic jump to point fingers by phantom members whose only purpose is to stir the pot. Her figures could be off, and I'll admit that the math doesn't make complete sense to me.
> 
> That's why I offered the alternative, that the dropped income could be projected, or it could be based on peak performance.


That's fine. The anonymous poster who stirred the pot asked a valid question using some data. It wasn't complete data, it just pointed in a certain direction. It's not Holly's duty to come in here and state how or why his data is incomplete and wrong.

But if you make a big statement about your financial losses, you might want to be prepared to back it up. Or to be doubted.

I also had tremendous losses when KU first began, and I wrote about it here--and I was doubted, attacked and laughed at by various members here. Crap happens.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

K.B. said:


> The part I'm having a problem with is the automatic jump to point fingers by phantom members whose only purpose is to stir the pot.


Who made that jump? So far, the critics have focused on her claims, not her motives. You, on the other hand, seem very content to ascribe malicious motives instead of bringing any data or analysis to the table.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

I think one has to consider the time period this occurred in - specifically the age of KU.  
You give a kid a new toy and the kid is going to ignore all of his old toys and play with the new toy. Likewise, you offer readers a new program and they are going to concentrate their immediate attention on it. So with this occurring in the KU introduction period while noting some people using KU are now stating that as KU has aged some things have rebounded, I think it is unfair to cast KU off as no good due to its new toy phenomenon.  Authors jumped into it because they knew it was a new reader toy but, OTOH, later complain about what should have been predictable when they jumped in - complain that when the new toy was just introduced into the playroom and received a lot of new toy attention, the works they didn't include as part of the new toy didn't get played with and because the old toys/non-KU books were ignored, conclude the new toy is trash. 
No, the kids played with the new toy and ignored the old toys. Go figure. 


Just as borrows do not equate to lost sales, premature conclusions based on premature data do not equate to long term conclusions based on long term data.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Thanks Holly for posting your experience with KU and you are NOT alone. Others I know have been hemorrhaging $$$. Phoenix Sullivan thanks for the clean numbers slice.


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

I think the numbers could check out. The following is just an order-of-magnitude estimate. We start at 100 %. Now suppose the sales to borrow ratio changes from infinity to zero. Assuming a payout of $ 1.35 per borrow, you are then at around 68 %. You can see in the graph that the ranks increase towards the end of the enrollment period. Suppose this corresponds to a 50 % decrease in (sales + borrows). Then you are at 34 %. Now assume books outside KU also experience a slowdown (my summer slump lasted until November, so the assumption is not that far-fetched). Ending up at 25 %, a 75 % loss, seems reasonable. I'm not saying this is how it happened. I'm just saying that it is possible, even with the graph.


----------



## JessieVerona (May 10, 2013)

I'm interested in the idea I've seen a few places concerning books that aren't in KU losing authors money. The argument seems to be:

I'm losing a lot of money because of KU
My books in KU make me $2.09 per sale but only $1.39 per borrow so I'm losing money
Also, all my books that aren't in KU are losing sales so I'm losing money on them, too
KU is killing my income
I'm going to pull all my books out of KU

I'm not sure where the logic is in that conclusion. If KU is killing your books that aren't in KU, how is pulling all your books out going to help anything?


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

Just curious. Are we assuming Holly only meant Amazon income? Her original post doesn't differentiate, which leads me to believe she is talking across the board/all platforms. If that's the case, a statistical replay using Amazon ranks would not be conclusive or statistically reliable. Nobody but Holly would know the rest of the data.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

Also, to argue for Holly's claim, I'll state that during the time period when KU was first rolling, a lot of people's books OUTSIDE KU tanked.  I know mine did.

So if her books' rankings outside KU tanked, and then her books in the program had so many borrows and lost sales as well--than you can start getting closer to the 75% loss of (projected) income.

And the "ghost borrows" which I've never liked btw…if ghost borrows don't materialize to the 10% mark, for a big seller that could mean your ranking is very high, but you're losing huge amount of sales if large chunks of ghost borrows never turn over to 10% read.

So that's my poor maths skills trying to make sense of it


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

Steven Konkoly said:


> Just curious. Are we assuming Holly only meant Amazon income? Her original post doesn't differentiate, which leads me to believe she is talking across the board/all platforms. If that's the case, a statistical replay using Amazon ranks would not be conclusive or statistically reliable. Nobody but Holly would know the rest of the data.


That wouldn't make sense, though, because she was never forced to be exclusive to Amazon. So she wasn't losing money on other platforms.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

Jessie
This is the major flaw in their thinking


> My books in KU make me $2.09 per sale but only $1.39 per borrow so I'm losing money


Borrows do not equate to lost sales.
However this logical flaw has been spouted since Select and is now even being used by some people in sales data points.
One would think by now that everyone in the community would consider their movie rental behavior and ask themselves if they would have bought all the movies they rented if rental wasn't available. However either they don't think that way, refuse to see their fiction as primarily being once and done experience for the consumer like movies are, or are in denial and actually believe they would have bought the movies.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

Interesting - Just checked her full-length novel graph on NovelRank for Damaged 2. Something very interesting happens starting in August. Can't screenshot, but I'd definitely go check it out. 

Same thing happened with Damaged. Between January and July, the ranking mostly stayed consistent. After the launch of KU, it has a noticeable drop that it never recovers from. These are books where she was making somewhere around $3.50 royalty from. 

We know (or should know) that phantom borrows occur, resulting in higher rankings for KU titles than earned. (I've seen this myself). Once you start adding in more graphs, the pictures starts to become clearer. Someone has an ax to grind.


----------



## JessieVerona (May 10, 2013)

Steven Konkoly said:


> Just curious. Are we assuming Holly only meant Amazon income? Her original post doesn't differentiate, which leads me to believe she is talking across the board/all platforms. If that's the case, a statistical replay using Amazon ranks would not be conclusive or statistically reliable. Nobody but Holly would know the rest of the data.


We know that she wasn't required to pull her books from other vendors to enter KU. So I suppose it's possible that sales at other retailers dropped dramatically once her books entered KU. But wouldn't that be an argument for how powerful the program is instead of a sign to pull out of KU?


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

How about we stop talking about Holly as if she isn't here?  She has contributed so much to this board. If she makes a statement, either believe or don't believe her. That is your choice. But to castigate her when she has contributed so much here, goes beyond the pale. No wonder all the heavy hitters are leaving.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

To those who said I have only five graphs, I have many more, I just didn't fill the entire thread with dozens of graphs. A few graphs that suggest the opposite to be true and I'll dig up some more. I'll let Ms. Ward reply to the rest.



jnfr said:


> I'm seeing 55 Kindle edition books by Ms. Ward, most at 2.99 but quite a few at 4.99/5.99 price points. There's lots of room there for losses higher than 36%. I can't imagine going through all of them myself because I have good idea what kind of time that takes, but there's much more data out there than we have in this thread.





H.M. Ward said:


> That was my thinking, but nope. The only titles I enrolled were priced at $2.99 or lower and shorter works.





Steven Konkoly said:


> Just curious. Are we assuming Holly only meant Amazon income? Her original post doesn't differentiate, which leads me to believe she is talking across the board/all platforms. If that's the case, a statistical replay using Amazon ranks would not be conclusive or statistically reliable. Nobody but Holly would know the rest of the data.





H.M. Ward said:


> Yes, it was only Amazon and it occurred AFTER enrolling the books in KU. So I lost 75% of my income from kdp in 60 days. As soon as the books were withdrawn, sales began to perk back up.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

Just checked another full-length, non-KU title, Stripped. Which surprisingly did very well during the first few months of KU, but that's also because it was sale for the first time ever.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

JeanneM said:


> How about we stop talking about Holly as if she isn't here? She has contributed so much to this board. If she makes a statement, either believe or don't believe her. That is your choice. But to castigate her when she has contributed so much here, goes beyond the pale. No wonder all the heavy hitters are leaving.


Nobody's contributions make them beyond questioning. I agree that we shouldn't attack her character for no reason, especially not based on speculation.

But she made a very big public statement and opened herself up to these questions. And I don't thing she's being castigated, either.

I think Holly's an adult and a very shrewd business person who can quite handle what's happening here--I doubt she needs anyone protecting her feelings.


----------



## JessieVerona (May 10, 2013)

JeanneM said:


> How about we stop talking about Holly as if she isn't here? She has contributed so much to this board. If she makes a statement, either believe or don't believe her. That is your choice. But to castigate her when she has contributed so much here, goes beyond the pale. No wonder all the heavy hitters are leaving.


With respect, I don't feel it's beyond the pale to try to make sense of a fellow member's assertions. If she makes a contribution here, it's only helpful if we can make sense of what she's saying and assess how it relates to our own situation.


----------



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

I'm not wading into the bigger topic here, but I have been fiddling with KU numbers since it launched. I hope this data is of some use.

For instance, let's look at a book ranked #500. Maintaining that rank during non-Christmas season takes about 175-225 sales/day.

With KU titles, obviously you have to make some adjustments -- some of those "sales" are paid borrows, while others are unpaid ghost borrows, some of which might or might not turn into paid borrows down the line.

It's very difficult to pinpoint ghost borrows with precision, but you can make a pretty good guess by looking at a book's rank, determining how many combined sales/borrows it takes to maintain that rank, then comparing that to the number of sales/borrows you're seeing on your chart. For instance, if you're at #500, that means you're getting ~200 sales/borrows per day. If your chart only shows 50 sales and 50 paid borrows, then you could guess you also got 100 unpaid ghost borrows that day.

Clearly, that calculation involves a lot of fuzziness, so take this with a grain of salt. But on the KU data threads here, I've noticed that something like 50% of all borrows are actually ghost borrows. And most non-new releases in KU run close to a 1:1 sale:borrow count (though romance and erotica often see higher borrow counts). If half of all borrows are unpaid, that means the actual ratio is 1 sale : 1 paid borrow : 1 ghost borrow.

Therefore, for a KU title at #500, rather than 200 sales/day, you're probably looking at 67 sales / 67 paid borrows / 67 ghost borrows. On a $2.99 non-KU title, 200 sales/day = ~$400/day. For a KU title running that 1:1:1 ratio, you're looking at (67 x $2) + (67 x $1.33) + (67 x 0), or ~$223/day. That's about 56% the earnings of a non-KU title selling comparably well.

This is just a very rudimentary look that leaves out all kinds of other factors. For instance, the huge question: Does KU help enrolled titles sell more overall? Do borrows cannibalize sales, or are they essentially a bonus? And how do earnings look when you tweak that 1:1:1 ratio? (E.g., assuming ghost borrows remain a steady ratio, a $2.99 erotica title with a 1:2 sale/borrow ratio would be looking at 1:2:2, meaning ~$186/day, or 47% of the non-KU title.) How accurate are my numbers to begin with?

I don't have the power to answer many of these questions, and like I said at the start, I'm not trying to prove anything. Just providing the information I've been able to glean in order to help people make a more educated decision about their options.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

JeanneM said:


> How about we stop talking about Holly as if she isn't here? She has contributed so much to this board. If she makes a statement, either believe or don't believe her. That is your choice. But to castigate her when she has contributed so much here, goes beyond the pale. No wonder all the heavy hitters are leaving.


She has spoken against the Master. She must be destroyed.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

Well now, Edward, thanks for that enlightening look at the possibilities!!!  I think Holly's telling the truth here, and I think the culprit is ghost borrows.

People, I brought this up months ago.  Ghost borrows are crap.  Those were Amazon's way of putting their thumb on the scale in order to benefit KU books in terms of visibility.  

Ghost borrows may or may not become paid, but when you have a big seller, MANY ghost borrows will never convert over to paid.  So although your ranking looks nice and shiny and amazing--you don't make money!!

I said this back then.  Smoke and mirrors.  KU was a big trojan horse, and I think we're starting to see why now.  That's been my gut since the beginning.


----------



## Deborahsmith author (Jul 23, 2013)

H.M. Ward does not owe anyone a detailed account of her  income on her books. The intensity and relentless focus of the questioning here -- in which one poster has insulted her motives and integrity -- has an ugly undertone that, as one poster mentioned, indicates an organized effort to discredit a complaint about KU. Ward's claims have been echoed by a number of well-known authors. Joe Konrath was recently pressured to admit he's pulled his books from the program (after being outted as a KU author while attacking MacMillan's plans to use a subscription service.) Hugh Howey has pulled his books or, if I understand correctly, plans to pull them in the future. Substantial evidence exists that KU has severely damaged the incomes of many formerly top-selling authors. Yet the only author who is getting beaten up over inconsequential specifics is female and writes in the romance genre. Coincidence? I don't think so.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Crayola said:


> Your sarcasm isn't helpful.


But it is humorously ironic, if unintentionally so.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> some math


This is pretty good and closer to the real situation for a rank 500 book than most people have gotten in this thread. However, you're comparing a rank 500 book in Kindle Unlimited to a rank 500 book outside of Kindle Unlimited. How does a rank 500 book in Kindle Unlimited fare against a rank 4000 book outside of Kindle Unlimited?


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

Forget about questioning Holly.  I'm serious.  I believe her 100 percent.

The rankings are CRAP.  They don't mean anything anymore, especially not if you're in KU, and the reason is ghost borrows.  

For a book selling hundreds and hundreds every day, do you realize that a third or half of them may never even convert into sales  That's insane.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Crayola said:


> Yes, but humor won't keep this thread open, the way it's going. I'd like to see the honest debate, to make sense of things.


Tis true.

Also, I wonder if, or by how much, the All Star Bonuses offset the ghost borrow "loss."


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

gorvnice said:


> That wouldn't make sense, though, because she was never forced to be exclusive to Amazon. So she wasn't losing money on other platforms.


I don't think we should make that assumption. Most of the KBers with books outside of Amazon have reported significant losses on other platforms since the launch of KU. Obviously, she would have lost along with the rest of non-select crowd at the outset of KU, but what's to say it wasn't exacerbated when her serials appeared on the KU buffet? If I was a Holly fan reading on Nook, and learned that 20+ of her books were available for $10 a month on Kindle-I'd download the Kindle app on some other device read until my eyes bled.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Steven Konkoly said:


> Most of the KBers with books outside of Amazon have reported significant losses on other platforms since the launch of KU.


I hadn't heard this. Are there some threads about it?


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

I haven't posted (other than book bumps) or commented on KB in a long time mainly because of what I'm seeing on this thread.  I truly believe if someone said the earth traveled around the sun here, there would be at least one person to disagree with that, and then 500 posts arguing about the arguing.  

I used to post informative information, links to blogs, etc.  But I kept getting savaged by those who disagreed even though I was never saying they had to agree.  Again-- it's obvious nothing has changed.  

I'll go back to ignoring it all.  Have a happy New Year.

And remember something:  Be kind for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

Think about how ridiculous it is that your ranking in KU is impacted by "ghost borrows," in other words, someone clicking on your book and borrowing it, but NEVER ever opening it or reading it.  So you don't get paid, and it will never even register on your dashboard…you'll just know based on your ranking that someone, somewhere clicked on something but did nothing else.

So, no payment, no reader--just a nice jump in the Amazon rankings to make you feel nice and shiny and happy.

Visibility.

But no money.

And no ability to make sense of why you're losing cash by the fistful.

Ironically, the better your book does, the more ghost borrows, the more money you lose!!!  Yay, now we're all losing! The people who make the most money on books in KU, those who lose visibility because of the glut of KU books, and the people participating in KU who can't even move any books at other distribution platforms.

I'm saying all this, having had one of my better months in Amazon in years.  And that's because I'm mostly not in KU, by the way.  But Amazon's been good to me.  I just think this whole thing stinks to high heaven.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

Bob Mayer said:


> I used to post informative information, links to blogs, etc. But I kept getting savaged by those who disagreed even though I was never saying they had to agree. Again-- it's obvious nothing has changed.
> 
> I'll go back to ignoring it all. Have a happy New Year.
> 
> And remember something: Be kind for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.


I think your participation here is useful, and I hope you come back. Even if as an anonymous poster. More info ultimately helps, and the trolls will just be trolls anyway&#8230;ignore them. Ignore me if you think I'm one


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Crayola said:


> Yes, but humor won't keep this thread open, the way it's going. I'd like to see the honest debate, to make sense of things.


Humour/humor can be very healing when arguments get heated. So could actually help to keep this thread open.

Sorry, but I don't have any statistics to prove my claim.


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

Steven Konkoly said:


> Most of the KBers with books outside of Amazon have reported significant losses on other platforms since the launch of KU.


Caution in using the word "most".


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

gorvnice said:


> I think Holly's an adult and a very shrewd business person who can quite handle what's happening here--I doubt she needs anyone protecting her feelings.


Maybe it would be nicer if there were no attacks on her feelings in the first place? Is this like the KBoards version of a paparazzi thing, where it's okay to attack somebody as long as they're famous? That always seems a little unfair to me. And, it does kind of feel like people are attacking Ms. Ward here at this point. Nobody else who's made or lost money with KU has been asked to "prove it."


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Monique, they don't that is why more All Stars are exiting quietly. Yeah Ed, the ghost in the algos present artificial rank and I've seen it at work. It's like a bad raise. The old we'll give you better status, but less money.    When it comes to Amazon you need a good sense of humor.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Yes, their algorithms can't translate large *sales numbers* accurately from the 100% accurate *sales rankings* they mention.
> 
> SamSpade gave graphs of the *sales ranking*, not the *sales numbers*. You can easily deduce, albeit in a general way, how a book is doing from that.


I'm sorry, but to deduce in a general way is not enough to basically call someone a liar on a public forum. Especially someone who was never anti KU to begin with. She was in it. It was bad for her, so she pulled out. I'd be more likely to accuse her of lying if she'd said it was awesome, but I pulled out anyway and gave all that money I was making.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

Look, I think we're onto something entirely new here.  Based on what Edward posted upthread, I believe that Holly did lose 75% of her income.  This ghost borrows thing is insane, and for someone moving a metric ton of books in KU like Holly did, it would add up to a LOT of money lost.  

Add to that, the lower borrow rate and you could definitely get to her number of 75%.

I think we should move on and discuss what this ghost borrow aspect really means for our business, because it absolutely obfuscates what's happening in the Amazon store.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

JessieVerona said:


> I'm pretty sure she's had more than enough opportunity to clear things up if she misspoke concerning the 75% figure. So I don't really feel like it's reasonable to expect people to stumble around looking for random arguments that COULD explain what she meant if she didn't actually mean to say what she did say which doesn't fit the evidence at all.
> 
> Math is available to all of us. A book's sales rank is right out there for everyone to see. A sales rank that jumps dramatically means that book is enjoying increasing sales/borrows. Since 100% borrows still only equals a 36% drop in income, it doesn't really matter what percentage of that rank is borrows and what is sales. These are all facts.
> 
> I never said Ms Ward was lying. I said I'm confused by the FACT that her statements don't mesh with the facts.


You are basing your assumption on all her books were getting borrows. The ones not in KU were getting neither borrows or sales. If you have a book that was averaging 500 sales a month and it suddenly dropped to zero at the $2.99 price point that is a loss of $1000. 
Her sales dropped across all of Amazon not just KU. 
So when you add loss from borrows + loss from sales across the board that does pretty much equal 75%.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Steven Konkoly said:


> I don't think we should make that assumption. Most of the KBers with books outside of Amazon have reported significant losses on other platforms since the launch of KU. Obviously, she would have lost along with the rest of non-select crowd at the outset of KU, but what's to say it wasn't exacerbated when her serials appeared on the KU buffet? If I was a Holly fan reading on Nook, and learned that 20+ of her books were available for $10 a month on Kindle--I'd download the Kindle app on some other device read until my eyes bled.


As others have said, I haven't heard this either. I'm not in Select, never have been. After KU launched my books took a 25-30% hit on Amazon do to visibility issues, but sales are actually growing at Apple, Google Play, and a tiny bit at Kobo. Nook sales are down somewhat, but my guess is that has more to do with early Nooks dying and readers switching to some other platform.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> She has spoken against the Master. She must be destroyed.


LOL!!


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Crayola said:


> Too true. I'm having a drink now folks... Cheers!


Cheers!


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

I have to say, the unfortunate thing sometimes about kboards is that the people engaging here are not people who seem to understand what issues are truly important and what issues lack importance.

We should be arguing less about Holly's feelings and talking more about the absolutely absurd way that KU has shifted both the payment paradigm and the rankings paradigm to make both things almost completely arbitrary…its a huge change, and not a good one.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

gorvnice said:


> I have to say, the unfortunate thing sometimes about kboards is that the people engaging here are not people who seem to understand what issues are truly important and what issues lack importance.
> 
> We should be arguing less about Holly's feelings and talking more about the absolutely absurd way that KU has shifted both the payment paradigm and the rankings paradigm to make both things almost completely arbitrary...its a huge change, and not a good one.


Agreed.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

gorvnice said:


> I have to say, the unfortunate thing sometimes about kboards is that the people engaging here are not people who seem to understand what issues are truly important and what issues lack importance.
> 
> We should be arguing less about Holly's feelings and talking more about the absolutely absurd way that KU has shifted both the payment paradigm and the rankings paradigm to make both things almost completely arbitrary...its a huge change, and not a good one.


If you start a thread about that, I suspect we will all be there. Maybe you should. KU is shaking everything up and that's something that needs discussed...maybe without making it all about one person.

And I could clearly be wrong, but this FEELS like it's become a very emotional and attacking sort of thread.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

gorvnice said:


> Look, I think we're onto something entirely new here. Based on what Edward posted upthread, I believe that Holly did lose 75% of her income. This ghost borrows thing is insane, and for someone moving a metric ton of books in KU like Holly did, it would add up to a LOT of money lost.
> 
> Add to that, the lower borrow rate and you could definitely get to her number of 75%.
> 
> I think we should move on and discuss what this ghost borrow aspect really means for our business, because it absolutely obfuscates what's happening in the Amazon store.


The borrow thing is confusing. I have borrows, but some are not read yet. I have no idea what will be read before the payout, or what the December payout will be. So a good amount of borrows but no idea where I stand. That's why I'd never go all into KU. How do you plan a budget around that kind of data?


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

katrina46 said:


> The borrow thing is confusing. I have borrows, but some are not read yet. I have no idea what will be read before the payout, or what the December payout will be. So a good amount of borrows but no idea where I stand. That's why I'd never go all into KU. How do you plan a budget around that kind of data?


Any borrow that appears in your dash is one you will be paid for.


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

Deanna Chase said:


> As others have said, I haven't heard this either. I'm not in Select, never have been. After KU launched my books took a 25-30% hit on Amazon do to visibility issues, but sales are actually growing at Apple, Google Play, and a tiny bit at Kobo. Nook sales are down somewhat, but my guess is that has more to do with early Nooks dying and readers switching to some other platform.


That's what everyone is reporting now, but it wasn't the case when KU launched. I remember vicious fights when KU launched, because many posters lost significant income on other platforms and blamed KU...pretty much lambasting anyone that defended KU. Am I wrong about that?


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

gorvnice said:


> I have to say, the unfortunate thing sometimes about kboards is that the people engaging here are not people who seem to understand what issues are truly important and what issues lack importance.
> 
> We should be arguing less about Holly's feelings and talking more about the absolutely absurd way that KU has shifted both the payment paradigm and the rankings paradigm to make both things almost completely arbitrary...its a huge change, and not a good one.


Sorry...all I know is feelings. It is all I'm about. I can't stand seeing people hurt. I know I don't belong here, but I come here anyway. But I'll back away now and let the intellectuals carry on.

**They used to call psychics "sensitives" for a reason. It explains why we never fit anywhere.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Steven Konkoly said:


> That's what everyone is reporting now, but it wasn't the case when KU launched. I remember vicious fights when KU launched, because many posters lost significant income on other platforms and blamed KU...pretty much lambasting anyone that defended KU. Am I wrong about that?


I honestly don't remember that. I remember much Sturm und Drang about KU, but not blaming it for sales on other platforms. It could have happened. I just don't remember seeing it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

gorvnice said:


> Based on what Edward posted upthread, I believe that Holly did lose 75% of her income.


I don't think there's any convincing you, but I will try one last time. Edward compared a rank 500 book in Kindle Unlimited to a rank 500 book outside of Kindle Unlimited. The graph posted showed a decrease in sales rank from 4000 to 500. Therefore, in order for Edward's math to be correct, he'd have to compare a rank 500 book in Kindle Unlimited to a rank 4000 book outside of Kindle Unlimited.


----------



## darkline (Mar 30, 2014)

gorvnice said:


> Look, I think we're onto something entirely new here. Based on what Edward posted upthread, I believe that Holly did lose 75% of her income. This ghost borrows thing is insane, and for someone moving a metric ton of books in KU like Holly did, it would add up to a LOT of money lost.
> 
> Add to that, the lower borrow rate and you could definitely get to her number of 75%.
> 
> I think we should move on and discuss what this ghost borrow aspect really means for our business, because it absolutely obfuscates what's happening in the Amazon store.


Ghost borrows don't hurt you. They improve your rank, which means visibility-->more sales and borrows.
If someone borrowed your book and wasn't interested enough in it to read 10%, it's unlikely they would have bought it at all, since 10% is the size of the Look Inside.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Steven Konkoly said:


> That's what everyone is reporting now, but it wasn't the case when KU launched. I remember vicious fights when KU launched, because many posters lost significant income on other platforms and blamed KU...pretty much lambasting anyone that defended KU. Am I wrong about that?


I don't recall people reporting loss of income on other platforms (unless they were talking about having to go exclusive and lost that income). I'm not saying that didn't happen, I just don't recall it and it certainly wasn't the case for me.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

gorvnice said:


> Forget about questioning Holly. I'm serious. I believe her 100 percent.
> 
> The rankings are CRAP. They don't mean anything anymore, especially not if you're in KU, and the reason is ghost borrows.
> 
> For a book selling hundreds and hundreds every day, do you realize that a third or half of them may never even convert into sales That's insane.


That is an extremely good point.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I would love some ghost buys (people who almost bought my book), if they counted toward my sales rank.


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

JeanneM said:


> Sorry...all I know is feelings. It is all I'm about. I can't stand seeing people hurt. I know I don't belong here, but I come here anyway. But I'll back away now and let the intellectuals carry on.


I think everyone belongs here. Since I joined, members of the WC have always protected the popular posters. People circle their wagons around them, blocking them from any criticism. Typically, I'm one of those who would roll my eyes and marvel at the cults of personalities. However, I think what makes this issue so vitriolic is that:

1) Threads from this board were used as a journalist's source for attacking Amazon.
2) The experience of a mega seller was used to make an argument that an Amazon service had failed (versus the stories of midlist authors who have found their careers blossoming due to KU).
3. Phantom posters with low post counts are the ones leading the charge against a popular author.

I've been around message boards long enough that I've seen orchestrated attacks against individual members. I see that happening here (especially if this originated from another board).


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

The "ghost borrow" effect is vastly overstated and is nowhere near a third of total borrows.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

SamSpade said:


> The "ghost borrow" effect is vastly overstated and is nowhere near a third of total borrows.


PROOF.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Monique said:


> I would love some ghost buys (people who almost bought my book), if they counted toward my sales rank.


Me too! I'm all for it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

Bob Mayer said:


> I haven't posted (other than book bumps) or commented on KB in a long time mainly because of what I'm seeing on this thread. I truly believe if someone said the earth traveled around the sun here, there would be at least one person to disagree with that, and then 500 posts arguing about the arguing.
> 
> I used to post informative information, links to blogs, etc. But I kept getting savaged by those who disagreed even though I was never saying they had to agree. Again-- it's obvious nothing has changed.
> 
> ...


But the Ptolemaic model is entirely consistent, Bob! The only thing it doesn't explain are those pesky phases of Venus, and we all know Galileo is a heretic anyway.

Happy New Year!


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

katrina46 said:


> I'm sorry, but to deduce in a general way is not enough to basically call someone a liar on a public forum. Especially someone who was never anti KU to begin with. She was in it. It was bad for her, so she pulled out. I'd be more likely to accuse her of lying if she'd said it was awesome, but I pulled out anyway and gave all that money I was making.


I wasn't commenting on that.

I just tried to clarify your confusion between sales ranking and sales numbers.


----------



## tessblunt (Jan 29, 2014)

Deborahsmith author said:


> Yet the only author who is getting beaten up over inconsequential specifics is female and writes in the romance genre. Coincidence? I don't think so.


LoL! Hugh Howey gets beat up daily on kboards, I think he's one of the most hated-on people in this community, are you kidding me?

Holly is the focus of this thread because *she* is the author who went to the NYTimes and provided the fodder for this fluff piece, insinuating that KU is universally bad for writers. It may be "bad" for the outliers like herself but for mid-listers like me, and for thousands and thousands of others writing genre-fiction that readers *actually* want to to read, it's been a boon.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

Hey Sam Spade, I don't know why you'd say there's no convincing me.  I am ready to be convinced of anything where logic or evidence would dictate.  And then I'll flip again if new evidence comes to light!  So please, I encourage you to continue to show data and extrapolations that prove your points.

However, I know from my own experience that KU books do have a lot of variability due to ghost borrows.  And because ghost borrows even exist, it makes a lot of uncertainty in terms of correlating sales rank with earnings.

Please tell me how I'm wrong.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

Yeah, ghost borrows are GREAT unless you actually care about knowing whether your rank means anything and how much money you'll actually make this month.


----------



## darkline (Mar 30, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> PROOF.


Looking at my ranking, my borrows+sales are about right for the rank my books have. My books are in Top 20 in their category and I think I get very few ghost borrows. If you didn't manage to hook a reader within 10% of your book, which is the length of the Look Inside, why would they even borrow/buy it? 
I'm of the opinion the "ghost borrows effect" is really very exaggerated when you sell a lot. It might make a big difference in ranking when you sell 10-20 books a day, but the better the ranking of the book, the more sales/borrows it takes for the ranking to change. If you're selling 100 books a day, 10 ghost borrows wouldn't make much of a difference in your book's ranking.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

gorvnice said:


> Hey Sam Spade, I don't know why you'd say there's no convincing me. I am ready to be convinced of anything where logic or evidence would dictate. And then I'll flip again if new evidence comes to light! So please, I encourage you to continue to show data and extrapolations that prove your points.
> 
> However, I know from my own experience that KU books do have a lot of variability due to ghost borrows. And because ghost borrows even exist, it makes a lot of uncertainty in terms of correlating sales rank with earnings.
> 
> Please tell me how I'm wrong.


This really will be the last reply to this train of thought but it doesn't seem like you read the rest of my message. Compare a rank 4000 book outside of Kindle Unlimited with a rank 500 book in Kindle Unlimited. Even if you can manipulate the numbers such that a book at similar rank will make 1/4 in Kindle Unlimited what it would outside of Kindle Unlimited, a book with eight times the sales and a quarter of the revenue per copy sold will make twice as much money.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Monique said:


> I would love some ghost buys (people who almost bought my book), if they counted toward my sales rank.


Every return?


----------



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

SamSpade said:


> This is pretty good and closer to the real situation for a rank 500 book than most people have gotten in this thread. However, you're comparing a rank 500 book in Kindle Unlimited to a rank 500 book outside of Kindle Unlimited. How does a rank 500 book in Kindle Unlimited fare against a rank 4000 book outside of Kindle Unlimited?


A #4000 rank (again, during non-Christmas season) takes about 30-35 sales/day to maintain. So at $2.99, that book is earning $60-70/day.

Per the math above -- which has numerous caveats to it, but I feel like it's in the ballpark -- that same title in KU at #500 is going to earn something like $175-250/day, depending on how many borrows are going into that and how many of those borrows are converting to paid.

For the record, though, I don't think an analysis of KU is as simple as that. I'd want to look at several months of results, whether titles have more or less rank stickiness post-KU, etc.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

JeanneM said:


> Sorry...all I know is feelings....They used to call psychics "sensitives" for a reason. It explains why we never fit anywhere.


I for one am happy to see you bring some clarity into this fuzzy math discussion I've been wading through for the past half hour.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Monique said:


> Any borrow that appears in your dash is one you will be paid for.


Thank you. I still find it all really crazy though. This month I have over 40 borrows on the one book I have in Select. 
22 have been read, or that's what's on my dash right now. If the others are read in the future will I be paid the amount for the December payout, or the amount for the month it's actually read? Like if it's read in January, but borrowed today, do I get December or January payout? I understand writing in general is an unstable business, but KU is a whole new game. Before you could look at your sales and returns and say yes, I can pay this bill or put this much in my savings. Now people ask me how sales are going and I tell them I have no idea.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Every return?


LOL, true. If I had a return for every sale, I'd have a lot more exposure and (theoretically) a lot more sales (and returns).


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

darkline said:


> Looking at my ranking, my borrows+sales are about right for the rank my books have(~600-700 in overall Kindle Store). My books are in Top 20 in their category and I think I get very few ghost borrows. If you didn't manage to hook a reader within 10% of your book, which is the length of the Look Inside, why would they even borrow/buy it?
> I'm of the opinion the "ghost borrows effect" is really very exaggerated when you sell a lot. It might make a big difference in ranking when you sell 10-20 books a day, but the better the ranking of the book, the more sales/borrows it takes for the ranking to change. If you're selling 100 books a day, 10 ghost borrows wouldn't make much of a difference in your book's ranking.


I'll say it again and I'd love for you or anyone else to logically show me where I'm going wrong.

The very fact that a ghost borrow exists, means it's very difficult to track how many we get. Since we can only track it once it becomes a "true borrow" and that doesn't always happen.

I would say that the more books you sell, the more ghost borrows you're likely to get. It's just a numbers game, but please show me logic or evidence to the contrary. Just as the more sales I get, typically the more returns I get, even if the ratio stays roughly the same.

Now, how many ghost borrows actually convert? My guess is that depends on the book, the genre, all kinds of things that fluctuate. But because there are now such things as "ghost borrows", the whole situation is well and truly screwy.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

katrina46 said:


> Thank you. I still find it all really crazy though. This month I have over 40 borrows on the one book I have in Select.
> 22 have been read, or that's what's on my dash right now. If the others are read in the future will I be paid the amount for the December payout, or the amount for the month it's actually read? Like if it's read in January, but borrowed today, do I get December or January payout? I understand writing in general is an unstable business, but KU is a whole new game. Before you could look at your sales and returns and say yes, I can pay this bill or put this much in my savings. Now people ask me how sales are going and I tell them I have no idea.


How do you know you have 40 borrows, but only 22 have been read?


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Andrew Ashling said:


> I wasn't commenting on that.
> 
> I just tried to clarify your confusion between sales ranking and sales numbers.


Okay, well thank you then.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

darkline said:


> Looking at my ranking, my borrows+sales are about right for the rank my books have. My books are in Top 20 in their category and I think I get very few ghost borrows. If you didn't manage to hook a reader within 10% of your book, which is the length of the Look Inside, why would they even borrow/buy it?
> I'm of the opinion the "ghost borrows effect" is really very exaggerated when you sell a lot. It might make a big difference in ranking when you sell 10-20 books a day, but the better the ranking of the book, the more sales/borrows it takes for the ranking to change. If you're selling 100 books a day, 10 ghost borrows wouldn't make much of a difference in your book's ranking.


Because it is much easier to hit the borrow button than the sample button. Another thought, it is much easier to go ahead and borrow than sample, get out of the book, then go borrow it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> A #4000 rank (again, during non-Christmas season) takes about 30-35 sales/day to maintain. So at $2.99, that book is earning $60-70/day.
> 
> Per the math above -- which has numerous caveats to it, but I feel like it's in the ballpark -- that same title in KU at #500 is going to earn something like $175-250/day, depending on how many borrows are going into that and how many of those borrows are converting to paid.
> 
> For the record, though, I don't think an analysis of KU is as simple as that. I'd want to look at several months of results, whether titles have more or less rank stickiness post-KU, etc.


Thank you very much, sir. I agree with you that it's not as simple as that, but there's a lot of complications and caveats that could bring a 300% gain to a 75% loss from here.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Monique said:


> How do you know you have 40 borrows, but only 22 have been read?


 Well, it could be Amazon's weird delayed reporting, or I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading. But in my actual month to month sales unit it says 47. On my graph the various blue dots only add up to 22. But again, this is the first time I've been in Select since KU, so maybe I'm not getting it? Any light you could shed would be appreciated.


----------



## darkline (Mar 30, 2014)

gorvnice said:


> I'll say it again and I'd love for you or anyone else to logically show me where I'm going wrong.
> 
> The very fact that a ghost borrow exists, means it's very difficult to track how many we get. Since we can only track it once it becomes a "true borrow" and that doesn't always happen.
> 
> ...


I'm telling you from personal experience. The rankings of my books--and they have a very good ranking--are about right for the sales+registered borrows I have. If I get any ghost borrows, they're too few to make much of a difference. And again, it takes a reader to read 10% of the book--the length of the Look Inside--for the borrow to count. If you can't manage to make the reader read the length of the Look Inside, in all likelihood, the reader wouldn't have bought your book anyway if it wasn't enrolled in KU. So no loss there.


----------



## 90210 (Dec 29, 2014)

_Post deleted -- due to suspicions caused by this being the member's first post, and evidence of IP-cloaking. - Admin._


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

JeanneM said:


> How about we stop talking about Holly as if she isn't here? She has contributed so much to this board. If she makes a statement, either believe or don't believe her. That is your choice. But to castigate her when she has contributed so much here, goes beyond the pale. No wonder all the heavy hitters are leaving.


Exactly


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

darkline said:


> I'm telling you from personal experience. The rankings of my books--and they have a very good ranking--are about right for the sales+registered borrows I have. If I get any ghost borrows, they're too few to make much of a difference. And again, it takes a reader to read 10% of the book--the length of the Look Inside--for the borrow to count. If you can't manage to make the reader read the length of the Look Inside, in all likelihood, the reader wouldn't have bought your book anyway if it wasn't enrolled in KU. So no loss there.


Thank you for answering me.


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

90210 said:


> _Post deleted -- due to suspicions caused by this being the member's first post, and evidence of IP-cloaking. - Admin._


Well, this isn't the only place that SamSpade posted his post about Holly. That seems like a personal agenda to me.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> PROOF.


Saying a third (or whatever the number is) of borrows are unpaid is quite a statement. The onus is on them to back it up with facts.

I'd go further and say the onus for proof first lies on those claiming that ghost borrows exist at all.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

katrina46 said:


> Well, it could be Amazon's weird delayed reporting, or I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading. But in my actual month to month sales unit it says 47. On my graph the various blue dots only add up to 22. But again, this is the first time I've been in Select since KU, so maybe I'm not getting it? Any light you could shed would be appreciated.


Your month-to-date report and your dashboard (the blue dots) are off by that much? Is the reporting period the same for both? The marketplace filter? I don't have any books in KU, so I can't tell you what "normal" borrow behavior for those reports is.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

darkline said:


> I'm telling you from personal experience. The rankings of my books--and they have a very good ranking--are about right for the sales+registered borrows I have. If I get any ghost borrows, they're too few to make much of a difference. And again, it takes a reader to read 10% of the book--the length of the Look Inside--for the borrow to count. If you can't manage to make the reader read the length of the Look Inside, in all likelihood, the reader wouldn't have bought your book anyway if it wasn't enrolled in KU. So no loss there.


Yes, I have personal experience also. In my old thread about Amazon gaming the system with KU, I discussed three of my books, 2 of which were in KU and one of which was not. And I talked about how the non KU book was outselling the others by 2 to 1 or 3 to 1--only its ranking was the same or worse--and I was told that the difference was likely GHOST BORROWS.

Now you're saying ghost borrows are exceedingly rare. Well, my experience says they're not so rare, and i also have good sales and good rankings.

To be clear, some of the rankings wonkiness appears to have been righted the last month or two, but I still feel that the ghost borrows phenomenon is absolute crap. It shouldn't exist because it makes calculations about sales and ranking more and more imprecise.

Furthermore, the fact that you are getting an uncertain amount of money paid to you each month in KU makes everything ever more obscure!

How is this good? More data is good. Less is bad. Ghost borrows and unknown payment pools are bad for business, bad for analysis, bad for us writers in every way. I'm not going to say otherwise unless someone can show me differently.

As for my month, it's been phenomenally GOOD at Amazon and so was last month. But I stand by the principle that KU stinks to high heaven...


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

gorvnice said:


> I think Holly's an adult and a very shrewd business person who can quite handle what's happening here--I doubt she needs anyone protecting her feelings.


I can tell you from experience that saying someone is an adult who can fight their own battles is the cruelest thing you can ever say around here and you had better apologize for that nasty slur.

The libel from other folks is okay though.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

Moist_Tissue said:


> Well, this isn't the only place that SamSpade posted his post about Holly. That seems like a personal agenda to me.


Only an agenda to make the truth known. Why don't you attack my data rather than my character or my motivations?


----------



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

shelleyo1 said:


> Saying a third (or whatever the number is) of borrows are unpaid is quite a statement. The onus is on them to back it up with facts.
> 
> I'd go further and say the onus for proof first lies on those claiming that ghost borrows exist at all.


Go upload a title to Amazon, enroll it in KU, borrow it, and don't open it.

Your rank will reflect a sale. There won't be any sales or borrows on your dashboard.

As always, it's possible Amazon has changed things. But this one is easy to test. I've done it eight or ten times and the results have always been the same.


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

SamSpade said:


> Only an agenda to make the truth known. Why don't you attack my data rather than my character or my motivations?


Because your motivations are suspect.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

This is a little bit off topic, but I know that my own sales go up and down from month to month. Sometimes I'm looking hard for reasons, and the drop or rise seems to correlate with the implementation of some big change on Amazon, but the reality is that sales go up and down. It might be totally unrelated to the visible changes on the store.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Don't make me get Betsy that 250,000 volt cattle prod.


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

tessblunt said:


> Holly is the focus of this thread because *she* is the author who went to the NYTimes and provided the fodder for this fluff piece, insinuating that KU is universally bad for writers. It may be "bad" for the outliers like herself but for mid-listers like me, and for thousands and thousands of others writing genre-fiction that readers *actually* want to to read, it's been a boon.


KU has been good for thousands of authors. It has also been a disaster for thousands of authors. Instead of beating up on Holly, authors who have done well with KU and want to have their voices heard should start a thread using their real names instead of a pseudonyms. Reporters don't quote shadows. Post your results. Name your books and show how well you've done with them in KU. Report how much money you've made, as well as the lengths of the books and the genres. Then send a link to the thread to the reporter on the NYT. Tell him you want your side heard. That should get you a column of your own.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

I love that now even the notion of ghost borrows existing is being questioned….lol.  Those of us who sell books know it absolutely has existed.  Maybe there is truly less of that now, but back when Holly had the drop, it was in full effect as far as I can tell.

And again, don't underestimate the drop her books outside of KU probably experienced, because of the algo change, and visibility lessening.  She has a lot of BIG sellers and a few of those tanking in a major way could be huge for her bottom line.  Then you compound that with the loss of profit caused by the lowered rate from borrows (and possibly the lack of turnover from ghost borrows to paid borrows) and I think we can possibly get close to 75%.

Close enough to be in the spirit of what Holly said, if not exact.  Good enough to suit me anyway.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

shelleyo1 said:


> Saying a third (or whatever the number is) of borrows are unpaid is quite a statement. The onus is on them to back it up with facts.
> 
> I'd go further and say the onus for proof first lies on those claiming that ghost borrows exist at all.


In July, I had 80ish sales (I believe, but give or take 10) during a My Romance Reads ad. I think I peaked at around 2500. 
In December 10, I had 73 sales with a My Romance Reads ad and 3 borrows. I peaked around 1500
On December 15, I had 41 sales and 10 borrows during a non-ad day and peaked at 1019.

As a guess, I would imagine sales tend to be higher in December, and thusly more difficult to rank high than back in December. Assuming that, ghost borrows exist. It's the only explanation.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

The "proof" is in the logical flaw within claim


> For a book selling hundreds and hundreds every day, do you realize that a third or half of them may never even convert into sales That's insane.


Read the claim itself. The claim is a "books selling hundreds and hundreds" but then concludes the books aren't sold. That violates logic and uses "sale" in the wrong way - it equates the process of selling something into a transaction where no exchange of money occurs. If people are sure Amazon counts ghost borrows in rank, it'd be Amazon who start this logical flaw by defining rank as "paid in the Kindle store". However I am very surprised to see people here buying into it and, besides rampant speculation, don't recall anyone supplying information from Amazon that states they do this.

Ghost borrows are irrelevant to sales but, the widespread belief is, they are not irrelevant to sales rank. Because one can't logically complain about losing a sale that never occurred, the only argument with ghost borrows is the artificial rank inflation. the argument is - is inflate rank. You can't lose a sale you never made. What just because one clicked on "borrow" but didn't read is a lost sale?

*When it comes to bringing the ghost borrow effect into the argument, Sam Spade is right*
To use the ghost borrow argument that Ed brings in, one has to compare KU title to KU title. Doing it any other way - like comparing KU title to non KU title sharing the same rank - is comparing apples to oranges and tells us nothing because the argument is based on a large logical flaw.

The expectation that PR should only enjoy positive response and berating those who question what is said when someone pursues PR is nothing but advocating for censorship.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

gorvnice said:


> DELETED ALL YOUR POST, because it's not relevant to mind


I wanted to issue a public apology for lashing out at you earlier with the "Can you read?" comment. In the heat of the moment, I forgot who I was responding to, and what I was responding to. The point of your post that initiated that response was lost on me at the time.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2014)

I hope I've opened a few eyes on this board. I'll be back around this evening to answer more questions if the heavy hand of the moderation team hasn't culled this thread by then.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Monique said:


> Your month-to-date report and your dashboard (the blue dots) are off by that much? Is the reporting period the same for both? The marketplace filter? I don't have any books in KU, so I can't tell you what "normal" borrow behavior for those reports is.


The market filter was only off by a couple of days Nov29 through today. The month to date is of course 12/1 through today and I didn't get borrows in November so, yes, it's off by that much. More now. The month to date says I got two more borrows today, so it's up to 49 and my dashboard still doesn't reflect anything new. That's why I'm so confused. I assumed the month to date report reflected the ghost borrows everyone is talking about.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

Someone said:


> The "proof" is in the logical flaw within claimRead the claim itself. The claim is a "books selling hundreds and hundreds" but then concludes the books aren't sold. That violates logic and uses "sale" in the wrong way - it equates the process of selling something into a transaction where no exchange of money occurs. If people are sure Amazon counts ghost borrows in rank...


We know that Amazon counts ghost borrows in rank. There have been experiments done here by people on this board and you can easily do it yourself. So yes, we know it exists, thanks.

As for my use of sale, I could have been more precise with my terminology but now you're also being pedantic in order to muddy the waters here.

What I'm saying is that, if a book's ranking indicates hundreds of sales a day, but in reality (if the book is in KU) said book might only be paid for two-thirds or less of those sales, that would be crazy and bad for authors with books in KU who are losing potential sales.

For instance, if someone buys my book outside of KU, and then never opens it--I still get that sale. But if they do the same thing within KU, I don't. That's a loss in my book...


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

SamSpade said:


> I hope I've opened a few eyes on this board. I'll be back around this evening to answer more questions if the heavy hand of the moderation team hasn't culled this thread by then.


You've made some interesting claims, but I don't think you've backed them up quite as sufficiently as you think you have. But I'd love to see you return with more data, more compelling arguments, etc.


----------



## Jake Kerr (Aug 6, 2014)

Sam and Someone are correct. Ghost borrows are not sales and thus don't affect sales figures. HOWEVER, I think I see where the disconnect is here: Many of us equate an increase in rank with an increase in sales (at least relatively speaking). But this is no longer true. I can have ten borrows and no sales and reach the top 100K in the rankings. 

What this means is that, effectively, novelrank is extremely inaccurate at estimating sales, because it includes ghost borrows.

To bring this full circle, comparing a book in KU and a book not in KU in regards to sales rank doesn't work. The book that isn't in KU has to actually sell MORE to achieve an equal rank than the one in KU due to ghost borrows inflating the KU work.


----------



## Hoop (Nov 22, 2014)

Sam Spade, thank you for posting graphs and attempting to bring some clarity to the extremely vague claims that Ms. Ward has made and has not backed up with any kind of proof. Yes, when "heavy hitters" make claims about KU and their experience could affect decisions made by other authors, it's prudent to question those claims so that people can make informed decisions.

Ms. Ward, having someone question the veracity of your claimed numbers is NOT attacking you personally. If you do not want to provide your numbers, please say so; but don't play the victim/"don't you know who I am" card when you haven't been attacked.

I'm curious as to why this entire discussion (both here, in the NYT article, and in other threads) has not explored the possibility that any drop in sales is not entirely due to KU? It could be that readers are tired of paying $3 per installment of a series with SEVENTEEN books (plus many side-books), that they stopped buying books to instead buy christmas gifts for the upcoming holidays, or that readers are simply tired of a storyline that's run for two years and it might be time for Ms. Ward to wrap it up and write a different story.

-When you've already paid $51 for a story that has not ended and doesn't show signs of ending anytime soon, how much longer will you be willing to keep shelling out that money?
-Readers often stop buying books during the fall and turn that money towards gifts and holiday expenditures. This is known as the "fall slump", followed soon after by "kindlemas" when those readers start buying again and the new kindle owners start buying. Why has the fall slump been completely forgotten/ignored in this discussion?
-No series lasts forever. No gravy train lasts forever. When something stops working, the general response is to try something new, not go to multiple places (facebook, author forums, NYT) complaining that it's no longer working and blaming one single factor rather than honestly looking at all possible reasons.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

K.B. said:


> In July, I had 80ish sales (I believe, but give or take 10) during a My Romance Reads ad. I think I peaked at around 2500.
> In December 10, I had 73 sales with a My Romance Reads ad and 3 borrows. I peaked around 1500
> On December 15, I had 41 sales and 10 borrows during a non-ad day and peaked at 1019.
> 
> As a guess, I would imagine sales tend to be higher in December, and thusly more difficult to rank high than back in December. Assuming that, ghost borrows exist. It's the only explanation.


No, it's not. You have you rule out all other possible explanations for it to be the only one left. It remains a possible explanation until that's done.


----------



## darkline (Mar 30, 2014)

gorvnice said:


> Yes, I have personal experience also. In my old thread about Amazon gaming the system with KU, I discussed three of my books, 2 of which were in KU and one of which was not. And I talked about how the non KU book was outselling the others by 2 to 1 or 3 to 1--only its ranking was the same or worse--and I was told that the difference was likely GHOST BORROWS.
> 
> Now you're saying ghost borrows are exceedingly rare. Well, my experience says they're not so rare, and i also have good sales and good rankings.
> 
> ...


I have 2 pen names (3, actually, but the third isn't enrolled in KU). My other pen name doesn't sell much compared to my newest pen name. Because its ranking isn't very good (it sells only about 10-20 borrows+sales a day), the ranking can change a lot because of a few borrows.

My point is, if you sell a lot, even twenty ghost borrows a day won't affect your ranking much. Also, readers are limited by 10 KU books at a time, so they're unlikely to borrow a book they don't intend to read. A KU book is not a Free book. You can't keep hundreds of KU books on your Kindle indefinitely like you can do with free books. So if the book is good enough, there won't be many ghost borrows anyway. Write a book readers won't quit reading before reaching 10% and there won't be many ghost borrows.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

jakedfw said:


> Sam and Someone are correct. Ghost borrows are not sales and thus don't affect sales figures. HOWEVER, I think I see where the disconnect is here: Many of us equate an increase in rank with an increase in sales (at least relatively speaking). But this is no longer true. I can have ten borrows and no sales and reach the top 100K in the rankings.
> 
> What this means is that, effectively, novelrank is extremely inaccurate at estimating sales, because it includes ghost borrows.
> 
> To bring this full circle, comparing a book in KU and a book not in KU in regards to sales rank doesn't work. The book that isn't in KU has to actually sell MORE to achieve an equal rank than the one in KU due to ghost borrows inflating the KU work.


Yes, what you just said is true. A book within KU can sell less, have less borrows, but be ranked higher due to ghost borrows. This inflates both the rank, and the impression of visibility and sales numbers.

It means that books outside of KU have to work harder to get visibility, but they ultimately tend to make more money for a variety of reasons, including wider distribution, sales that are actually paid at the full price, etc. Whereas books inside the KU program have more visibility but they actually make less money due to the borrow rate (which fluctuates seemingly at random) as well as ghost borrows that don't convert to paid sales, as well as possible cannibalization of actual potential sales into borrows.


----------



## Joel R. Crabtree (Aug 6, 2012)

SamSpade said:


> Before I begin, I have no agenda here but the *pursuit of truth.*





SamSpade said:


> Only an agenda to make the *truth* known.





SamSpade said:


> I've never seen when this 75% drop is supposed to cover, exactly. If she's talking about a 75% drop from October 2013 to October 2014, that's a pretty *disingenuous* statement.


My math and debate skills may not be top notch, but my reading comprehension tells me that the specific terminology (bolding mine) used seems more in-line with an attempt at character assassination rather than clearing up any issues with possibly faulty mathematics.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Cute. Challenging the mods to allow more attacks.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

I really wanted to keep this thread open...but I can't keep up with the reports and I'm the only mod on duty now (and I'm finishing dinner.  Gonna lock it to let people cool off and so that we can review.

Betsy
KB Mod

~~~

Update (from Harvey): This thread has turned acrimonious, and will remain locked. While it is legit to offer differing analyses or opinions on KU, it is out of line and presumptive to question the OP's motives, particularly as she has a strong history here of sharing generously with helpful and thoughtful posts. That credibility counts for something here, as it should in any community.

Elements of the thread are useful, such as the notion of KU ghost borrows, and if you feel so motivated we encourage the starting of separate threads to discuss those.


----------

