# Does Amazon have the tech to start paying KU by words read (5000 words = $0.10)?



## VEVO (Feb 9, 2012)

Does Amazon have to technology to implement such a system?

For example, 

5000 words = $0.10
50,000 words = $1
100,000 words = $2
150,000 words = $3


----------



## Kate. (Oct 7, 2014)

I don't know if they have the tech, but that's a really neat idea. It would help reduce the number of "get rich quick"ers and scamphlets, and would be much fairer to authors. I'd love to see them implement something like this.


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

Darcy said:


> I'd love to see them implement something like this.


As the author of a 220K word book, so would I! Epic fantasy writers would crack open the champagne if ever this came about. And if Amazon were judging the effectiveness of KU independently of any other consideration, they would perhaps consider it.

But if the objective is to get punters into the store to (maybe) buy other stuff along with the KU downloads, then encouraging short work is more effective a strategy. Better to have people borrow shorts and return every few hours for another dose than to borrow one humungous novel that will keep them quiet (and away from Amazon) for a week or two.


----------



## Bilinda Ní Siodacaín (Jun 16, 2011)

So if they introduced this what would happen to the short fiction writers? Why shouldn't they get paid as well as everyone else?

You say this is to discourage the get rich quick schemes and the scamlets but why does this need to be done at the expense of writers of short fiction? Punishing a whole sub-set of writers just because you feel hard done by is not the answer either. Epic-novels are not the be all and end all.


----------



## GTC (Dec 18, 2013)

If such a scale were introduced wouldn't short fiction writers just remove themselves from Amazon, taking their books and their many readers to a competitor?  Seems like an odd business decision, but perhaps I'm missing something.


----------



## Sarah Ettritch (Jan 5, 2012)

I read on a Kindle that isn't connected to Amazon in any way (WiFi is always turned off; I transfer my books over USB). Also, some people convert the books they buy from Amazon to other formats. They're not pirates; they just like to read on something other than a Kindle. In both cases, authors wouldn't be compensated because Amazon would see the books as unread. So, no, it doesn't have the tech. People can legally read Kindle books without Amazon having a clue about where they are in the book.

The terms of KU are what they are. There's no point worrying about scamlets or how much authors are getting paid for work shorter than yours. The only thing you have control over is whether it makes sense for your books to be in the program.


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

And how about guys like me that write life-changing nf?  my 10,000 words are to be valued how? 

Don't equate length with quality, there's plenty of long-form dribble out there.


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

Why should Amazon do that (the OP's suggestion)? 

Word count does not equal value. One hundred thousand words of dreck is still dreck.


----------



## darkline (Mar 30, 2014)

So according to this, a 50,000 words novel(and most Romance books are even shorter) is worth only $1? Amazon would never do this.


----------



## VEVO (Feb 9, 2012)

Christa Wick said:


> Why should Amazon do that (the OP's suggestion)?
> 
> Word count does not equal value. One hundred thousand words of dreck is still dreck.


How likely is a KU reader going to read 100,000 words of dreck instead of stopping at say 5,000 words and move on to some other book?

The author of this 100,000 words "dreck" would only get paid for 5,000 words or $0.10.


----------



## VEVO (Feb 9, 2012)

darkline said:


> So according to this, a 50,000 words novel(and most Romance books are even shorter) is worth only $1? Amazon would never do this.


5,000 words = $0.10 is just an example. Only Amazon knows what they would actually pay IF they decide to install such a system.


----------



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

This is a really stupid idea.

Let me tell you why. Just recently, someone posted (Cin, I think it was) posted the news about some self-publishing how-to book being a freebie here. The author of the book padded the book out the wazoo with nonsense for pages and pages after the meat of the thing was done. Why? To make the sample longer. And he recommended others do that, too, to make their sample longer. 

How long do you think it will take scammers to do the same thing?


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

Isn't this just another case of sour grapes?
And long story form authors upset that their work isn't more appreciated because it took longer to make?
The answer to the OP's question is, No. They wouldn't do that for the various reasons outlined in this post.



SevenDays said:


> This is a really stupid idea.
> 
> Let me tell you why. Just recently, someone posted (Cin, I think it was) posted the news about some self-publishing how-to book being a freebie here. The author of the book padded the book out the wazoo with nonsense for pages and pages after the meat of the thing was done. Why? To make the sample longer. And he recommended others do that, too, to make their sample longer.
> 
> How long do you think it will take scammers to do the same thing?


Exactly. Every scam would have a royalty-free epic after their pamphlets.
I can picture it now,
How to make a million dollars with ebooks and 10 sherlock holmes adventures all-in-one!!!


----------



## darkline (Mar 30, 2014)

VEVO said:


> 5,000 words = $0.10 is just an example. Only Amazon knows what they would actually pay IF they decide to install such a system.


The fact still remains that it would be still very under-valued compared to a 150,000 word novel. Why should a 150k word novel earn three times more than a novel of a perfectly respectable length? If Amazon installed such a system, it would do more harm than good, because writers will start writing for "word count." I often forced myself to finish boring 200k word books only because I hate not finishing books. So why does that book should earn its author 4 times more than an engaging 50k word novel? It's ridiculous.
Ans as others already said, it wouldn't stop scammers anyway. They'll find a way around it: start paying for KU "reads" and earn $4 per 200k word book filled with nonsense.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

VEVO said:


> How likely is a KU reader going to read 100,000 words of dreck instead of stopping at say 5,000 words and move on to some other book?
> 
> The author of this 100,000 words "dreck" would only get paid for 5,000 words or $0.10.


The problem is, who determines whether the 100,000 words are dreck? I could name a few books off the top of my head which are utter dreck yet they have sat in the top 100 list on Amazon for years.


----------



## Eltanin Publishing (Mar 24, 2011)

Sarah Ettritch said:


> I read on a Kindle that isn't connected to Amazon in any way (WiFi is always turned off; I transfer my books over USB)... In both cases, authors wouldn't be compensated because Amazon would see the books as unread. So, no, it doesn't have the tech. People can legally read Kindle books without Amazon having a clue about where they are in the book.


But this is exactly what happens - when people borrow a KU book, the author doesn't get paid unless the reader reads at least 10% of the book. You're right - Amazon doesn't have the technology to _perfectly _implement this, but they ARE doing it.


----------



## Sarah Ettritch (Jan 5, 2012)

Eltanin Publishing said:


> But this is exactly what happens - when people borrow a KU book, the author doesn't get paid unless the reader reads at least 10% of the book. You're right - Amazon doesn't have the technology to _perfectly _implement this, but they ARE doing it.


True, it's already using a flawed system that assumes everyone reads on a connected device. I'm sure there are cases where authors aren't being compensated for borrows because some readers read offline or on non-Kindle devices.

(I'm not a KU subscriber, so I'm not cheating anyone out of their $1.whatever by reading offline. Just want to make that clear.)


----------



## D. Zollicoffer (May 14, 2014)

Sorry, but this sounds like a terrible idea and it would do more harm then good. 

$1 for 50,000 word novel? Most people are already pulling their full-length books from KU. This would just make them do it faster. 

I've heard suggestions like this a few times, but they're deeply flawed. Scammers can write longer books and fill them with nonsense, and longer doesn't always equal better.


----------



## Molly Tomorrow (Jul 22, 2014)

*If Amazon tweak a KU read to 10% or 5000 words, whichever is greater*

*Should Amazon institute "10% read or 6000 words, whichever is greater" for KU?*

*Does Amazon have the tech to start paying KU by words read (5000 words = $0.10)?*

It's almost as if you're trying to make them do something like this through sheer force of will. I'm sure they have the tech. I don't see any reason why they should, or would do this. I've never seen any hint of an indication that they've ever considered it.

I can't see incentivising higher word counts ever being a good thing in general.


----------



## Drake (Apr 30, 2014)

I agree with the poster who said this is "Pie in the sky" thinking.  We can suggest KU improvements until we're blue in the face, but Amazon will do whatever they think benefits THEM the most, not the writers.  It's our job to just continue to work the system the best we can.  
I left an industry where most people bemoaned the changes technology brought, and longed for the "Good old days" when things were different.  It's the same with every generation.  Things change, and we adapt to survive.  No amount of whining and wishing will change that.


----------



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

I think what's getting lost in the discussion is that KU _is_ a different sort of market from sales.

The concerns expressed aren't sour grapes or some sort of moral valuation that long-form is inherently better than short-form. It's that KU has turned a portion of what was an open market into a zero-sum game.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

I guess we are at the "Crabs in a Barrel" portion of our careers? 

Every time I see a suggestion like the OPs, it really smacks of "If I can't have it...neither can you."


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

*Writer A* spends a month to painstakingly craft a 5,000 word story - edits it and edits it again. Sends it to proofreaders, tweaks it and then sends it to a professional editor, then puts the final touches on it. Has a professional cover made, then uploads to Amazon.

*Writer B* spends a week to crank out a 50,000 word story. Makes their own cover and uploads to Amazon without proofreading or editing.

Why should Writer B make more money than A?


----------



## philjson (Nov 25, 2014)

vlmain said:


> *Writer A* spends a month to painstakingly craft a 5,000 word story - edits it and edits it again. Sends it to proofreaders, tweaks it and then sends it to a professional editor, then puts the final touches on it. Has a professional cover made, then uploads to Amazon.
> 
> *Writer B* spends a week to crank out a 50,000 word story. Makes their own cover and uploads to Amazon without proofreading or editing.
> 
> Why should Writer B make more money than A?


What if writer B is a professional cover designer who spent a year proofing his 50,000 word story?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Sarah Ettritch said:


> True, it's already using a flawed system that assumes everyone reads on a connected device. I'm sure there are cases where authors aren't being compensated for borrows because some readers read offline or on non-Kindle devices.
> 
> (I'm not a KU subscriber, so I'm not cheating anyone out of their $1.whatever by reading offline. Just want to make that clear.)


Sarah with KU one can only get 10 books at a time.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Why would I want to read 50,000 words on Grandmom's best smothered chicken?    Or 50,000 words on knitting a sweater?    Or 50,000 words on chihuahua care?


----------



## Guest (Dec 9, 2014)

If you're putting a book into KU in the first place, it needs to be short. You have no business having your 100k novels in KU. Someone says 100k of dreck isn't anything? Well 100k of brilliance is worth as much as 5k of drek under KU. Fact. If you're writing for KU, get your novels out of there. Write very short works.

Example.

Two 10 thousand word stories bring in twice the royalty as one 20 thousand word story.

You think readers will not borrow 10k? You are kidding yourself.

They will borrow much less than that.

When romance erotica authors are getting hundreds / thousands of borrows per month, amazon do not care when the science fiction novelist approaches and complains his / hers epic saga is getting the same rate as erotica shorts. 

Because hardly anyone is borrowing that stuff by comparison. 

If Amazon keep KU rates as high as 1.30 or around that, they're effectively killing the novel. But of course they won't. 

Lower it too far, and almost no one besides incompetents will touch select. That's where it's heading.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

philjson said:


> What if writer B is a professional cover designer who spent a year proofing his 50,000 word story?


I was giving just one example. I could have written out every possible exception, but it would have ended up being 500,000 words, and then I'd have to charge you to read it.


----------



## philjson (Nov 25, 2014)

vlmain said:


> I was giving just one example. I could have written out every possible exception, but it would have ended up being 500,000 words, and then I'd have to charge you to read it.


But you posted this example to shoot down VEVO's argument. Writer B's work (cover and all) could be just as professional as Writer A. Your example is not airtight, far from it.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

What if everyone stopped worrying about what everyone else might be earning and focused on themselves and their own careers.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

philjson said:


> But you posted this example to shoot down VEVO's argument. Writer B's work (cover and all) could be just as professional as Writer A. Your example is not airtight, far from it.


I wasn't trying to be airtight. The point is that some short stories are brilliant and some short story writers spend a huge amount of time and money on their work. Some novels are horrible, unedited and the writer spends little time and money on them. Why should the novel be better compensated just because it has more words?

Of course there are brilliant novels. Of course their is short garbage. There are always the good and bad of both. My point was that you cannot use the length of a story as a measure of its value.


----------



## WordSaladTongs (Oct 14, 2013)

shelleyo1 said:


> What if everyone stopped worrying about what everyone else might be earning and focused on themselves and their own careers.


+1


----------



## philjson (Nov 25, 2014)

vlmain said:


> I wasn't trying to be airtight. The point is that some short stories are brilliant and some short story writers spend a huge amount of time and money on their work. Some novels are horrible, unedited and the writer spends little time and money on them. Why should the novel be better compensated just because it has more words?
> 
> Of course there are brilliant novels. Of course their is short garbage. There are always the good and bad of both. My point was that you cannot use the length of a story as a measure of its value.


You should have said that from the beginning instead of trying to denigrate those who work for years to develop their 50,000+ word stories.


----------



## philjson (Nov 25, 2014)

shelleyo1 said:


> What if everyone stopped worrying about what everyone else might be earning and focused on themselves and their own careers.


Because this is an issue. I'm confused. I thought this was a forum to discuss issues. I could be wrong. If I am, I apologize.


----------



## GTC (Dec 18, 2013)

philjson said:


> You should have said that from the beginning instead of trying to denigrate those who work for years to develop their 50,000+ word stories.


That's certainly not how I interpreted vlmain's original post - "spends a week to crank out a 50,000 word story......without proofreading or editing." That's specifically aimed at people who *don't* work for years to develop their 50,000 stories! Clearly they don't think Writer B represents all long story writers, that would be ridiculous.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

philjson said:


> You should have said that from the beginning instead of trying to denigrate those who work for years to develop their 50,000+ word stories.


My comparison was clear.  How you arrived at that is beyond me. I'm not going to get into a tiff over it.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Greenthecolour said:


> That's certainly not how I interpreted vlmain's original post - "spends a week to crank out a 50,000 word story......without proofreading or editing." That's specifically aimed at people who *don't* work for years to develop their 50,000 stories! Clearly they don't think Writer B represents all long story writers, that would be ridiculous.


Thank you!


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

VEVO said:


> Does Amazon have to technology to implement such a system?
> 
> For example,
> 
> ...


I didn't see an answer to your question because people began leaping to conclusions immediately, so I'll answer it. Yes, Amazon absolutely has the technology to implement such a system. When the book is uploaded, the word count can be determined easily. A few people seem to have assumed you're asking if Amazon can determine how many words were actually read. If that was your real question, then I'd have to say no, they can't determine that.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

scribblr said:


> A few people seem to have assumed you're asking if Amazon can determine how many words were actually read. If that was your real question, then I'd have to say no, they can't determine that.


They know where I've reached in the book, but they don't actually know if I read it, or just skimmed through. If this was done, the scammers would write software that pretends it's reading the book and reports that to Amazon, or just have people borrow it and flip straight to the end, depending on how it's implemented.

Personally, I think Amazon should pay for KU borrows in cupcakes.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

If Amazon could start paying by the number of words read, how about this...

First, Amazon has to determine the KU payout.  Let's say the pool for a given month is $1,000,000.  They would know which books were downloaded and the average retail price of each book.  (The "average retail price" being calculated based on the book's regular sale price, factoring in sales and promos to determine the average price.)  Keeping the rule that at least 10% of the book must be read in order to qualify for a payment, you eliminate from the calculations all books of which the downloaders read less than 10%.  Now, adding those average retail prices of the remaining books, it's determined that the value of the books read through KU that month was $2,500,000.

So, if Author A had a 50k word novel priced at $2.99 and Author B had a 50k word novel priced at $3.99, the most Author A could make is $1.20 and the most Author B could earn is $1.60, based on a 40% payout (because $1 million is 40% of $2.5 million).

And you could leave it at that.  But, if you want the payout based on words read (or at least on the percentage of the book read), Amazon could factor that in as well.  For example, if a reader read 100% of Author A's book, Author A would get $1.20 and if a reader read 50% of Author B's book, Author B would get $0.80.  But, that's not quite correct.  Since words not read would be deducted from the calculations, that means the payout per word read would increase.  I'm not going to try to calculate an example, so let's just say that Author A gets $1.50 for his 100% read book whereas Author B gets x more than $0.80 where x equals whatever x equals.

That way, each author would be getting a payout that's based not on a per book rate or an overall average per word value, but on a per word and per word read value based on their average retail price.  So, short fiction writers don't get punished.

And the fly-by-night book uploaders would still face the challenge of getting people to read more than 10% of their junk.  Sure, they might try setting their retail prices at $100 for a 750 word "book" to try to game the system, but Amazon could combat that by flagging high-priced eBooks for manual review if the price is set higher than a certain amount.

But, even with that, how fair is the system?  For example, what if a reader doesn't finish a book within 30 days?  Does Amazon payout based on percentage of the book read in just the first 30 days, or does it keep track of it until, say, the book is 100% read or 180 days have passed, whichever occurs first?


----------



## philjson (Nov 25, 2014)

vlmain said:


> My comparison was clear. How you arrived at that is beyond me. I'm not going to get into a tiff over it.


In your scenario, is writer B unprofessional?


----------



## storyteller (Feb 3, 2014)

At least when I use a Kindle to read, amazon monitors how far I am in a given book and adjusts the search results based on whether i've finished or not.  that's my experience with free books though (i almost exclusively read public domain stuff on kindle, most of what i want to read that isn't public domain these days is nonfiction that hasn't been turned into ebooks)


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

Bilinda Ni Siodacain said:


> So if they introduced this what would happen to the short fiction writers? Why shouldn't they get paid as well as everyone else?
> 
> You say this is to discourage the get rich quick schemes and the scamlets but why does this need to be done at the expense of writers of short fiction? Punishing a whole sub-set of writers just because you feel hard done by is not the answer either. Epic-novels are not the be all and end all.


I just want to make sure I understand your comment. You're saying that to pay writers for the number of words written, as has been done for decades by magazines and newspapers, punishes writers who write shorter pieces, and that writers who write just a short 100 word article should be paid just as much as someone who writes a full 5000 word feature presentation for the weekend edition? You truly believe the most fair system is to pay them the same amount?


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

philjson said:


> Because this is an issue. I'm confused. I thought this was a forum to discuss issues. I could be wrong. If I am, I apologize.


No, the issue is how best to use KU to benefit your own business model. If you write doorstops, you must figure out if it's worth it to you to have your book available to a potentially different pool of readers while only earning a little over a dollar each time one reads it, or to keep it out of the borrow pool, distribute widely and earn $4 every time. You must decide whether you want to participate, or whether to write shorter or longer to take advantage of KU or not. You must make decisions about your own business.That's an issue.

"What if Amazon could . . . ." isn't an issue, it's just incendiary at this point. It's been talked to death already, and it always becomes a longer vs shorter argument, which is complete bullshit.

I think if someone started a thread with, "What if Amazon paid a penny per borrow and you had to shine Bezos' cars, too?" it'd end up being 50 pages long and someone would be bitching about short fiction, or people who write and publish quickly, or people who don't pay editors, or _something_.

Amazon's not paying per words read. So why the hell worry about something that's not happening?

None of this is directed at you, by the way. I'm speaking generally.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

lilywhite said:


> Now I'm wicked confused. The question was "*Does Amazon have the tech to start paying KU by words read*" right? Isn't that the same as what you just said?


My bad! I responded to what was written in the body of the post after I had read two pages of comments and never glanced up at the topic of the post.


----------



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

Edward M. Grant said:


> Personally, I think Amazon should pay for KU borrows in cupcakes.


I like this plan, but we have to ensure that whatever method they use ensures everyone's cupcakes have a fair number of sprinkles.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

scribblr said:


> I just want to make sure I understand your comment. You're saying that to pay writers for the number of words written, as has been done for decades by magazines and newspapers, punishes writers who write shorter pieces, and that writers who write just a short 100 word article should be paid just as much as someone who writes a full 5000 word feature presentation for the weekend edition? You truly believe the most fair system is to pay them the same amount?


The difference is that magazines and newspapers pay per word regardless of how many people buy their magazine or newspaper. It's a flat fee, whether they have 100 readers or 10,000. Self-published writers are being paid per purchase/borrow. It's a totally different game.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Personally, I think Amazon should pay for KU borrows in cupcakes.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

lilywhite said:


> Now I'm wicked confused. The question was "*Does Amazon have the tech to start paying KU by words read*" right? Isn't that the same as what you just said?


It's not the same thing at all. They can probably gauge within a couple hundred words how far into the book you are by knowing what location you're sitting at. But for non-fic, people don't always read in a linear fashion. They might look at the table of contents and find the thing they want is almost at the end, and then jump there without reading everything before it. Or with collections of fiction, they might read the last story first because it sounds the most interesting. In both situations the appearance of words read and the actual amount of words read could be very different.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I object to the cupcakes.  I want belly flops.  
Oh and scammers should be paid in Haribo sugarless Gummi Bears.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Personally, I think Amazon should pay for KU borrows in cupcakes.


Oh great, now I have to dust off my elliptical machine. You call that fair?


----------



## philjson (Nov 25, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> Oh and scammers should be paid in Haribo sugarless Gummi Bears.


LMAO, not sugarless.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Oh and scammers should be paid in Haribo sugarless Gummi Bears.


That'll teach 'em! Cruel and unusual punishment. I like it!


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

philjson said:


> LMAO, not sugarless.


Oh yes sugarless. Guaranteed to keep the scammers busy.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

philjson said:


> LMAO, not sugarless.


Definitely sugarless. It's not a punishment if they get the ones with sugar.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

vlmain said:


> The difference is that magazines and newspapers pay per word regardless of how many people buy their magazine or newspaper. It's a flat fee, whether they have 100 readers or 10,000. Self-published writers are being paid per purchase/borrow. It's a totally different game.


Totally different game? Sorry, I don't see it that way. The issue is not how many people buy the final product, it's how much effort is put into preparing the content. I'm sure we all know writers who can turn out a short story during lunch hour. I certainly can, and have done so in the past when I was writing short stories for free fiction sites. But how many writers do you know who can write a novel during their lunch hour? Yet, the short story writers seem to believe that everyone should be paid the same. I just don't see that as being fair, but I can certainly understand why the short story writers want the current system to be perpetuated.


----------



## philjson (Nov 25, 2014)

Sugarless would be terrible. The regular ones barely have any taste (even though their my favorites).


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

philjson said:


> Because this is an issue. I'm confused. I thought this was a forum to discuss issues. I could be wrong. If I am, I apologize.


This is a forum to discuss ideas. Unfortunately, at times it seems that only ideas that deal with selling more books or gaining more readers are welcome.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


>


I'm getting hungry just looking at that .


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

philjson said:


> Sugarless would be terrible. The regular ones barely have any taste (even though their my favorites).


It's the fact that the sugarless ones do vile things to some people's intestinal tracts that Cin was referencing... At least I assume that's why she said it. Go check out the reviews on the 5-pound bag of sugarless Haribo gummibears, and prepare to laugh your butt off.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

scribblr said:


> Totally different game? Sorry, I don't see it that way. The issue is not how many people buy the final product, it's how much effort is put into preparing the content.


I can write a novel in the time it takes my friend to write one short story or one chapter. Who works harder and puts forth more effort? If you think you can actually answer that question, you're wrong.


----------



## philjson (Nov 25, 2014)

shelleyo1 said:


> I can write a novel in the time it takes my friend to write one short story or one chapter. Who works harder and puts forth more effort? If you think you can actually answer that question, you're wrong.


A full length novel.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Ever consider that Amazon actually prefers shorter books? The shorter the book, the sooner the reader will come back to the store.


----------



## philjson (Nov 25, 2014)

Half Pint said:


> Ever consider that Amazon actually prefers shorter books? The shorter the book, the sooner the reader will come back to the store.


They do, unfortunately.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

scribblr said:


> Totally different game? Sorry, I don't see it that way. The issue is not how many people buy the final product, it's how much effort is put into preparing the content. I'm sure we all know writers who can turn out a short story during lunch hour. I certainly can, and have done so in the past when I was writing short stories for free fiction sites. But how many writers do you know who can write a novel during their lunch hour? Yet, the short story writers seem to believe that everyone should be paid the same. I just don't see that as being fair, but I can certainly understand why the short story writers want the current system to be perpetuated.


With the current system of determining royalties for sales, short story writers already get penalized. The lowest price someone can set for their story is $0.99, despite the fact that a lot of people think that's too much to pay for a short story. So it's much harder to sell standalone short stories. Also, anything priced under $2.99 only gets a 35% royalty. So not only is it harder to sell short stories, short story writers get paid half the royalty that people who can charge more get. KU is the first thing that's really given an advantage to short story writers over people who write longer works. People can read as many short stories as they'd like for one price, and the short story writers actually get to be paid for their work. But because this method doesn't favor long-form writers for once, we're seeing a lot of sour grapes around here.

You talk about fairness. I don't really see how making the royalty 35% for anything under $2.99 is really fair, or saying we can't price our short stories at $0.49 is fair, either. Short story writers have long been at a serious disadvantage -- IMO, KU actually goes a long way to even things up.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

I'm sorry but the "effort," the length of time put into the product, etc. have nothing to do with the final value of the work. The final value is how entertaining it is to the reader. Period.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

shelleyo1 said:


> I can write a novel in the time it takes my friend to write one short story or one chapter. Who works harder and puts forth more effort? If you think you can actually answer that question, you're wrong.


If you can write a novel faster than your friend can write a short story or a chapter, then your friend is obviously not a writer. How is your pet beagle by the way. They do make great friends. Are you still trying to teach him to use a typewriter?


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

ShayneRutherford said:


> It's the fact that the sugarless ones do vile things to some people's intestinal tracts that Cin was referencing... At least I assume that's why she said it. Go check out the reviews on the 5-pound bag of sugarless Haribo gummibears, and prepare to laugh your butt off.


For those who may not have had the pleasure of reading one of the funniest reviews ever written on the subjest: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3FTHSH0UNRHOH/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B008JELLCA&nodeID=16310101&store=grocery

Warning--do NOT have anything in your mouth when you read it.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

ShayneRutherford said:


> With the current system of determining royalties for sales, short story writers already get penalized. The lowest price someone can set for their story is $0.99, despite the fact that a lot of people think that's too much to pay for a short story. So it's much harder to sell standalone short stories. Also, anything priced under $2.99 only gets a 35% royalty. So not only is it harder to sell short stories, short story writers get paid half the royalty that people who can charge more get. KU is the first thing that's really given an advantage to short story writers over people who write longer works. People can read as many short stories as they'd like for one price, and the short story writers actually get to be paid for their work. But because this method doesn't favor long-form writers for once, we're seeing a lot of sour grapes around here.
> 
> You talk about fairness. I don't really see how making the royalty 35% for anything under $2.99 is really fair, or saying we can't price our short stories at $0.49 is fair, either. Short story writers have long been at a serious disadvantage -- IMO, KU actually goes a long way to even things up.


Spoken like a true short story writer trying to maintain the incredible advantage they have in the KU. The 35% royalty is definitely unfair, but get used to it because that's what Amazon is trying to promote for all Indies. They want to turn back the clock to pre-2010 days when the royalty was just 30% for every Indie regardless of the manuscript size. All they have to do is drive the competition out of business, OR get exclusive control of your books, and they can do it. The TOS allows them to change the rules of the game at any time.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

This constant fear mongering and finger pointing gets really annoying, and old.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

scribblr said:


> If you can write a novel faster than your friend can write a short story or a chapter, then your friend is obviously not a writer.


So, in order to be a real writer, one must write fast? Speed--that's what defines a writer?


----------



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

VEVO said:


> Does Amazon have to technology to implement such a system?
> 
> For example,
> 
> ...


I've also suggested something similar. But would we then get the 'padding' scammers?


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

scribblr said:


> Spoken like a true short story writer trying to maintain the incredible advantage they have in the KU.


Thank goodness for short story writers. Without them, I would have very few choices. I prefer reading short stories, and I have read some brilliant ones. I don't like seeing them put down because their work is shorter. Their contributions are as valuable to me as any other writer's.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

The only thing good I could see with this idea is just as a way of knowing how far people got in a book. If my 100,000 word book consistently earned only one dollar, I'd have to wonder what is going on in the middle of the book to make people abandon it. And of course, that would work for any part of the book that showed that people stopped reading in that section. Of course, if Amazon would just give us that info without tying it to payment, that would be even better.


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

shelleyo1 said:


> What if everyone stopped worrying about what everyone else might be earning and focused on themselves and their own careers.


asking way, way, way too much there, shelleyo1  <3


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

vlmain said:


> Thank goodness for short story writers. Without them, I would have very few choices. I prefer reading short stories, and I have read some brilliant ones. I don't like seeing them put down because their work is shorter. Their contributions are as valuable to me as any other writer's.


I'm reading Lawrence Block's how to write a novel offering. He basically says short story writers, to be successful, have to be better writers than those authors who write novels.  "Skill is less at a premium [in a novel]...what a novel affords you as a writer is room...the idea [driving the novel versus driving the short story] is less important..." and so on.


----------



## Molly Tomorrow (Jul 22, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> If you're putting a book into KU in the first place, it needs to be short. You have no business having your 100k novels in KU. Someone says 100k of dreck isn't anything? Well 100k of brilliance is worth as much as 5k of drek under KU. Fact. If you're writing for KU, get your novels out of there. Write very short works.


Who is this addressed to?

I'm struggling to wrap my head around why you think you are in a better position to decide whether or not someone should put or keep their novels in select than the person who wrote and/or published the novel themselves. Not to mention what should be their focus going forward.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

scribblr said:


> If you can write a novel faster than your friend can write a short story or a chapter, then your friend is obviously not a writer. How is your pet beagle by the way. They do make great friends. Are you still trying to teach him to use a typewriter?


I must be missing whatever joke or reference you're after with the beagle, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

But your equation of speed with writing skill is misguided. I guess Thomas Harris and George R. R. Martin aren't real writers, since I can write several novels to their one. Good to know.

Do some of you guys ever stop and listen to yourselves?


----------



## Bilinda Ní Siodacaín (Jun 16, 2011)

Half Pint said:


> I wonder how many times we can have the same silly argument.


At least another 999,999 times...


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Christa Wick said:


> asking way, way, way too much there, shelleyo1  <3


I know. Wild, isn't it?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

If you want to get paid a fair amount per, KU is not for you.

There is no amount of re-jigging, or screwing over of real short and serial writers that is going to fix that. The program by its very concept is going to pay you a fraction of what your work would bring in per unit and call it hakuna because of 'exposure' that's really putting their thumb on the scales.

That is how subscription models work. That is what they do: screw the talent to pay the company.

So it doesn't matter if they have the tech or what ideas you come up with to make it 'more fair' for everyone who is exactly like you. KU is NEVER going to fairly compensate you because that is the point and the economic reality.

Now please stop making these threads about 'fixes' to the hull breech and the Titanic.


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

Half Pint said:


> This constant fear mongering and finger pointing gets really annoying, and old.


I dunno, there's a certain entertainment value in the Classics.
It's like watching a Christmas Carol. Just ... a bit less feel-good-y.


----------



## Guest (Dec 9, 2014)

Wait a minute!
Hold your horses!

If I write a 150,000-word story and price it at $5.99
then Amazon will throw me 3 bucks because someone read 150,000 words?

Wait just a minute!


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

scribblr said:


> Spoken like a true short story writer trying to maintain the incredible advantage they have in the KU.


The funny thing is, despite my only title right now being a short story, I don't consider myself a short story writer at all. (Most of my ideas are for novels and novellas - I just have a hard time finishing things.) On occasion I come up with a good idea for a short, but generally speaking, writing short is not a talent I consider myself to have.

I believe that writing a good short story is actually a more difficult skill to master than writing a novel. Short form writing is less forgiving of poor storytelling, and I think that short story writers shouldn't be penalized just because their investment in the story can't be measured in words.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

No offense to anyone here, but there aren't that many people writing today - indie or otherwise - who I wouldn't trade their entire catalog for just one more short story by Theodore Sturgeon.

If you're grading by word count or weight, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

KelliWolfe said:


> No offense to anyone here, but there aren't that many people writing today - indie or otherwise - who I wouldn't trade their entire catalog for just one more short story by *Theodore Sturgeon*.
> 
> If you're grading by word count or weight, you're doing it wrong.


Ironic considering KU's MO

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SturgeonsLaw


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

ShayneRutherford said:


> The funny thing is, despite my only title right now being a short story, I don't consider myself a short story writer at all. (Most of my ideas are for novels and novellas - I just have a hard time finishing things.) On occasion I come up with a good idea for a short, but generally speaking, writing short is not a talent I consider myself to have.
> 
> I believe that writing a good short story is actually a more difficult skill to master than writing a novel. Short form writing is less forgiving of poor storytelling, and I think that short story writers shouldn't be penalized just because their investment in the story can't be measured in words.


Very humorous. You believe that it's easier to write a novel, but you haven't been able to write and publish one. However, although you find writing short stores to be so much more difficult, you're written and published one. Hmmm! I'll have to think on that one for a while.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Well, the fact is that the big money is in novel length romance novels. I write primarily short form at the moment because it makes it easier to build up a catalog and make a living. But in the long run, full length novels will be where the big money is. I mean Money with a capital M. You know, $20k-100k money. Oddly, I don't think authors making real money are complaining about the three to four grand a month I'm making writing short stories and novellas.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

scribblr said:


> Very humorous. You believe that it's easier to write a novel, but you haven't been able to write and publish one. However, although you find writing short stores to be so much more difficult, you're written and published one. Hmmm! I'll have to think on that one for a while.


Wasn't meant to be humorous. The short story was an assignment for my gothic lit class, with a very specific set of requirements that made it quite easy to write.

I said I believe that short story writing is a more difficult skill to master. I was speaking in general terms, not specifically about myself. My commitment issues and difficulty in finishing something have nothing to do with the difficulty and skill required to master the art of short fiction.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

*stepping in for a minute*

It seems, from reading the thread, that there are a couple of people who find the topic uninteresting or repetitious.  To those people, I suggest finding another thread and leaving this thread to those who want to discuss it.  Lots of other threads here, people.

EDIT:  Also, let's keep the discussion to the topic and avoid characterizations of other posters. 

Thanks.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

PaulineMRoss said:


> ...if the objective is to get punters into the store to (maybe) buy other stuff along with the KU downloads, then encouraging short work is more effective a strategy. Better to have people borrow shorts and return every few hours for another dose than to borrow one humungous novel that will keep them quiet (and away from Amazon) for a week or two.


By Jove, I think you've got it.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

.


----------



## VEVO (Feb 9, 2012)

Look like Amazon does have the tech to do it.


----------



## Bbates024 (Nov 3, 2014)

This is basically what they are doing by paying by the page. 

Gosh 500 words for .10 sounds pretty horrible to me. 

My feeling has always been just because you write a lot of words doesn't mean they are good. There are a tone of 100k books out there that are just utter trash. 

I am trying to be optimistic but I kinda of like the pay per page idea, as long as they do it right either 250 or 300 words equals a page. If someone dislikes your book and checks out another one you only get paid for what the read. Kinda makes me feel like I need to step up my game and always have a great editor on hand.


----------



## sali19 (Dec 23, 2014)

I think we're comparing apples to oranges. The reader who prefers shorts is not (yes, exceptions exist) going to read full length novels, and vice versa. So if, as a short story author, I deliver a product to my audience that satisfies their demand- why should I get paid less? My audience isn't going to go for a novel anyway.  I prefer to read 10-20K stories because I dont have time for anything longer. Why should my favorite authors who give me the content i want, at the length i want, earn less?


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Bilinda Ni Siodacain said:


> So if they introduced this what would happen to the short fiction writers? Why shouldn't they get paid as well as everyone else?
> 
> You say this is to discourage the get rich quick schemes and the scamlets but why does this need to be done at the expense of writers of short fiction? Punishing a whole sub-set of writers just because you feel hard done by is not the answer either. Epic-novels are not the be all and end all.


Don't assume those epic novels get read to the end, either. Some do and some don't. Long doesn't mean good. It's easier to sell long, because the buyer thinks there getting more of a deal when they see the high page count. That won't cut it on a pay per page or word program. The quality will have to be there. I also think a short story writer who was doing well in KU still can. It isn't as hard to get someone to read a 5k story as it is to get them to finish a 100k+ novel unless it's extremely well written and they absolutely fall in love with it. Also, the short story writer can crank it out faster. More stories will help make up for each one being worth less. Of course I'm speaking as an erotica writer, which is a different beast, but any 5k author who was doing well before this could say the same.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2015)

I t  w o u l d  b e  s o  e a s y  t o  g a m e  w o r d  c o u n t. 

Sent from Gliese 581g using Tapatalk


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Joe Vasicek said:


> I t w o u l d b e s o e a s y t o g a m e w o r d c o u n t.
> 
> Sent from Gliese 581g using Tapatalk


Do you honestly think that readers will put up with 500 pages of that? All this talk of people padding out books or using tricks to increase word count or page count don't make sense. Readers will just ditch the book after a few pages.


----------



## Nathalie Aynie (Nov 24, 2013)

I would be down with something like:

$0 if the reader doesn't read past [minimum amount of words allowed by Amazon] words, not a fixed percentage because it's not fair for novels
fixed amount per location reached (for example, $x for x characters displayed/words on a page, using a standard zoom)---location is good because some people have bigger fonts on their Kindles

That way, it would solve the problems:


scammers: readers would stop reading quickly, they would get nothing
padders: readers liking padding would be able to continue reading, readers who don't like padding would stop at the location they were bored
all kinds of works would be compensated equally, on a per word basis
the words minimum is already in place
editing problems: readers who don't mind can go on reading, readers who do mind stop reading
quality would be decided on a per reader basis, they'd keep reading if they want or stop if they don't like the story

The reader would be the one to decide there, really.

Potential problems/requirements:


children books, with very few words but lots of pictures
ability for Amazon to know the number of pages consulted by a reader for non-fiction (by staking the locations)?
ability for Amazon to know where the actual book ends and the author bios, links, etc. start (I think it's already the case)


----------

