# A Two Tier System for Publishing on Amazon?



## Guest (Apr 30, 2014)

I didn't start this thread.

I kept it up though, for almost a dozen pages. As fun as it was I have things to do and I can't keep going just by myself, sorry folks. So if you're just now clicking, go ahead and read the thread but I won't respond anymore. At this point I'm just repeating myself over and over. I've made all my points.

Have fun reading!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> So, no gatekeeper system. But what about a Sink or Swim system? Amazon creates two stores. You put out a book and if it underperforms significantly, you get relegated to the Free/0.99 Store (similar but not exactly like the Adult Dungeon) until it gets noticed with a lot of downloads/reviews.


Why is everyone so dead set on patently evil methods to lock people who aren't them out of the marketplace?

Do you think the Adult Dungeon was a good idea? Why do you think arbitrarily turning new authors invisible is any better. More important: *you are making it inherently harder for them to sell books and only removing that handicap until they sell more books*. That's Greek god level petty.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> Why is everyone so dead set on patently evil methods to lock people who aren't them out of the marketplace?


That's a time tested way to enhance one's own welfare. It is all around us. Licenses, permits, unions, guilds, bonds, insurance requirements, OSHA, municipal contracts, exclusive contracts, non compete clauses, etc. It's often rent seeking, but the same system operates in private markets.

It's competition.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2014)

I'm enjoying the fact that there's a typo in the Subject of this thread that I didn't start, though.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

It's a slum marketplace and you pretty much even admit it by accusing anyone who would be in it of not being high quality.

Hey, I know, let's make it so that Indie are in their own little indie store so that readers can know they're getting the inherent high quality of Big 5 publishing in Tier 1 but can still go and check out Amateur hour in Tier 2 where everyone who wasn't good enough to get picked up by the Big 5 are. That sound like a good idea?


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2014)

But I think I'll leave the typo up, because the layers of irony are approaching transcendant levels.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

You're not getting what I'm saying with that: You want to completely arbitrarily chuck _some_ people over in a slum with a big sign that says 'these people suck' and put yourself (and maybe some other people you like) in the 'real' store. This is exactly what the Big 5 wanted to do years ago to sabotage indie publishing. The only difference is that you're an indie publisher and thus don't want to shoot your own foot off. But you're totally okay with shooting other people's feet off.

PLUS, the books people don't want to read and don't buy ALREADY SINK IN VISIBILITY. All you're doing is removing the opportunity to rise to keep them from surpassing you.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2014)




----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Since when are grammar, spelling, and punctuation standards 'arbitrary'?


Well for one, they totally are. For two, how are you even going to check this? Are YOU going to hire an army of proofers to sit between the publish button and the non-slum store... or are you going to use the 'standard' you suggested in your first post and use sales, which will instantly screw any new author right out of the starting gate?



> Big 5 wanted to keep out people whose prose didn't live up to their literary standards, which is not totally arbitrary, but definitely subjective. I'm not advocating judging anyone based on content. Let the readers do that.


No, they wanted to get rid of the competition.



> Not every undeserving book sinks in visibility. At least not right away. There are plenty of authors who have figured out ways to game the system, buying reviews, etc. When Amazon cracks down on them, they seek out other ways. Consider the Smashwords Premium catalog. All Smashwords cares about is that your book is formatted correctly. They really don't care about the content unless it's drastically problematic.


How does your system help this instead of simply making it a universal necessity to buy reviews and fake DLs for EVERY new author to escape the slum?



> Virtually anyone can either learn to format themselves or pay someone else to do it. Smashwords doesn't care if you taught yourself or you have a Big 5 formatter doing it for you. It costs you nothing to learn it. It's not automatically an economic gatekeeper.


What in the seven interlocking layers of the Hot Place does that have to do with anything?



> Given the increasing difficulty of getting and remaining visible in self-publishing, I have to wonder if we _shouldn't_ have gatekeepers only simply change the criteria to something less nebulous than "literary value."


What makes you think you wouldn't be booted into your own slum if you're finding it hard to maintain visibility now in the place where it's so easy for even bad books to rise? Maybe it's jsut that there are better books by people who are better at marketing leapfrogging over you. There's no shame in that until you start stomping on people's hands to keep your own place on the ladder.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2014)

I could just keep adding emoticons here, but that would be gratuitous.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

It hasn't in the past several years. In fact, it's helped a LOT of people.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2014)

There should be a golf clap, though.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Then the self-pub gold rush ends and you get your wish anyway, only without getting your hands dirty with obvious evil.

Edit: Also, you're not going to hurt as many people as you're hoping. According to the other thread, there's only 58K free books in the first place.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Then the self-pub gold rush ends and you get your wish anyway, only without getting your hands dirty with obvious evil.
> 
> Edit: Also, you're not going to hurt as many people as you're hoping. According to the other thread, there's only 58K free books in the first place.


Yes. The evil of meritocracies.

Edit: I'll leave this one because....logic.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

What you're proposing isn't a meritocracy. In a meritocracy, people rise or fall freely based on their actual merits, kind of like the current ranking system. Under your thing, the existence of 'Tier 2' automatically sabotages everyone in it, making it far more difficult for them to rise on their merits, meaning it isn't a true meritocracy because the system handicaps one group.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

John Steinbeck is not proud.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Your system is NOT a meritocracy. your conception of a Tier 2 store automatically limits the number of potential readers the authors you chuck into it and stunt their ability to progress up the ladder to Tier 1.

By actively tainting the well against these people, you have ensured that it is more than their actual merit is deciding whether they can actually advance or not. Splitting the stores and forcing some people into one that you explicitly say is for bad books doesn't even have the excuse of 'separate but equal', it's an oubliette you chuck people you don't like into while denying readers a free and unbiased ability to choose what books they like. They can't even find Tier 2 by accident.

Further, your original suggestion robs ALL authors of the ability to price as they want, robbing the Tier 1 authors of the ability to set a lower price point while robbing the people you're actually out to get the ability to set a higher one.


----------



## Sandra K. Williams (Jun 15, 2013)

You know, I'm willing to bet anyone advocating a tier system expects to be put in Tier 1. Surprise! Tier 1 is reserved for Random Penguin et al. You're going to be stuck with the rest of us losers.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Okay I lied about the emoticons.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)




----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hi, I've split this very passionate discussion out from the Improvements to KDP thread as it was kinda derailing the thread and is, I think, beyond the scope of that thread.

So, have at it here, civilly. 



Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> That's a time tested way to enhance one's own welfare. It is all around us. Licenses, permits, unions, guilds, bonds, insurance requirements, OSHA, municipal contracts, exclusive contracts, non compete clauses, etc. It's often rent seeking, but the same system operates in private markets.
> 
> It's competition.


Wow. That's... debatable....


----------



## Sandra K. Williams (Jun 15, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Hi, I've split this very passionate discussion out from the Improvements to KDP thread as it was kinda derailing the thread and is, I think, beyond the scope of that thread.


 Betsy is a superhero with _useful_ super powers.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Kind of hard to point out all the myriad and obvious flaws with this idea now that the actual idea was deleted.


----------



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

Actually, the first time I saw this proposed, it was by the anti-indies in threads in the main Kindle forum on Amazon. They don't want to even have to look at indie works or to make the effort to determine which books are indie and which aren't, so they want Amazon to do it for them by shoving all indie books into a separate "store." Cheap people and people with no taste could shop in the indie store, their superiors could pretend it didn't exist.

I'd use an emoticon but none of them seems to be gagging.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

ellenoc said:


> Actually, the first time I saw this proposed, it was by the anti-indies in threads in the main Kindle forum on Amazon. They don't want to even have to look at indie works or to make the effort to determine which books are indie and which aren't, so they want Amazon to do it for them by shoving all indie books into a separate "store." Cheap people and people with no taste could shop in the indie store, their superiors could pretend it didn't exist.
> 
> I'd use an emoticon but none of them seems to be gagging.


I remember that!


----------



## PermaTundra (Apr 26, 2014)

Based on the responses, I get the distinct feeling that the emoticons and snarky commentary are valid stand-ins. I think there may be a good chance of an argument being good when it looks reasonable and well thought out even in absence of the original opinions being challenged.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Vaalingrade said:


> Kind of hard to point out all the myriad and obvious flaws with this idea now that the actual idea was deleted.


Well, that happens...people delete content for all kinds of reasons. The other option was to tell y'all to knock it off, but you seemed to be having such a good time. 
*shrug*

I admit, I was kind of worried when I saw Krista had posted in this thread. 

Betsy


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Briteka said:


> Wow. That's... debatable....


OK. What is the opposing case? Is there reason to think competitors have not attempted to keep others out of the market? What is it?


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I admit, I was kind of worried when I saw Krista had posted in this thread.


You're all safe tonight. A kitty died last yesterday, another is missing, and my house smells like aged teen spirit. I got nothing left to give.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> You're all safe tonight. A kitty died last yesterday, another is missing, and my house smells like aged teen spirit. I got nothing left to give.




Though I don't know what aged teen spirit smells like. 

Betsy


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Aged teen spirit smells like a rotten potato covered in arm pit


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

(also my above post came out significantly grimmer than I'd planned...)


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:



> Aged teen spirit smells like a rotten potato covered in arm pit


This is where we need the gagging emoticon Ellen talked about... 

Betsy


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Hugsssss Krista.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

I haven't experienced this much fun and confusion since reading only the even pages of _The Great Gatsby_.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> This is where we need the gagging emoticon Ellen talked about...
> 
> Betsy


Yeah. Yeah, we need that.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Saul Tanpepper said:


> I haven't experienced this much fun and confusion since reading only the even pages of _The Great Gatsby_.


Sounds like a great book club...


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Sounds like a great book club...


Half read the even, half read the odd, and then compare experiences.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Half read the even, half read the odd, and then compare experiences.


Would that be a two-tiered Book Club?


Betsy


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Bazinga!


----------



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

Sorry about your cats, Krista. Hope you have found the missing one.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

ellenoc said:


> Sorry about your cats, Krista. Hope you have found the missing one.


Thanks.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Well, that happens...people delete content for all kinds of reasons. The other option was to tell y'all to knock it off, but you seemed to be having such a good time.


I was indeed and thank you for the split.

Stunningly, I've mellowed since my days on WotC's boards when by now the thread would be filled with purposefully crappy MSPaint Venn Diagrams and flow charts to make my case. Heaven help people once I got Fireworks with the pen tool that made the strokes look like crayon.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

ellenoc said:


> Sorry about your cats, Krista. Hope you have found the missing one.


Same here.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Thanks


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I guarantee a two tier system is sure to result in a lot more than two tears.  

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Yeah. Separate is not equal.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Threads that the OP won't even debate in civilly -- especially when they delete their posts or alter them beyond understanding -- should be deleted.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

dw winters said:


> Based on the responses, I get the distinct feeling that the emoticons and snarky commentary are valid stand-ins. I think there may be a good chance of an argument being good when it looks reasonable and well thought out even in absence of the original opinions being challenged.


It was intended it to be a virtual dogpile.

"Hey, ya'll! In case you didn't see this person spouting a very unpopular opinion, I'll just make it look like they started a thread about it. So come on over and put your .02 in!" 

I could have just deleted the original post, but I can't delete a thread, which was of course the entire point of making it a thread in the first place.

It was the equivalent of putting a "Kick Me" sign on my back while I'm walking down the hall. So I just... took off the sign.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Sheila_Guthrie said:


> Threads that the OP won't even debate in civilly -- especially when they delete their posts or alter them beyond understanding -- should be deleted.


I disagree. It informs the spirit of the idea in this case.

Also, Vanilla, it wasn't singling you out, it was the fact that our argument was derailing the other thread. Rather than kick our butts and delete it, Betsy moved us to another 'room' so to speak. Mods do this kind of thing all the time because it preserves discussion without disrupting others.

If you believe in your idea, why can't you stand by it in a standalone thread rather than buried in a larger one?


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> OK. What is the opposing case? Is there reason to think competitors have not attempted to keep others out of the market? What is it?


At this point, I have no idea what I was responding to. 

My point is that it's debatable that the things you listed should be allowed in a free market and that they add to competition. I may be agreeing with you. I may be disagreeing with you. I have no idea. This entire thread now confuses me.


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

Since the removal of the content of so many posts above, here, I don't actually understand the thread at all. (Not that my understanding them is ever really relevant to their progress anyway, to be honest  ).

I'm very sorry to hear about the kitties, though.

It seems to me that in many conversations, when people talk about "publishing on Amazon" they're really referring to being "retailed/distributed on Amazon". Amazon _does_ have publishing divisions too, of course, but that seems rarely to be the subject of such conversations?


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> I disagree. It informs the spirit of the idea in this case.
> 
> Also, Vanilla, it wasn't singling you out, it was the fact that our argument was derailing the other thread. Rather than kick our butts and delete it, Betsy moved us to another 'room' so to speak. Mods do this kind of thing all the time because it preserves discussion without disrupting others.
> 
> If you believe in your idea, why can't you stand by it in a standalone thread rather than buried in a larger one?


I do stand by my idea but I already said everything that I have to say about it without being able to give any technical suggestions on how to implement it. So basically, the conversation was over before she even moved it to another thread.

It is what it is. The market is flooded. It's not getting any better. Those people that have 'hit it big? How does no one notice or mention the fact they're just the _same_ handful of names trotted out over and over? No one really takes a moment of reflection after they say, "We don't need quality control! Down with the gatekeepers!...Hey! Why can't I be taken seriously as a professional? 

And I guess I do have one more thing to add:

_What do you think will happen when Amazon finally flips the switch and decides to start making a profit?_


----------



## GP Hudson (Sep 16, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> _What do you think will happen when Amazon finally flips the switch and decides to start making a profit?_


LOL You don't think they're making a profit now?


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I do stand by my idea but I already said everything that I have to say about it without being able to give any technical suggestions on how to implement it. So basically, the conversation was over before she even moved it to another thread.
> 
> It is what it is. The market is flooded. It's not getting any better. Those people that have 'hit it big? How does no one notice or mention the fact they're just the _same_ handful of names trotted out over and over? No one really takes a moment of reflection after they say, "We don't need quality control! Down with the gatekeepers!...Hey! Why can't I be taken seriously as a professional?
> 
> ...


New people hit it big all the time. We have an author that started posting here that hit it big with her very first series release this year.

As to Amazon flipping the switch and making a profit... I assure you Amazon makes a very good profit right now, and indie publishers have a lot to do with that profit. Amazon continues to support indie authors for one reason: It's in their best interest to do so. As indie publishers continue to grab more and more of the market, it would take a moron to then cut themselves off from that growing market.

The problem with your two-tiered system is that it makes no sense. You want Amazon to focus on removing books with spelling and grammar errors and placing them in a dungeon. Okay? I can get behind this idea a bit. But what happens when you have say... a book with horrible grammar that then goes on to win a Pulitzer? Does Amazon filter this book out? Yes? So Amazon now looks like an idiotic company. No? Well why? Because the people running the system now have the power to randomly decide what they deem unfit, and as soon as that happens, Amazon loses any credibility.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Koko said:


> LOL You don't think they're making a profit now?


LMFAO Actually, they *don't*. Google it. They put every dime they make back into research and development for drones, smartphones, grocery delivery and other goods and services that they'd like to try and corner the market on. I am not naive enough to think they will just continue this same "business" strategy forever ad infinitum out of the goodness of their hearts.

So I ask again: When Amazon has the market mostly cornered on everything from toilet paper to bananas, what happens when they decide to actually turn a profit on publishing and distribution? And for extra fun be sure and read the threads on here where people are saying they offer their books on Nook, iTunes, Kobo and Smashwords but *99%* of their money comes from Amazon sales.

Let's say, just for fun, that on Monday morning you got an email saying that now you'll be getting 35% royalties across the board for anything and everything you put on Amazon. I won't even try and be all menacing and say maybe the email says you now have to *pay* up front to put your books up. Let's just stick with slashed royalties. Say your royalties are now halved. What would you do? Keeping in mind that Amazon is, for the most part, the only game in town.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> _What do you think will happen when Amazon finally flips the switch and decides to start making a profit?_


Amazon murdered their competition by opening those floodgates you lament and touting how much content was available on the Kindle. You're asking them to give that up because... BECAUSE.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Amazon murdered their competition by opening those floodgates you lament and touting how much content was available on the Kindle. You're asking them to give that up because... BECAUSE.


Why wouldn't they? When Amazon becomes the only place where you can self-publish and get any traction, what would persuade them to keep royalties at 70%? It would take years for anyone else to come up with some kind of "Steam for self-publishing".


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Let's say, just for fun, that on Monday morning you got an email saying that now you'll be getting 35% royalties across the board for anything and everything you put on Amazon. I won't even try and be all menacing and say maybe the email says you now have to *pay* up front to put your books up. Let's just stick with slashed royalties. Say your royalties are now halved. What would you do? Keeping in mind that Amazon is, for the most part, the only game in town.


What does Amazon's sudden and inevitable betrayal have to do with throwing books you don't like into a slum store? Is spending more money on having Amazon.Trashcan plus the money they lose by making Google Play, Kobo and Apple viable again going to suddenly make them a huge profit?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Why wouldn't they? When Amazon becomes the only place where you can self-publish and get any traction, what would persuade them to keep royalties at 70%? It would take years for anyone else to come up with some kind of "Steam for self-publishing".


Because now their competition can tout that THEY have a ton more content than Amazon and become the place where everyone shops for ebooks. Because we the authors aren't quiet that stupid as to stick with Amazon if they gut us like that.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Why wouldn't they? When Amazon becomes the only place where you can self-publish and get any traction, what would persuade them to keep royalties at 70%? It would take years for anyone else to come up with some kind of "Steam for self-publishing".


This is definitely a possibility, but one that I think is unlikely. Amazon benefits from keeping its Indie authors happy. Indie authors drive buyers to Amazon that Amazon would not see if they didn't include them and keep them happy.

But that is entirely besides the point. Having a two-tiered system wouldn't change any of this.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> What does Amazon's sudden and inevitable betrayal have to do with throwing books you don't like into a slum store? Is spending more money on having Amazon.Trashcan plus the money they lose by making Google Play, Kobo and Apple viable again going to suddenly make them a huge profit?


You are not going to continue to make as much money as you do now (whatever that is- Bestseller down to just a few titles a month) as the slush pile gets bigger and bigger. We're already seeing a drop in revenue for authors down from just four or five years ago. Joanna Penn, for example, on her podcast said she can't make the same money now as she did just five years ago.

So your income will steadily decline until Amazon "throws the switch" and you will get even less than that. Throwing the switch will inevitably trim the slush pile as some people just don't submit titles anymore.

By trimming the slush pile _now_, _you_ can better earn a living _now_ rather than seeing less and less income over time and then being hit with the Amazon Hammer on top of it. It's the difference between steadily earning a bit more money until the hammer comes down vs. steadily losing money until the hammer comes down.


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

Koko said:


> LOL You don't think they're making a profit now?


They just barely make a profit, I think, because of how they do their bookkeeping (which is constantly under review and causing them some significant problems with some governments, at the moment).

They're certainly not still losing money hand over fist, as they were for their first decade or so.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Do you have any proof--any proof at all that these anecdotal examples of authors making less money is linked to the 'slush pile'?

I've made more money in the past six months than the previous two years so... wait no, it's just as contextless as your Joanna Penn anecdote, means nothing without data.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Because now their competition can tout that THEY have a ton more content than Amazon and become the place where everyone shops for ebooks. Because we the authors aren't quiet that stupid as to stick with Amazon if they gut us like that.


What competition? Using what money? Using what infrastructure? With what ereader since everyone mostly owns Kindles? I'm not saying you're stupid, I'm saying you have _zero_ options. Doesn't matter if you're Stephen King or Joe Blow from Fresno. Where would you go when there _is_ nowhere to go and there won't _be_ anywhere to go for several years while people start scrambling to build their own Steam empire?

Do you know how many Steam empires will pop up those first few years? Dozens. Markets will be split between them for years. Are they going to work together to get your book to as many people as possible? No. They are trying to build their own empire.

So you lose sales for years if this happens while waiting for someone to gather the resources and build the infrastructure to make Steam- The ebook version and rise above the other Lesser Steam ebook empires.

And this whole time? Amazon is still making the same amount of money, with fewer authors. And when Steam the ebook version finally emerges with royalty rates at 50%? Amazon bumps theirs to 55. Still beating the competition, who can't afford to go any higher.


----------



## Nymirra (Mar 15, 2014)

Vanilla Moon said:


> LMFAO Actually, they *don't*. Google it. They put every dime they make back into research and development for drones, smartphones, grocery delivery and other goods and services that they'd like to try and corner the market on.


Here I was, operating under the assumption that putting "every dime they make back into research and development" was called investment. It seems I was mistaken. It is instead called operating at a loss. Illuminating. 

That, of course, has nothing to do with the proposed two-tier publishing system. A system that would not only be unfair, but punish the reader in the end. It's like when a country in real life tries to make things more "equal" or tries to punish businesses. Who suffers then? Perhaps counter-intuitively to some, the small businesses do. The big ones (In our world, the self-pub authors who already made it big) have the capital to finagle their money into hiding, or to simply bribe their way around. A small business, or someone wishing to start one, has no such opportunities. Thus, all a two-tier system would be good for would be to ensure that those who have already made it are secured, and those who haven't, won't.

In the current system, what the readers want to read wins out. Yes, that means that sometimes a subjectively terrible book will be catapulted to momentary fame. But is that really so much different from a life with literary gatekeepers, whether they're in the guise of Amazon or the big 5? I know I've read plenty of utter crap coming out of supposedly respectable publishing houses. Publishing houses that should supposedly be those that ensure quality. Perhaps we can conclude that quality is subjective, and that it is the reader's job to judge what's good to them?

Of course, I'm just musing. I don't mean to offend anyone with my viewpoints.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Vanilla Moon said:


> You are not going to continue to make as much money as you do now (whatever that is- Bestseller down to just a few titles a month) as the slush pile gets bigger and bigger. We're already seeing a drop in revenue for authors down from just four or five years ago. Joanna Penn, for example, on her podcast said she can't make the same money now as she did just five years ago.
> 
> So your income will steadily decline until Amazon "throws the switch" and you will get even less than that. Throwing the switch will inevitably trim the slush pile as some people just don't submit titles anymore.
> 
> By trimming the slush pile _now_, _you_ can better earn a living _now_ rather than seeing less and less income over time and then being hit with the Amazon Hammer on top of it. It's the difference between steadily earning a bit more money until the hammer comes down vs. steadily losing money until the hammer comes down.


I understand your point, but I disagree with it. I make a living doing this, and I do it by using Amazon's algorithms to my advantage. I sell completely through the visibility that Amazon (and other marketplaces) gives me. I highly doubt that cutting the slush pile will change the amount of visibility Amazon gives me. That's just not how it works. Amazon already has several safeguards in place so that "bad" books are pushed down. Sometimes "bad" books get through, but that's ONLY because a lot of people are buying these "bad" books, and when that's the case, what's the point of Amazon filtering them out further? If its customers enjoy buying these "bad" books, what's the point in making it harder for these customers to do so? Because there's some sort of morality to it? Because it's just better? No. That's not the way this works. Amazon would and should only do this because it makes financial sense to them, not because they're on some moral crusade to put "bad" books into a dungeon.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Briteka said:


> This is definitely a possibility, but one that I think is unlikely. Amazon benefits from keeping its Indie authors happy. Indie authors drive buyers to Amazon that Amazon would not see if they didn't include them and keep them happy.
> 
> But that is entirely besides the point. Having a two-tiered system wouldn't change any of this.


Why would Amazon need anyone to drive buyers to their site when you can only get content at their site? Nook, iTunes, and Kobo have infrastructre problems. So it's a little like saying "I need medical attention so I'll go to a veterinarian." Trust me, at this point, you need Amazon more than they need you.

And no, none of this would be affected by a two tiered system. But you as a hard-working, full-time author can make more money in a two tiered system until it _does_ happen.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Vanilla Moon said:


> What competition? Using what money? Using what infrastructure? With what ereader since everyone mostly owns Kindles? I'm not saying you're stupid, I'm saying you have _zero_ options. Doesn't matter if you're Stephen King or Joe Blow from Fresno. Where would you go when there _is_ nowhere to go and there won't _be_ anywhere to go for several years while people start scrambling to build their own Steam empire?
> 
> Do you know how many Steam empires will pop up those first few years? Dozens. Markets will be split between them for years. Are they going to work together to get your book to as many people as possible? No. They are trying to build their own empire.
> 
> ...


Google for starters could "flip a switch".

If Amazon made the odd choice tomorrow to decrease their sales and hurt their income by limiting Indies, Google has the infrastructure to fill that niche and reap the rewards. The only switch they'd have to flip is to move their teams around and begin focusing on actually growing the book section of Google Play. The same book section that is already shooting up for me and may actually pass Amazon sales at some point without Google even bothering with it.

Google has superior search and discoverability algorithms that are already better than Amazon's, and that's with very little or no tailoring. That's simply using the same generic algorithms that they already use.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

They can't split it into indies and trads, that would be stupid. But they should split it into the good books and the bad books, so I don't have to dig through the bad books.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Briteka said:


> I understand your point, but I disagree with it. I make a living doing this, and I do it by using Amazon's algorithms to my advantage. I sell completely through the visibility that Amazon (and other marketplaces) gives me. I highly doubt that cutting the slush pile will change the amount of visibility Amazon gives me. That's just not how it works. Amazon already has several safeguards in place so that "bad" books are pushed down. Sometimes "bad" books get through, but that's ONLY because a lot of people are buying these "bad" books, and when that's the case, what's the point of Amazon filtering them out further? If its customers enjoy buying these "bad" books, what's the point in making it harder for these customers to do so? Because there's some sort of morality to it? Because it's just better? No. That's not the way this works. Amazon would and should only do this because it makes financial sense to them, not because they're on some moral crusade to put "bad" books into a dungeon.


I'm not saying Amazon should do anything for business reasons, I'm saying as a writer _I_ wish they would. The original post was in a thread about changes you wish Amazon would make, not changes Amazon should make to be a better business. You game algorithms now (I am not using that term pejoratively- that's totally fine). So when the algorithms change, as they did with the free rankings, you lose money while you scramble to figure the new ones out. And of course the new ones aren't necessarily designed to make you lose money, but they often result in that just the same.

I think we can never really know for sure if a steadily growing slush pile hurts sales in general. But we can't be sure it doesn't, either. What I can say for sure is that self-publishing still has a taint because of the vastly unedited slush pile, and that can only be harmful.

Let me ask you this:

Which would you _rather_ do: Constantly tweak and perfect your algorithm gaming or just write better and better books and compete with other authors working just as hard as you do while you all charge a bit more money to do so in a quality-guaranteed environment?


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I'm not saying Amazon should do anything for business reasons, I'm saying as a writer _I_ wish they would. The original post was in a thread about changes you wish Amazon would make, not changes Amazon should make to be a better business. You game algorithms now (I am not using that term pejoratively- that's totally fine). So when the algorithms change, as they did with the free rankings, you lose money while you scramble to figure the new ones out. And of course the new ones aren't necessarily designed to make you lose money, but they often result in that just the same.
> 
> I think we can never really know for sure if a steadily growing slush pile hurts sales in general. But we can't be sure it doesn't, either. What I can say for sure is that self-publishing still has a taint because of the vastly unedited slush pile, and that can only be harmful.
> 
> ...


Quality-guaranteed? Wanna e'slain that?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

More books are getting published every day and nearly every author I talk to is making MORE money than they were even a year ago.
I would love to make Amazon's tiny profit.  But then I guess those that say it is tiny are so rich they really don't need to be writing books.
Now if they were to do a two-tier system, not only would the readers suffer (although some authors think that readers aren't bright enough to know what they want) but Amazon would lose money too.
Now I will give it that 60cents does not sound like much but here is the thing.  On 99 cent books, Amazon makes roughly 60 cents.  Let's say they sell 10 books a day at 99 cents.  That is $6.00.  100 books would be $60.00  1000 books would be $600.00  10,000 would be $6000.00.  Would you like to make $6000.00 a day and I am probably low balling it.  And note that does not include their higher priced books.
So tell me this, why would Amazon cut into their profits because some authors think there are too many books.
And those free books are a great advertising method.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> What competition? Using what money? Using what infrastructure? With what ereader since everyone mostly owns Kindles? I'm not saying you're stupid, I'm saying you have _zero_ options. Doesn't matter if you're Stephen King or Joe Blow from Fresno. Where would you go when there _is_ nowhere to go and there won't _be_ anywhere to go for several years while people start scrambling to build their own Steam empire?


'Everyone' does not mostly own Kindles. You know what they do own? Smartphones. Tablets. Where Apple and Google live. You really think that Apple and Google can't get off their fat butts and leap on it if Amazon suddenly rolled over and shows its pale underbelly to them?



> So you lose sales for years if this happens while waiting for someone to gather the resources and build the infrastructure to make Steam- The ebook version and rise above the other Lesser Steam ebook empires.
> 
> And this whole time? Amazon is still making the same amount of money, with fewer authors. And when Steam the ebook version finally emerges with royalty rates at 50%? Amazon bumps theirs to 55. Still beating the competition, who can't afford to go any higher.


Again, what in the blue hell does this have to do with the sky falling over the 'slush pile' that's already down below the 500K mark in the Amazon rankings?


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

vrabinec said:


> They can't split it into indies and trads, that would be stupid. But they should split it into the good books and the bad books, so I don't have to dig through the bad books.


I'm not interested in deciding which books are "good" and "bad." I'm saying an _edited_ book with _good cover art_ simply _costs_ more to produce, either in dollars or time, and I'm wondering if people would rather continue to devalue that book in the open market or sell it at a higher price in some kind of "quality controlled" marketplace.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I'm not interested in deciding which books are "good" and "bad." I'm saying an _edited_ book with _good cover art_ simply _costs_ more to produce, either in dollars or time, and I'm wondering if people would rather continue to devalue that book in the open market or sell it at a higher price in some kind of "quality controlled" marketplace.


I'm not buying that. Elle does her own covers, and she does her own editing, and her books are as quality as it gets. Just because someone spends money on an editor and cover, doesn't mean they're pumping out quality. Think about how hard it is to edit a piece that has fundamental flaws in writing, not just slight artistic flaws here and there. Sometimes, it's impossible -- short of giving the author a year-long tutorial -- to fix a piece. All the editor can do is make suggestions to fix what's there. Elevating that book which still needs a ton of improvement to some higher caste over one of Elle's books, simply based on how much the author spent to publish the thing, is absurd.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I own e-readers.  Both Kobo and Kindle and two off brands.  I also have a tablet and did you know that one can also read on a laptop.  Smartphone in 16 days.
Therefore I can shop anywhere I choose for books.  
Now as a reader, I do not need Amazon or Google or Apple or Joshua Knowitall determining which books I should read.  Besides what you consider a slush book I might consider a treasure.  And vice versa.
Please do not limit others because you don't like certain books.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> They can't split it into indies and trads, that would be stupid. But they should split it into the good books and the bad books, so I don't have to dig through the bad books.


It's still stupid to split 'bad' books because how are you going to measure 'bad'?

Sales? G'bye newbie authors!

Automated grammar/spelling checks? See ya experimental lit and Spec-fic!

Hire an army of proofreaders? Yeah, I'm sure they'll spent _that_ money.



Vanilla Moon said:


> Which would you _rather_ do: Constantly tweak and perfect your algorithm gaming or just write better and better books and compete with other authors working just as hard as you do while you all charge a bit more money to do so in a quality-guaranteed environment?


You seem to think that 'writing better books' is instantly going to mean success and that writers won't still have to work at marketing and 'gaming' things. This is an incorrect thing to think.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> 'Everyone' does not mostly own Kindles. You know what they do own? Smartphones. Tablets. Where Apple and Google live. You really think that Apple and Google can't get off their fat butts and leap on it if Amazon suddenly rolled over and shows its pale underbelly to them?
> 
> Again, what in the blue hell does this have to do with the sky falling over the 'slush pile' that's already down below the 500K mark in the Amazon rankings?


Okay, say 10 books in your genre are released the same day as yours. People who simply stumbled upon them without knowing the author just pick one at random. Yours didn't get picked. So you missed a sale and the ability to gain a reader at that, maybe not forever, but for a while at least. By _decreasing_ the number of books released on that day, you have now _increased_ your chances of being the one picked.

Over time you might be able to compensate for that loss. Once you have a large backlist of well-regarded titles people will eventually find you anyway. But how long will it take to do that? Are you only writing part time? How many titles can you produce at that rate? How many titles can you produce at full-time rate? Can you survive that way until you gain more visibility? Could you be making _more_ until that happens?

Fewer books in the store means a better chance for you to get discovered by a new reader, means you make more money, means writing as a career or even just as a hobby is easier overall. To me it's the difference between getting "rewarded" (No one owes you a living though) for working harder than the next guy vs. waiting and hoping for the best.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> It's still stupid to split 'bad' books because how are you going to measure 'bad'?


Psst, sarcasm.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

vrabinec said:


> Quality-guaranteed? Wanna e'slain that?


I already did. In several places. In fact I clarified it for you personally further down.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> and nearly every author I talk to is making MORE money than they were even a year ago.


Yep, me too. And I talk to a LOT of authors.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

vrabinec said:


> I'm not buying that. Elle does her own covers, and she does her own editing, and her books are as quality as it gets. Just because someone spends money on an editor and cover, doesn't mean they're pumping out quality.


It does if your only two critera for quality _is_ decent editing and cover art. And it just so happens that those are my only two proposed criteria. Let the readers sort out the actual content. They do anyway. It costs more money to produce a book with good editing and cover art. It's just a fact. Even if you do it yourself (Which is why I said money *OR* time) you are spending that time doing that work when you could just be working on your next title. To writers, money is time.


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

I really don't get this. Amazon already has a super-sophisticated, techno-amazing multi-tiered system. Ranking. And it works.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> I own e-readers. Both Kobo and Kindle and two off brands. I also have a tablet and did you know that one can also read on a laptop. Smartphone in 16 days.
> Therefore I can shop anywhere I choose for books.
> Now as a reader, I do not need Amazon or Google or Apple or Joshua Knowitall determining which books I should read. Besides what you consider a slush book I might consider a treasure. And vice versa.
> Please do not limit others because you don't like certain books.


We're not talking about you though, we're talking about the reader market wherein 35% of people read on a laptop and 30% read on a kindle and the rest of the market is split with nook, smartphones, etc (according to Wired). So no offense, who cares what you own? What you need to care about is who you're _selling_ to. And most people use a kindle as their ereading device.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Okay, say 10 books in your genre are released the same day as yours. People who simply stumbled upon them without knowing the author just pick one at random. Yours didn't get picked. So you missed a sale and the ability to gain a reader at that, maybe not forever, but for a while at least. By _decreasing_ the number of books released on that day, you have now _increased_ your chances of being the one picked.
> 
> Over time you might be able to compensate for that loss. Once you have a large backlist of well-regarded titles people will eventually find you anyway. But how long will it take to do that? Are you only writing part time? How many titles can you produce at that rate? How many titles can you produce at full-time rate? Can you survive that way until you gain more visibility? Could you be making _more_ until that happens?
> 
> Fewer books in the store means a better chance for you to get discovered by a new reader, means you make more money, means writing as a career or even just as a hobby is easier overall. To me it's the difference between getting "rewarded" (No one owes you a living though) for working harder than the next guy vs. waiting and hoping for the best.


Fewer books does not mean that at all. Now I will use your ten book idea. Let's say I find 10 new books, I can only afford 2 today. Let's say 5 look good. I buy the two that are most promising and oh hey wow there is something called a wish list at Amazon. I can put the other 3 there for when I get some more money. 
Unless of course the author pulls his book at the end of the month because he didn't make the sales he thought he should.

Now I am curious as to something: how do you buy books? 
Are you a casual reader or a voracious reader?

As an author you should aim for the voracious reader.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

vrabinec said:


> Psst, sarcasm.


Earlier someone mentioned good vs bad. And they _weren't_ being sarcastic.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Edward M. Grant said:


> And?
> 
> Readers don't care how much a book cost to produce. They care about whether it's a book they want to read. One of the most entertaining books I've bought in the last few months was like Twilight written by a twelve-year-old, so it would never get onto your 'quality controlled' list (and, I must admit, it started flagging about half-way through, but the first half was still worth the $0.99 I paid for it).


You, as an author, should absolutely care how much your book costs to produce. Undervaluing it is only hurting you.

Twilight would absolutely get into the quality controlled list. I read that book. I didn't find a lot of typos in it.


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

About Amazon's profits: Actually, Amazon does not make much profit. Their margins are extremely thin. See the financials:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=amzn+Key+Statistics
Finance. Yahoo.com, "Amazon.com key statistics."
See portion of chart titled "Profitability." Amazon's profit margin is only 0.38%. Operating margin is 0.91%.

Amazon's profit GROWTH is a different story. I'm seeing articles giving different figures on their first quarter profit growth:

http://www.newsday.com/business/technology/amazon-profit-jumps-18-percent-in-first-quarter-as-shoppers-pour-in-1.7824205
Newsday.com, April 25, 2014, "Amazon profit jumps 18% in first quarter as shoppers pour in."

But then there's this article:

http://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-profit-surges-31-in-q1-earnings-2014/
CNET.com, April 24, 2014, "Amazon profit surges 31% as sales top expectations."

The CNET article says Amazon is concentrating on building up sales of the Kindle Fire TV set-top box for media streaming and Amazon's exclusive licensing deal with HBO. It looks like e-books are pretty far down on Amazon's priority list.


----------



## Scornwell (Apr 27, 2014)

This just sounds like another form of elitism, an ism I have come to detest over the ears. I say throw them all into the wind and let the chaff separate from the wheat as it has for centuries. The cream always rises.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> It does if your only two critera for quality _is_ decent editing and cover art. And it just so happens that those are my only two proposed criteria. Let the readers sort out the actual content. They do anyway. It costs more money to produce a book with good editing and cover art. It's just a fact. Even if you do it yourself (Which is why I said money *OR* time) you are spending that time doing that work when you could just be working on your next title. To writers, money is time.


But you're still not guaranteeing quality. And you actually have your multi-tiered system now, it's called pricing. Some of the books that are more than .99 are much worse than .99 books. Why split them out, unless you are one of the ones who has his book listed for a higher amount and hopes that the relegation of the .99 and freebies to a separate box that can't be seen when looking through "real" books, helps your sales?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Okay, say 10 books in your genre are released the same day as yours. People who simply stumbled upon them without knowing the author just pick one at random. Yours didn't get picked. So you missed a sale and the ability to gain a reader at that, maybe not forever, but for a while at least. By _decreasing_ the number of books released on that day, you have now _increased_ your chances of being the one picked.


So shouldn't I logically want to get rid of the ones that look _better_ than mine? Shouldn't I want as many 'ugly friends' on that pages as possible to make my book look awesome? Woldn't it hurt me more if my stuff is coming out next to the new Brandon Sanderson than the next LOLNurd420?

Also, I stack the deck because if they look, they'll find they can get the first in the series for zero dollars--except in your system, I couldn't do that and still be outside of Amazon.Trashcan.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> We're not talking about you though, we're talking about the reader market wherein 35% of people read on a laptop and 30% read on a kindle and the rest of the market is split with nook, smartphones, etc (according to Wired). So no offense, who cares what you own? What you need to care about is who you're _selling_ to. And most people use a kindle as their ereading device.


Where are you getting these statistics please?


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> You seem to think that 'writing better books' is instantly going to mean success and that writers won't still have to work at marketing and 'gaming' things. This is an incorrect thing to think.


That's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying writing better books and getting paid more for doing so is a good way to make more money than you would under the current system while continuing to be, you know, a working writer. I said nothing about instant success or not working at marketing and frankly if you have to work really hard at gaming then something might be wrong there.

Sell your books at 3.99 for 70% royalty vs selling at 5.99 or 6.99. Assuming you could sell as many or nearly as many books for the higher price, which is not a given- I know, why would you want to earn less money on your titles just so Someone You Don't Know can sell a few more copies of their book?

We don't know if there's more success in a two tiered system because it's not being used. But there might be, and I'm fascinated by the fact that I appear to be the only person who'd be interested in trying it. Guess it's the capitalist in me.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> You, as an author, should absolutely care how much your book costs to produce. Undervaluing it is only hurting you.
> 
> Twilight would absolutely get into the quality controlled list. I read that book. I didn't find a lot of typos in it.


Again, you're equating the amount of money spent on a book to quality. That's a false premise. I've been screwing around with mine for 6 years. I'm gonna spend a bunch on an editor. I'm spending a bunch on an illustrator. And the only way I may be able to get anyone to read the thing is by putting it out there for free. I accept that. Why should I expect to be lifted to some special place of prominence simply because of how much time and money I've invested, when I may well suck?


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> That's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying writing better books and getting paid more for doing so is a good way to make more money than you would under the current system while continuing to be, you know, a working writer. I said nothing about instant success or not working at marketing and frankly if you have to work really hard at gaming then something might be wrong there.
> 
> Sell your books at 3.99 for 70% royalty vs selling at 5.99 or 6.99. Assuming you could sell as many or nearly as many books for the higher price, which is not a given- I know, why would you want to earn less money on your titles just so Someone You Don't Know can sell a few more copies of their book?
> 
> We don't know if there's more success in a two tiered system because it's not being used. But there might be, and I'm fascinated by the fact that I appear to be the only person who'd be interested in trying it. Guess it's the capitalist in me.


WTF? That's not capitalism, that's the opposite? Capitalism is letting the demand for the book and the author decide how much the book is gonna cost.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> Psst, sarcasm.


Vaal became cofused!

Vaal it thrashing around!

Vaal hurt vrabinec in his confusion!


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> Fewer books does not mean that at all. Now I will use your ten book idea. Let's say I find 10 new books, I can only afford 2 today. Let's say 5 look good. I buy the two that are most promising and oh hey wow there is something called a wish list at Amazon. I can put the other 3 there for when I get some more money.
> Unless of course the author pulls his book at the end of the month because he didn't make the sales he thought he should.
> 
> Now I am curious as to something: how do you buy books?
> ...


I'm a voracious reader and I don't use a wishlist. It would be interesting for Amazon to add a report that tells you how often your title was "wishlisted."


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Will this one be allowed in your Quality Dungeon, or not?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006T5JSQM
> 
> Cheap cover, complete gibberish inside, clearly not a quality book.


Unfair question. I HATE James Joyce. You didn't even have to show me the book.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Will this one be allowed in your Quality Dungeon, or not?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006T5JSQM
> 
> Cheap cover, complete gibberish inside, clearly not a quality book.


lmfao! No fair. That blindsided me.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

vrabinec said:


> But you're still not guaranteeing quality. And you actually have your multi-tiered system now, it's called pricing. Some of the books that are more than .99 are much worse than .99 books. Why split them out, unless you are one of the ones who has his book listed for a higher amount and hopes that the relegation of the .99 and freebies to a separate box that can't be seen when looking through "real" books, helps your sales?


Why not split them out? They already are to some extent. The free list vs. the paid list. So the infrastructure is there to make two marketplaces. There was a different marketplace for penny dreadfuls and they survived just fine.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

I'm so confused...


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Assuming you could sell as many or nearly as many books for the higher price, which is not a given- I know, why would you want to earn less money on your titles just so Someone You Don't Know can sell a few more copies of their book?


The health of the system and community long term is more important to me and my strategy than poisoning the garden to reap short term benefits.

I am not a mainstream writer. I am niche as hell and working on a razor thin budget. I make my money and build my fandom by being as available as possible and making as many friends in the industry as possible. It is not in my best interest to cut anyone's throats to get ahead because I need all these people to be a large, unified group to advance my genres and ebooks in general into mainstream popularity.

Going on an elitist jag and purposefully decimating the field of content is bad for me and for the industry, not to mention morally wrong in my opinion.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Why not split them out? They already are to some extent. The free list vs. the paid list. So the infrastructure is there to make two marketplaces. There was a different marketplace for penny dreadfuls and they survived just fine.


No, the question isn't why NOT split them out. The question is WHY split them out when it's working fine as it is? The only reason someone would want to split them out is so that the reader who is searching for a book doesn't see the cheaper ones that might be selected ahead of the book some author writes who has spend a lot of money and thinks his work shouldn't have to compete with the lower priced stuff. But the readers sure seem to LIKE having the choice of the cheaper books and the more expensive books. Some won't touch a book under 1.99, because they assume the author must be desperate. But that's not how it works. Lots of books that are very good, by very good authors, are priced at .99 or free. Why should the reader be deprived of seeing those books? Let's say Hugh wants to push his Shift book, so he puts Wool up for free. Readers are searching through the "upper" tier, and they don't get to see that. You can't put it in the upper tier based on how much he spent on the cover, he basically took a sheet of paper and drew a circle on it a bunch of times. He didn't spend money on editing. So why deprive the reader of it in the search engine? Why make the reader go to two places to look for books? You're inconveniencing the customer.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Unfair question. I HATE James Joyce. You didn't even have to show me the book.


So only books that you (or someone) personally like should be allowed on Amazon?

So I like James Joyce (though I prefer _Ulysses_ to _Finnegan's Wake_) but hate_ Moby Dick_. Does that mean I can get rid of all of Herman Melville's work?


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I'm a voracious reader and I don't use a wishlist. It would be interesting for Amazon to add a report that tells you how often your title was "wishlisted."


They have the top 100 wishlist for each genre, that gives a feeling for it.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> So only books that you (or someone) personally like should be allowed on Amazon?
> 
> So I like James Joyce (though I prefer _Ulysses_ to _Finnegan's Wake_) but hate_ Moby Dick_. Does that mean I can get rid of all of Herman Melville's work?


Am I now socially obligated to make my standard crack about GRRM or Sword of Truth now?


----------



## travelinged (Apr 6, 2014)

Vanilla Moon said:


> We don't know if there's more success in a two tiered system because it's not being used. But there might be, and I'm fascinated by the fact that I appear to be the only person who'd be interested in trying it. Guess it's the capitalist in me.


Oops. Major misstep. A capitalist is a free-market type, not one that wants gatekeepers that puts them into untouchables and chosen.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> The health of the system and community long term is more important to me and my strategy than poisoning the garden to reap short term benefits.
> 
> I am not a mainstream writer. I am niche as hell and working on a razor thin budget. I make my money and build my fandom by being as available as possible and making as many friends in the industry as possible. It is not in my best interest to cut anyone's throats to get ahead because I need all these people to be a large, unified group to advance my genres and ebooks in general into mainstream popularity.
> 
> Going on an elitist jag and purposefully decimating the field of content is bad for me and for the industry, not to mention morally wrong in my opinion.


Interesting. I don't think they are short term benefits and I think it's actually helping the garden, not poisoning it. If self-publishing became a haven for hard working creative people who were going their own way, in exactly the same way as musicians did when they eschewed big recording contracts, I don't see that as bad thing.

Let's switch persepectives. Let's say I'm you. I'm struggling to write niche and find an audience. I'm lost in the slush pile some of the time. I work hard to find an audience. Would I prefer a chance to change markets? A place where the audience FINDS ME instead of the other way around. A place where I develop a following of dedicated readers?

By writing niche, you're kind of acknowledging your work isn't mainstream. It will never been mainstream. That's not good or bad. It just is. You're not going to see some genres on everyone's coffee table. So why would I want my books to slowly sink into the rankings when I could be number one on the other marketplace? It doesn't have to be free. It could just be a lower price point than the other market place. I could still make a killing if I hit it big there.

I just wonder why there is such a marked difference between indie music and indie writing when you'd think the two would have a lot of similarities in terms of strategy, philosophy, etc.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

vrabinec said:


> The question is WHY split them out when it's working fine as it is?


Is it? Some authors are saying they work more now for the same money they were making five years ago. I'm interested to know why that is and how it could be changed.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Interesting. I don't think they are short term benefits and I think it's actually helping the garden, not poisoning it. If self-publishing became a haven for hard working creative people who were going their own way, in exactly the same way as musicians did when they eschewed big recording contracts, I don't see that as bad thing.
> 
> Let's switch persepectives. Let's say I'm you. I'm struggling to write niche and find an audience. I'm lost in the slush pile some of the time. I work hard to find an audience. Would I prefer a chance to change markets? A place where the audience FINDS ME instead of the other way around. A place where I develop a following of dedicated readers?
> 
> ...


But, don't you have that now with the refined search fields on the 'Zon? If you wanna say that they could be refined even further so that Vaal's work has it's own sub sub, okay, I'll listen. But having a .99 and below isn't gonna make his work easier to find for those who are looking for it.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

JRTomlin said:


> So only books that you (or someone) personally like should be allowed on Amazon?
> 
> So I like James Joyce (though I prefer _Ulysses_ to _Finnegan's Wake_) but hate_ Moby Dick_. Does that mean I can get rid of all of Herman Melville's work?


So book number eleventy million blah blah in the Amazon rankings? That's the next undiscovered James Joyce read alike?

It's virtually impossible to debate with temporarily embarrassed millionaires.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Is it? Some authors are saying they work more now for the same money they were making five years ago. I'm interested to know why that is and how it could be changed.


Maybe because there are more books to choose from?

How can it be changed? Pull up the ladder behind us? That seems to be your answer. Another is, write better books.

Isn't your system a few steps back from Amazon's categories?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Hmmmm let's see.
I want a book on fantasy superheroes.  Last time I looked at Amazon I could type in those key words and get results.  Now let's say I only want to look at the higher priced books.  Drop down arrow and click on price high to low.  No need to get any more complicated than that.  Amazon has done the sorting for me.
I could also do price low to high or relevance or a couple of other sorts.
By the way I don't read Christian should that have its own store so I don't have to sort through it.  Oh wait just clicking the genre I want to read will filter it out.  No need for a separate place.

Now one other question before I go; as a reader how am I supposed to know how much time and money you put into your book?  
Should you put that in your blurb?  I do not want to know how much you have invested.  I do not need that information.  What I need is a readable book.  I do not care what awards you have won, or what bignameperson says about your book.  I just want to know what the book is about.  I can be my own gatekeeper thank you very much.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

vrabinec said:


> But having a .99 and below isn't gonna make his work easier to find for those who are looking for it.


It will if the .99 pricepoint is the reason they are looking. You don't think there are people who only use the free list?


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

travelinged said:


> Oops. Major misstep. A capitalist is a free-market type, not one that wants gatekeepers that puts them into untouchables and chosen.


Anyone can enter the system, but you have to work hard to stay there. That is capitalism through and through.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> It will if the .99 pricepoint is the reason they are looking. You don't think there are people who only use the free list?


But that's the thing, they can already sort by free or .99. Relegating those books to a separate site forces the reader who DOESN'T care what the book costs one way or the other, to go someplace else to find those books. It makes it a pain, thereby insuring that fewer people will do it. Keeping the freebies and .99centers among the others is far more convenient for the person who's searching. Yeah, you save a step for those who don't want to see anything above .99 by corralling all those books off to the side for them, but it's really not a big inconvenience to do a search limited to .99 and under the way it's set up now. I can't help but feel you want those books out of there, so they're not competing with YOUR book which you have priced or intend to price at a higher point. Kinda amputate the riffraff and put you on a more level playing field. It may be better for those authors who never intend to sell their stuff for .99 or to give it away, but those are the ONLY people it's better for.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

The only people I know making less are either no longer writing books that resonate with readers or aren't working nearly as hard (mostly the latter). There is no hurdle to get over with indie publishing. You've never "made it." It's a revolving door of hard work if you want to continue to get ahead.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Maybe because there are more books to choose from?
> 
> How can it be changed? Pull up the ladder behind us? That seems to be your answer. Another is, write better books.
> 
> Isn't your system a few steps back from Amazon's categories?


More books = slush pile, like I said.

Pull the ladder up behind me? No, just have standards for getting into the best group. You can't walk onto a field and become the new shortstop for the Red Sox.

Writing better books? What about midlisters? They are at the top of their game, which admitting pays less, but pays a living wage (or it should). If we force everyone to write better and better books, aren't we just creating another system like Trad Publishing in which only the Bestsellers make any money and the midlisters are left behind?

Selfpublishing is supposed to be (or I was hoping it would be) a great place for midlisters who never got the same push from Trad Publishing as the A-listers did. At higher royalties and equal opportunity for visibility, midlisters were thriving on Amazon. Now they are losing steam.

In the old system, you had Bestsellers and midlisters and everyone else got pushed out. I know this is harsh. I know it's not the indie rah rah opinion, but there was a reason the people at the absolute bottom got locked out. By making a two tiered marketplace, bestsellers and midlisters are competing for larger pieces of the pie while everyone else can still earn money in the lower tier market place while they hone their skills and try again.

Trad Pub never did that. If you weren't quite good enough you'd just have to go home and work a "real" job while writing in your spare time, making no money off writing during that time.

Let me put this out there and just see what you guys have to say:

Do you think self publishing really, honestly opened the door for _everyone_ to make a living? Or did it really just give midlisters and people who could be midlisters a more equal playing field?


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Vanilla Moon said:


> More books = slush pile, like I said.
> 
> Pull the ladder up behind me? No, just have standards for getting into the best group. You can't walk onto a field and become the new shortstop for the Red Sox.
> 
> ...


Why do you want two tiers? What is the goal? For you to have less competition if you are in the favored tier?

I don't see a need for a tier at all. The system as is seems to work well. It's an equal playing field where everyone has the same shot to reach the top. If your work resonates, if you work hard to be visible, you can do well. It's an incredible opportunity, especially compared to how things used to be.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Do you think self publishing really, honestly opened the door for _everyone_ to make a living? Or did it really just give midlisters and people who could be midlisters a more equal playing field?


It gave everyone the opportunity. That's all anyone can ask for. I'll never, ever, ever, condone a system whereby someone is elevated into a higher tier simply because of ANYTHING other than the quality of the prose, and the demand for their stories. (Err, and the ability to market) It's the equivalent of eliminating a group of women from potential mates because they're not blue blood. Better simply because of something that has nothing to do with the writing. It's creating a monarchy within the writing world. Ordained by God and the amount you spent on an editor as better than the rabble.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Let's see if I have this straight.
Two tier system: Put all books under $2 in a dungeon.
Put all books that are not perfect to "one person's standards" in the dungeon.
Any author that costs Amazon money gets put in said dungeon.
OK, that leaves no books.


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

Hrrrm. No storm of flying padlocks yet? Funny.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

D.L. Shutter said:


> Hrrrm. No storm of flying padlocks yet? Funny.


No not yet, but this thread is keeping from going through a slush pile of ground beef recipes. It is also wonderful for procrastinating housework.


----------



## Lefevre (Feb 1, 2014)

Digital book burning?


----------



## elalond (May 11, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> In the old system, you had Bestsellers and midlisters and everyone else got pushed out. I know this is harsh. I know it's not the indie rah rah opinion, but there was a reason the people at the absolute bottom got locked out. By making a two tiered marketplace, bestsellers and midlisters are competing for larger pieces of the pie while everyone else can still earn money in the lower tier market place while they hone their skills and try again.


You seem to be advocating the two tiered marketplace under the assumption that 


> bestsellers and midlisters are competing for larger pieces of the pie while everyone else can still earn money in the lower tier market place while they hone their skills and try again.


But who is to say that, if Amazon ever introduces two tiered marketplace, midlisters would be competing with bestsellers in the same class? Or that in that two tiered system your books would be in the upper rank? I mean, why not have only bestsellers in the upper one, and all the rest in the lower one?

What self-publishing has done, is to open the door for everyone to publish (in my opinion nobody owns authors a living just because they can now press a publish button, no matter how good and edited their story is).


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Let's switch persepectives. Let's say I'm you. I'm struggling to write niche and find an audience. I'm lost in the slush pile some of the time. I work hard to find an audience. Would I prefer a chance to change markets? A place where the audience FINDS ME instead of the other way around. A place where I develop a following of dedicated readers?
> 
> By writing niche, you're kind of acknowledging your work isn't mainstream. It will never been mainstream. That's not good or bad. It just is. You're not going to see some genres on everyone's coffee table. So why would I want my books to slowly sink into the rankings when I could be number one on the other marketplace? It doesn't have to be free. It could just be a lower price point than the other market place. I could still make a killing if I hit it big there.


Being a niche writer requires targeting the market with a shotgun. Not only am I aiming for people who actively want what I'm putting down, but people who _don't know they like what I'm putting down_. It's a conversion game, so limiting my scope is toxic to me.



> I just wonder why there is such a marked difference between indie music and indie writing when you'd think the two would have a lot of similarities in terms of strategy, philosophy, etc.


Indie music has developed a culture where listening to it is a badge of honor and not wanting to be mainstream. Indie publishing doesn't have an special consumer culture and our deal is mostly about being free of the executive meddling of trad pub.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

PamelaKelley said:


> Why do you want two tiers? What is the goal? For you to have less competition if you are in the favored tier?
> 
> I don't see a need for a tier at all. The system as is seems to work well. It's an equal playing field where everyone has the same shot to reach the top. If your work resonates, if you work hard to be visible, you can do well. It's an incredible opportunity, especially compared to how things used to be.


Yes. Less competition certainly, but also _better_ competition. We don't make the Red Sox play every team from little league through the Majors just to get to the World Series.

Tier 2 authors can still make money and engage readers while honing their craft. (I'm out of baseball metaphors here since I don't follow baseball, but whatever is below the Minors).

Tier 1 authors get a somewhat greater percentage of royalties (as long as we are assuming the slush pile hurts us) while honing their skills as well. Lower end midlisters get better and make more money, while higher end midlisters get better and hopefully ultimately produce a bestselling title. (Majors and Minors)

Everyone writes. Everyone gets paid to write. Anyone at any time can break out and do really well. People say it's like that now on Amazon, and it kind of is, but some people claim it's getting harder to succeed and I don't want it to get harder. Or rather, I don't want it to get harder because I'm competing with people who are just taking a cut of my sales (however small) and will eventually disappear from the radar once self-publishing didn't turn out to be the Gold Rush/Get Rich Quick Scheme they thought it would be.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> Let's see if I have this straight.
> Two tier system: Put all books under $2 in a dungeon.
> Put all books that are not perfect to "one person's standards" in the dungeon.
> Any author that costs Amazon money gets put in said dungeon.
> OK, that leaves no books.


If the so-called dungeon is right on the front page, easily accessible, is it still a "dungeon?" I don't think so. Not any more so than going to a retail site and seeing "Products" vs. "Sale Items." Are those dungeons, too? No they aren't. You already go to Amazon and see Top 100 Paid vs. Top 100 Free. Are you upset about that?

One person's standards? Grammar, punctutation, and spelling are not "one person's standards." They are for the most part universal with only minor deviations in the system. Even Trad Pub books have a few typos. But I think you'll have to agree that there's a bit of a difference between a book with a few typos and book with a few typos *on every page*.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Robert Reade said:


> Digital book burning?


So when Barnes and Noble puts a bunch of titles on the table up front and relegates other titles spine-out to the shelves, that's "book burning?"


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Let me point out that one of the authors trade publishing released was Bella Andre. Just saying I don't think they "got it right."


----------



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

Vanilla Moon said:


> Let's say, just for fun, that on Monday morning you got an email saying that now you'll be getting 35% royalties across the board for anything and everything you put on Amazon. I won't even try and be all menacing and say maybe the email says you now have to *pay* up front to put your books up. Let's just stick with slashed royalties. Say your royalties are now halved. What would you do? Keeping in mind that Amazon is, for the most part, the only game in town.


I know this scenario is supposed to terrify everyone, and maybe it does some. But I put my first book up on Amazon in February of 2010. At that time 35% royalty was all that was available across the board. I put my first book up at $1.99 and was delighted at the results. Was this better than the book sitting on my PC forever? Oh, yes, it was, and I put a second book up on those terms in April.

When Amazon offered the 70%, I raised prices and never looked back, but the fact is 35%, while a sad step back, would not be the end of the indie world.

I also have to say that I don't have the horror of Amazon requiring payment to play that some do. When I first heard of KDP (then DTP) in the winter of 2009-2010, I couldn't believe Amazon was allowing people like me to put books on their system for free. Access to a site like Amazon's as a seller for free? Some part of me still finds it extraordinary. A fee would not be the same as paying a vanity publisher. It would be payment to a distributor to be in their system.



> What about midlisters? They are at the top of their game, which admitting pays less, but pays a living wage (or it should). * * * Do you think self publishing really, honestly opened the door for everyone to make a living?


From all the stats I've seen, many mid-listers don't make a living wage. They have to have day jobs, and I disagree with the "it should." The fact that someone wants to make money doing something doesn't mean the hand of God (or more likely government) should grant that wish. If you can't earn a living doing something, you switch to something you can earn a living at. If the passion for the non-paying thing is high enough, well, that's what hobbies are for.

And I doubt when the indie path became possible many believed *any *indies would "make a living." There is still tremendous resistance to the idea in some quarters and constant reference to "outliers." No sensible person believes everyone will or should now. The fact that so many are now making a living is what fosters hope in others. Unfortunately it also seems to foster the "I should have what he has" attitude and suggestions on how the person who isn't doing as well could be guaranteed the success of others. I don't think the suggested two-tiered system would do it. Some of the superior would still fail to sell, and then we'd see other "suggestions" of how to guarantee them what they think they deserve.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

elalond said:


> You seem to be advocating the two tiered marketplace under the assumption that
> But who is to say that, if Amazon ever introduces two tiered marketplace, midlisters would be competing with bestsellers in the same class?


They already are. Take a look at almost any Top 100. You'll self-pubbers and trad pubbed authors on that list.



> Or that in that two tiered system your books would be in the upper rank?


Of course they would. Yours probably would too though I admit I didn't look at them. All it takes is good editing and cover. Readers decide whether the content is good.



> I mean, why not have only bestsellers in the upper one, and all the rest in the lower one?


You could have three Tiers, but I don't see the point. It's probably more work and harder to manage for Amazon.



> What self-publishing has done, is to open the door for everyone to publish (in my opinion nobody owns authors a living just because they can now press a publish button, no matter how good and edited their story is).


In my opinion it opened the door, but not many people can actually walk through it, so to speak. My premise is that people who are succeeding at self-publishing now who couldn't in Trad Pub are doing so mainly because they were being rejected due to budget constraints.

"We'd like to sign you, but we already have some midlist authors and we already publish NYT bestselling author John Doe and he gets most of the lion's share of marketing."

or

"I can't make any decent money because I'm only a midlist author. The advances are so bad."

Things like that.

If NY had the ability to put out print the way Amazon does digital with little cost and no storage, etc issues, they would've snatched up every author they thought would earn a thin dime. But there was an upper limit to how many people they could take on and so authors who could have done well were given no chance at all.

I think self-publishing opened the door to everyone yet only people _who would have succeeded anyway_ are going to. It's important to temper your idea of success in these terms. I'm not saying all of them will go on to be bestselling authors. But there are plenty of authors who would be happy just to make enough to pay the bills.

Not that you did, personally, but I think it's disingenuous to decry gatekeepers and say we need no quality control and then turn around and get antsy when some readers don't take self-publishing seriously.

There's a reason why self-publishing still has a bit of a stink about it. And it's not solely due to snobby New Yorkers who are angry about being cut out. There's a lot of chaff out there. A LOT. And I'm interested to know if it's a problem now or will become a problem in the future.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Tier 2 authors can still make money and engage readers while honing their craft. (I'm out of baseball metaphors here since I don't follow baseball, but whatever is below the Minors).


You keep assuming that the people you don't like and want to do financial harm are somehow in need of honing their craft...

*And yet your ONLY stated criterion are the cover and editing, things that people typically pay others to do.* So is the craft they're honing 'not being poor'? Is that a skill? Can you Take 10 on the check?


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Jana DeLeon said:


> Let me point out that one of the authors trade publishing released was Bella Andre. Just saying I don't think they "got it right."


They didn't get it wrong either. They aren't clairvoyant. They have no way to know what titles will take off and what titles won't. Self-pubbers don't either for that matter, not really.

Print costs money in ways that digital doesn't. Do you think that NY might be kicking themselves right now? Not for not keeping Bella Andre but for not creating their _own_ digital marketplace and putting as many midlisters as they could sign into it where they could compete without costing the house an arm and a leg? I bet they are. I bet my left... well I bet they are. Because they'd still own the rights to those books and they could yank them from digital and put them in print once they started selling and made a killing.


----------



## ThePete (Oct 10, 2013)

> Being a niche writer requires targeting the market with a shotgun. Not only am I aiming for people who actively want what I'm putting down, but people who don't know they like what I'm putting down. It's a conversion game, so limiting my scope is toxic to me.


Right on the money! Seek out your niche wherever they are. So many of my readers say that my book was the first ebook they ever bought. Now they want to get a Kindle.

All this petty crap about seeing other authors as competition is ridiculous. We're all in the entertainment biz. HBO, video games and the Internet are your competition. Not other writers. I'm happy for every person that cruises the Kindle store for a book in my genre after dinner, instead of just booting up Netflix or their Xbox.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

ellenoc said:


> From all the stats I've seen, many mid-listers don't make a living wage. They have to have day jobs, and I disagree with the "it should." The fact that someone wants to make money doing something doesn't mean the hand of God (or more likely government) should grant that wish. If you can't earn a living doing something, you switch to something you can earn a living at. If the passion for the non-paying thing is high enough, well, that's what hobbies are for.


Actually many are. And many more are starting to. And yes they *should*. Understand I don't mean this in a "People should buy my books" sort of way. I mean when marketing costs aren't astronomical and print costs aren't prohibitive like in Trad and there is a growing market for freelance editors/copywriters/cover art designers who charge reasonable fees for their services, there is no reason why a moderately talented, hard working, full-time writer publishing consistently should not be able to make a decent living.

Amazon has proven the customers are there. The market exists in a bigger capacity than I think even Amazon suspected was out there. It's easier now to make it as a solid midlister than it's ever been before.

A $5,000 advance for _one_ book from Trad Pub? There are people here on KBoards who make _double_ that on release week with one title judging by their book rankings.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

ThePete said:


> Right on the money! Seek out your niche wherever they are. So many of my readers say that my book was the first ebook they ever bought. Now they want to get a Kindle.


Same. I've converted sooo many fantasy folks over to Superhero and vis-verse.

I tihnk people don't appreciate what niche writers have to do in terms of marketing. EVERYTHING we write needs to be a gateway series.



> All this petty crap about seeing other authors as competition is ridiculous. We're all in the entertainment biz. HBO, video games and the Internet are your competition. Not other writers. I'm happy for every person that cruises the Kindle store for a book in my genre after dinner, instead of just booting up Netflix or their Xbox.


Not even that really. Entertainment in our medium is a zero competition game beyond mere visibility. We don't have time slots or theater space and our demographic will read dozens if not hundreds of books each year. We tend to forget that our job is more to make them want the _next_ book.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> You keep assuming that the people you don't like and want to do financial harm are somehow in need of honing their craft...
> 
> *And yet your ONLY stated criterion are the cover and editing, things that people typically pay others to do.* So is the craft they're honing 'not being poor'? Is that a skill? Can you Take 10 on the check?


You keep insisting that titles selling 1-2 copies _a year_ would be somehow irrevocably harmed by being put somewhere else. Somehow, I doubt this. I really, really do.

Is writing prose that can be understood a skill? Yep, I think so. Even the most dedicated editor would be stumped on how to edit sentences they couldn't even understand in the first place.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Actually many are. And many more are starting to. And yes they *should*. Understand I don't mean this in a "People should buy my books" sort of way. I mean when marketing costs aren't astronomical and print costs aren't prohibitive like in Trad and there is a growing market for freelance editors/copywriters/cover art designers who charge reasonable fees for their services, there is no reason why a moderately talented, hard working, full-time writer publishing consistently should not be able to make a decent living.
> 
> Amazon has proven the customers are there. The market exists in a bigger capacity than I think even Amazon suspected was out there. It's easier now to make it as a solid midlister than it's ever been before.
> 
> A $5,000 advance for _one_ book from Trad Pub? There are people here on KBoards who make _double_ that on release week with one title judging by their book rankings.


... Then where's the problem?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> If the so-called dungeon is right on the front page, easily accessible, is it still a "dungeon?" I don't think so. Not any more so than going to a retail site and seeing "Products" vs. "Sale Items." Are those dungeons, too? No they aren't. You already go to Amazon and see Top 100 Paid vs. Top 100 Free. Are you upset about that?
> 
> One person's standards? Grammar, punctutation, and spelling are not "one person's standards." They are for the most part universal with only minor deviations in the system. Even Trad Pub books have a few typos. But I think you'll have to agree that there's a bit of a difference between a book with a few typos and book with a few typos *on every page*.


Here is the thing: if they are all in one store I can find them. If you put the tier two where I have to go somewhere else than you just lost me because why should I have to work harder to buy what you want to sell.
Yes, I will agree that there is a difference between a few typos per book and a few per page. But maybe I don't mind typos. Or misspelled words. Brer Rabbit anyone.
But that doesn't give someone else the right to say your book is bad and therefore you can't publish but Joe Blow who wrote a crap book can because every sentence is perfect. That isn't right.

Now you mentioned that bad books hurt your sales. Are you saying that if I buy Vaal's book that I can't buy yours? 
Well if that is the case I will buy Vaal's book because he isn't trying to restrict what I can find easily. 
You know I don't see the bigger indies worrying about other authors. Matter of fact I see them putting together anthologies with other authors so that they all get exposure. I can think of 3 dozen right off hand and several are kboarders.
PS those anthologies are killing my wallet.


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Or rather, I don't want it to get harder because I'm competing with people who are just taking a cut of my sales (however small) and will eventually disappear from the radar once self-publishing didn't turn out to be the Gold Rush/Get Rich Quick Scheme they thought it would be.


Taking a cut of your (!) sales? What makes you think you are entitled to those sales? The market and your marketing skills decide what your share will be. There's no such thing as entitlement in a free market. It seems to me that you are the one firmly believing that the gold rush should and must continue. You are complaining that authors are earning less now than five years ago. So? This can happen in a free market. If you feel this is not profitable enough for you, you can always enter a different market.

I understand your quality concerns, but you have to accept that high quality does not entitle you to any success. This holds true for any craft. There are a lot of brilliant composers struggling while people whose musical ability is limited to moving volume faders make millions. That's the free market, people buy things because they like it and because it makes them feel good, not because it's incredibly complex from a technical point of view. If you want to change that, then you have to change the nature of people.


----------



## FH (Jul 30, 2012)

I think it's clear that we only need at most 6 authors on Amazon. 'the big six'

Lee Child. he can have an entire category for Jack Reacher. Since everyone on the planet reads Jack Reacher books there isn't much point in having anything else in his genre.
James Patterson: as above. Anyone writing in the crime or thriller genre should just work as underlings in the Patterson novel factory.
Bella Andre: romance / new adult done and dusted.
HM Ward: takes care of the never ending serial.
John Locke: that's the 99c bargain bin taken care of.
Konrath: He can be the sole Self published author. because other wise the grand SP/Trad debate will come to a juddering halt and leave a vast void of wilderness on the amazon forums/goodreads with nothing for the trolls to froth at the mouth over.

Everyone else can go back to reading books and writing reviews of the 'big six' - well technically we only have the big five trad houses now, so we will give them each their own entire publishing house and imprint, except Konrath who needs the other 5 to rant at.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Vanilla Moon said:


> More books = slush pile, like I said.


And what's wrong with that? I know for a fact that some readers love to delve through the slush pile themselves instead of letting someone of the snooterati do it for them. Something to do with the thrill of discovering diamonds in the rough.



Vanilla Moon said:


> Pull the ladder up behind me? No, just have standards for getting into the best group. You can't walk onto a field and become the new shortstop for the Red Sox.


Those standards are already there. According to capitalist lore, the more you sell the better you are. There are even lists. What more could you possibly want?



Vanilla Moon said:


> Writing better books? What about midlisters? They are at the top of their game, which admitting pays less, but pays a living wage (or it should).


No, it shouldn't. Nobody owes you anything.



Vanilla Moon said:


> If we force everyone to write better and better books, aren't we just creating another system like Trad Publishing in which only the Bestsellers make any money and the midlisters are left behind?


No, we aren't.

_*You*_ seem to want a system in which lazy writers, who could write better books if only they could be bothered, can live comfortably of their hack jobs. That's not how the capitalist market works (I think). Wasn't protectionism, and frankly, that's what you're talking about, a big no-no in the free market?



Vanilla Moon said:


> Selfpublishing is supposed to be (or I was hoping it would be) a great place for midlisters who never got the same push from Trad Publishing as the A-listers did. At higher royalties and equal opportunity for visibility, midlisters were thriving on Amazon. Now they are losing steam.


Where do you get that selfpublishing was supposed to be a safe haven for midlisters? It's a free-for-all.
Do I understand you correctly? You just want more privileges for midlisters who are written out of the market by hardworking indies?
Are you a midlister?



Vanilla Moon said:


> In the old system, you had Bestsellers and midlisters and everyone else got pushed out. I know this is harsh.


Welcome to the New System. Few things of what you were used to in the old one stlll apply.



Vanilla Moon said:


> I know it's not the indie rah rah opinion, but there was a reason the people at the absolute bottom got locked out.


One of those reasons was incompetence of trade publishers. "Nice book, but we don't know how to sell this." The rah-rah modus operandi of trade publishers.



Vanilla Moon said:


> If you weren't quite good enough you'd just have to go home and work a "real" job while writing in your spare time, making no money off writing during that time.


It's exactly the same now, except now everyone has a shot. And except you might make pocket money. Or pizza-money. Or pay the odd bill or two with your writing.



Vanilla Moon said:


> Let me put this out there and just see what you guys have to say:
> 
> Do you think self publishing really, honestly opened the door for _everyone_ to make a living? Or did it really just give midlisters and people who could be midlisters a more equal playing field?


It opened the door for everyone to at least _try_ to make a living at this. Even with books that would never get an agent or never get beyond the slushpile jockey.

Maybe you hadn't noticed, but trade publishing is giving a lot of midlisters the boot. Some of them turned to selfpublishing and some of them make more money than they ever made with their publishers.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> ... Then where's the problem?


The problem is just recently they are saying they are doing the same amount of work for less money. When you only make, say, 50k a year writing. Then the next year you make 40k, then the year after that 30k, well you can see that eventually you won't be able to continue earning a living as a writer. To me, that's a problem.

It's going to be a _huge_ problem if earnings get so low that writers who once turned their backs on Trad Pub have to go back, hat in hand, and ask for that measly $5,000 advance and sign contracts that scew them over, etc.

If earnings are dropping, self-publishing as a whole would do well to figure why and whether or not they can/want to do anything about it.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> You know I don't see the bigger indies worrying about other authors.


I do. That's where I first heard there might be a problem.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

BookJoker said:


> I think it's clear that we only need at most 6 authors on Amazon. 'the big six'
> 
> Lee Child. he can have an entire category for Jack Reacher. Since everyone on the planet reads Jack Reacher books there isn't much point in having anything else in his genre.
> James Patterson: as above. Anyone writing in the crime or thriller genre should just work as underlings in the Patterson novel factory.
> ...


I would rather have someone else in the thriller position but I see your point.


----------



## ThePete (Oct 10, 2013)

> It's going to be a huge problem if earnings get so low that writers who once turned their backs on Trad Pub have to go back, hat in hand, and ask for that measly $5,000 advance and sign contracts that scew them over, etc.


That's not the fault of so-called "competition." That's caused by the author no longer giving the market what they want. It's hard to keep them happy. I sympathize, I do. These readers are always changing their tastes. It's frustrating, but that's the nature of the business.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> One person's standards? Grammar, punctutation, and spelling are not "one person's standards." They are for the most part universal with only minor deviations in the system. Even Trad Pub books have a few typos. But I think you'll have to agree that there's a bit of a difference between a book with a few typos and book with a few typos *on every page*.


Yeah, okay, but who the hell's gonna go through the ten thousand books published every day to determine whether they have an acceptable number of typos? Who's gonna determine what a typo is? You gonna start giving demerits for sentence fragments? How about made up words, do they count against you? And if you're gonna base it on which ones have been edited, how do you separate those like Elle's books which she self-edits VERY well, and the ones that are self-edited poorly? And how would you segregate those books which got a professional editor, but the author decided not to follow the editor's advice anyway? It's impossible to do, even if anyone WANTED to do it.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Andrew Ashling said:


> And what's wrong with that? I know for a fact that some readers love to delve through the slush pile themselves instead of letting someone of the snooterati do it for them. Something to do with the thrill of discovering diamonds in the rough.
> 
> Those standards are already there. According to capitalist lore, the more you sell the better you are. There are even lists. What more could you possibly want?
> 
> ...


Marry me. I think I love you.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

books_mb said:


> Taking a cut of your (!) sales? What makes you think you are entitled to those sales? The market and your marketing skills decide what your share will be. There's no such thing as entitlement in a free market. It seems to me that you are the one firmly believing that the gold rush should and must continue. You are complaining that authors are earning less now than five years ago. So? This can happen in a free market. If you feel this is not profitable enough for you, you can always enter a different market.
> 
> I understand your quality concerns, but you have to accept that high quality does not entitle you to any success. This holds true for any craft. There are a lot of brilliant composers struggling while people whose musical ability is limited to moving volume faders make millions. That's the free market, people buy things because they like it and because it makes them feel good, not because it's incredibly complex from a technical point of view. If you want to change that, then you have to change the nature of people.


Sorry. I grew up in a time when hard work actually meant something. Success was not predominantly hinged on luck or gaming algorithms, but actually being _good_ at something, or working to become good at something.

I am slowly getting used to the fact that it's now a world where everyone gets a trophy just for showing up.

When honesty and hard work takes a back seat to gaming algorithms, I think writing is going to suffer overall. You may not believe it, but I do.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> I would rather have someone else in the thriller position but I see your point.


That's my favorite. I had to study for years in Nepal to get that one right.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Sorry. I grew up in a time when hard work actually meant something. Success was not predominantly hinged on luck or gaming algorithms, but actually being _good_ at something, or working to become good at something.
> 
> I am slowly getting used to the fact that it's now a world where everyone gets a trophy just for showing up.
> 
> When honesty and hard work takes a back seat to gaming algorithms, I think writing is going to suffer overall. You may not believe it, but I do.


There's a familiar bitterness in this I can't put a finger on. The deck is stacked against those who don't know how to properly cheat, is that it? The people who are successful at selling these days just know how to game the algos? Come on, you can't honestly believe that. Readers aren't that stupid. You're insulting the readers who select what they want to read with statements like this. Maybe I'm naïve, but have have incredible faith in the wisdom or the reader. Yeah, I get that you have to get your stuff up front so they know it's there. But the ones that stay there, don't stay there because they gamed the algos. They stay there because they give the reader a good ride for the buck.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

vrabinec said:


> Yeah, okay, but who the hell's gonna go through the ten thousand books published every day to determine whether they have an acceptable number of typos? Who's gonna determine what a typo is? You gonna start giving demerits for sentence fragments? How about made up words, do they count against you? And if you're gonna base it on which ones have been edited, how do you separate those like Elle's books which she self-edits VERY well, and the ones that are self-edited poorly? And how would you segregate those books which got a professional editor, but the author decided not to follow the editor's advice anyway? It's impossible to do, even if anyone WANTED to do it.


Okay, so it's not possible. That sucks. I wish it was.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I grew up in a time when hard work actually meant something.


This time never existed.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Hey Moon,
How would you like to make a quick sale and maybe even a review?  If your books are under $4, link me one.  I would like to see how good of an author you are.  
  You can pm it if you want to stay anonymous.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> They stay there because they give the reader a good ride for the buck.


This just sounds so dirty.


----------



## ThePete (Oct 10, 2013)

> Sorry. I grew up in a time when hard work actually meant something. Success was not predominantly hinged on luck or gaming algorithms, but actually being good at something, or working to become good at something.
> 
> I am slowly getting used to the fact that it's now a world where everyone gets a trophy just for showing up.
> 
> When honesty and hard work takes a back seat to gaming algorithms, I think writing is going to suffer overall. You may not believe it, but I do.


The hard work aspect hasn't changed. "Gaming the system" is ridiculously hard and any luck you have lasts for a few days, tops. The fundamentals haven't changed. In my opinion, the only thing that's different today is that you have to view your art as a commercial product. One competing with other products. It's rough, I know, but a quality book will still sell. You just also have to act as a businessperson.


----------



## ThePete (Oct 10, 2013)

> Yeah, I get that you have to get your stuff up front so they know it's there. But the ones that stay there, don't stay there because they gamed the algos. They stay there because they give the reader a good ride for the buck.


Man, why don't we have a "like" system?


----------



## elalond (May 11, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> They already are. Take a look at almost any Top 100. You'll self-pubbers and trad pubbed authors on that list.
> ...
> Not that you did, personally, but I think it's disingenuous to decry gatekeepers and say we need no quality control and then turn around and get antsy when some readers don't take self-publishing seriously.
> There's a reason why self-publishing still has a bit of a stink about it. And it's not solely due to snobby New Yorkers who are angry about being cut out. There's a lot of chaff out there. A LOT. And I'm interested to know if it's a problem now or will become a problem in the future.


The point I was trying to make was actually that if your wish comes true and Amazon introduces the two tiered marketplace, there's no guarantee that its layout would be to your liking. From what I have seen, Amazon does what is in the best interest of Amazon and if they decide that is in their best interest to only push bestsellers, that's what they are going to do.

I don't have any interest in gatekeepers, that's why I bypassed them. Also I have no control over other people's books or how well they are edited, how others see success or that some readers don't take self-publishing serious, and I'm not going to waste my time chasing after that control; I'm not Don Quixote and there's far too much of those Kindle's get rich quick schemes, just check the warrior forum. So, I do not worry about those things and I'm spending my time on things that I can control; my books.



cinisajoy said:


> Here is the thing: if they are all in one store I can find them. If you put the tier two where I have to go somewhere else than you just lost me because why should I have to work harder to buy what you want to sell.


You know, there was a CEO who wanted to see Amazon to make two categories, one for trade-publishers and the other for self-publishers. I actually wouldn't mind that and I believe that because of the high prices, trade-publishers' category wouldn't be that well visited. I could be wrong, of course.


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Sorry. I grew up in a time when hard work actually meant something. Success was not predominantly hinged on luck or gaming algorithms, but actually being _good_ at something, or working to become good at something.
> 
> I am slowly getting used to the fact that it's now a world where everyone gets a trophy just for showing up.
> 
> When honesty and hard work takes a back seat to gaming algorithms, I think writing is going to suffer overall. You may not believe it, but I do.


I think I get you. I've always believed that being excellent should pay off. That somebody who became brilliant at his craft through years of hard and passionate work should be recognized. But one hard look at the bestseller list, one look at the music charts, one look at the highest rated paintings, one look at who's driving the biggest cars will convince you that this is not the case. Being good or even exceptional from a technical point of view often means very little. You can dislike it, but there's nothing to do but to accept it. The free market wants what it wants and you either feed it what it wants or you go down with all your expertise.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

vrabinec said:


> There's a familiar bitterness in this I can't put a finger on. The deck is stacked against those who don't know how to properly cheat, is that it? The people who are successful at selling these days just know how to game the algos? Come on, you can't honestly believe that. Readers aren't that stupid. You're insulting the readers who select what they want to read with statements like this. Maybe I'm naïve, but have have incredible faith in the wisdom or the reader. Yeah, I get that you have to get your stuff up front so they know it's there. But the ones that stay there, don't stay there because they gamed the algos. They stay there because they give the reader a good ride for the buck.


I don't feel bitter. How can I? I'm not even a midlister yet. I'm doing pretty well, though at the moment. Sucks that it won't always be that way even if I work hard. I think I have a unique perspective. I've never done Trad Pub. I've never even queried. I just started self-publishing a few months ago to see what would happen.

So I'm not firmly entrenched in the Old System, never even put my toe in. And I wasn't beaten down by it and now taking up the pom poms for self-publishing while refusing to admit there might be significant problems with it. I think I'm new enough to self-publishing that I can spot things that other people won't talk about.

It seems like many people have so thoroughly hitched their wagon to this star that I wonder about their ability to be objective. Maybe they're scared. Maybe they're angry. Maybe they're completely deluded. I don't know. But when I read forums, or listen to podcasts, or read blogs, I'm intrigued by self-publishing while at the same time some things stick out to me that either don't make sense or just seem flat out untrue. And I wonder why there are so few people in the indie world pointing these things out.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> Hey Moon,
> How would you like to make a quick sale and maybe even a review? If your books are under $4, link me one. I would like to see how good of an author you are.
> You can pm it if you want to stay anonymous.


Babe.

I'm new. I'm not "new."


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

elalond said:


> You know, there was a CEO who wanted to see Amazon to make two categories, one for trade-publishers and the other for self-publishers. I actually wouldn't mind that and I believe that because of the high prices, trade-publishers' category wouldn't be that well visited. I could be wrong, of course.


Now I wouldn't mind that as a category myself. It would be nice to know where my money is going.
But now even the trads are putting out the occassional freebie and discounting books.


----------



## elalond (May 11, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Now I wouldn't mind that as a category myself. It would be nice to know where my money is going.
> But now even the trads are putting out the occassional freebie and discounting books.


Yes, the occassional freebie and discounting books here and there, most of them from their backlist. But can that compete with the abundance of cheap and original fiction and promises of free cookies?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

elalond said:


> Yes, the occassional freebie and discounting books here and there, most of them from their backlist. But can that compete with the abundance of cheap and original fiction and promises of free cookies?


Free cookies. I thought you said free cookbooks. I guess I will go back to my corner now. 
Though personally some of those discounted books ain't worth the money.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> Marry me. I think I love you.


I would but for two things.

Being gay and all that, and besides we would have weird kids (trust me on this) and we really can't inflict them on an innocent world.
But the thought is appreciated.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Andrew Ashling said:


> I would but for two things.
> 
> Being gay and all that, and besides we would have weird kids (trust me on this) and we really can't inflict them on an innocent world.
> But the thought is appreciated.


Well now Andrew the first well ok, the kids uh sorry you got to find a different mama. My 24 year old was my last. 
Oh wait, I don't think husband would be too appreciative if I brought a new one home anyway.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Saul Tanpepper said:


> This time never existed.


Possibly not in writing/publishing, but it absolutely did in other areas. Obviously this belief doesn't translate. I'm not ignoring the fact that it didn't used to be the case in publishing, but I would have thought things would have changed for the better for authors with the advent of self-publishing.

That's not to say that things haven't become different, but I'm not entirely sold on the idea that all the changes were for the better.


----------



## FH (Jul 30, 2012)

I think $1,000 USD is the new 99c.

I mean it's pretty tough to find readers, so you only need 100 readers to make a decent living then. 

Put out a hardback edition covered in alligator skin decorated with rare ostrich feathers and include a sex tape of yourself with a minor celebrity.

there is 8 billion people on the planet. Chances are probably better of finding 100 people to buy that than 100,000 people who will read your 99c book. After all look at all the crap rich people buy.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> Well now Andrew the first well ok, the kids uh sorry you got to find a different mama. My 24 year old was my last.
> Oh wait, I don't think husband would be too appreciative if I brought a new one home anyway.


Not into polyandry, huh? Neither is my man.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Vanilla Moon, there's something in your argument that is just not sitting well with me. I don't have time to go back and pick up the specific quotes but it boils down to 'people who were making money aren't any more'.

And the only thing that comes to my mind is The definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different result. 

I feel that kind of applies here.

The market changes. Buying habits of consumers change. Preferences change. People change. Everything changes. What worked three years, one year, six months ago may not work now. 

So these people who aren't making money anymore, have they (you, anyone?) sat down to analyze the new/different marketplace and adjusted how they approach it? Part of the reason why traditional publishing has taken so long to catch up is because they appeared to cling to this belief that 'it used to work before so why isn't it working now? work harder doing the same thing and make it do right!' They've been slower to adjust to the rapidly changing marketplace of digital books. It hurt them for a while. 

And now, things are changing again. 

As my father was fond of saying, time to fish, cut bait, or go ashore. Adapt with the changes and shifts and keep moving on. Does it suck that things change so quickly? Yes. It's still a reality and one that you or them or anyone can't stop. I've been caught blindsided by a small shift in the market place and after a year off, I'm left scrambling. I wish it weren't so but it is and I have a couple of choices. 

I don't have time to lament the way things used to be. They're over. Done. Gone. Can't get them back. All I can do is move forward, embrace the changes, try to adapt.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Edward M. Grant said:


> The Labour Theory Of Value is pretty much only believed by Marxists these days. Coal doesn't become more valuable because it's dug up by humans one lump at a time, rather than machines one massive bucket at a time.


Ridonkulousness, Sir. My father used to work for a company in his 20's. Then he struck out on his own and started his own business. It was obviously harder, but in the end he made more money, plus all the other benefits that come from being your own boss.

My husband works for a Fortune 500 company. They are absolutely honest about the fact that they pay more to people who they think are worth more. There's been a lot of outcry from the people on the bottom end of the scale.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Ridonkulousness, Sir. My father used to work for a company in his 20's. Then he struck out on his own and started his own business. It was obviously harder, but in the end he made more money, plus all the other benefits that come from being your own boss.
> 
> My husband works for a Fortune 500 company. They are absolutely honest about the fact that they pay more to people who they think are worth more. There's been a lot of outcry from the people on the bottom end of the scale.


No there hasn't. Just from those who aren't adapting to the times and are _sinking_ to the bottom.

It's just that those people who are now earning less were overvalued. Trade publishing bought advertisement, placement, had (fake) reviews written for them and what have you not.

Now, in the cold light of day of the free market their true worth becomes evident. And it isn't what they were led to believe it was.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Oh hey something just dawned on me.  You said some authors were making less each year.  That leads me to the question are they still putting out books?  I can only buy an e-book once.  I am always curious about what is going on behind the scenes.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

anderson_gray said:


> Vanilla Moon, there's something in your argument that is just not sitting well with me. I don't have time to go back and pick up the specific quotes but it boils down to 'people who were making money aren't any more'.


It's not sitting well with you because you are misquoting. I said they are making less while continuing to produce the same amount of work. Different people in different genres are saying this. They attribute it to visibility.



> The market changes. Buying habits of consumers change. Preferences change. People change. Everything changes. What worked three years, one year, six months ago may not work now.


True but if it's on a downward trend overall, how low will it go?



> So these people who aren't making money anymore, have they (you, anyone?) sat down to analyze the new/different marketplace and adjusted how they approach it?


Visibility, bigger slush pile. Of course, there is no way to know this for certain. But it's the only thing that's really changed. Algorithms change, but people learn the new ones.



> Part of the reason why traditional publishing has taken so long to catch up is because they appeared to cling to this belief that 'it used to work before so why isn't it working now? work harder doing the same thing and make it do right!' They've been slower to adjust to the rapidly changing marketplace of digital books. It hurt them for a while.


These aren't trad pub authors. Or rather, some of them are actually hybrid authors and they were specifically talking about self published digital titles.



> I don't have time to lament the way things used to be. They're over. Done. Gone. Can't get them back. All I can do is move forward, embrace the changes, try to adapt.


My question is: What if you can't? What if you can't make a living as an author going indie in five or ten years (assuming you do now)? Not saying that'll happen, but who knows? If it does, will you go to Trad Publishing and beg for a deal? Or will you get a second job?

I'm not the only person wondering if self-publishing is sustainable. What might the new models look like? What systems might emerge as a way to keep it as profitable as possible for all people involved?


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Sorry. I grew up in a time when hard work actually meant something. Success was not predominantly hinged on luck or gaming algorithms, but actually being _good_ at something, or working to become good at something.
> 
> I am slowly getting used to the fact that it's now a world where everyone gets a trophy just for showing up.
> 
> When honesty and hard work takes a back seat to gaming algorithms, I think writing is going to suffer overall. You may not believe it, but I do.


The only thing that has changed is now we are pitching directly to readers instead of to agents. All the hard work still comes into it, but we have to constantly pitch to new readers. It's no longer a one and done with scoring a good agent.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> Oh hey something just dawned on me. You said some authors were making less each year. That leads me to the question are they still putting out books? I can only buy an e-book once. I am always curious about what is going on behind the scenes.


Well if you can only buy one book, don't buy James Joyce. That's my advice.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

books_mb said:


> I think I get you. I've always believed that being excellent should pay off. That somebody who became brilliant at his craft through years of hard and passionate work should be recognized.


This is the lie that we are told in our formative years by teachers who want to manage our behavior. It is meant to keep us in our place, and it works.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I'm not the only person wondering if self-publishing is sustainable. What might the new models look like? What systems might emerge as a way to keep it as profitable as possible for all people involved?


I can answer this in three words: yes and no.
For some self-publishing will be sustainable and for others their books will sink into obscurity. There is no way for every author to profit immensely and there never was even with trad publishing.
I think I read that the Harlequin writers typically make 24,000 for 12 books a year.
Book publishing, the oil field both work for some and not for others. Nothing is guaranteed.
I know numerous people that lost everything in the last oil field bust because they thought the boom would last. I hope this generation is smarter with their money.
Now on books if you are making good money that is great but don't spend it all. Put some back, what you write today may not be popular tomorrow. 
There are very few Blakes (Thinking of two), Konraths, Andres, Howeys, Wards and Casey's. 
So my advice is do your best and prepare for the worst.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Well if you can only buy one book, don't buy James Joyce. That's my advice.


I can buy more than one e-book but I can only buy each e-book once.

Though I will take your advice since I am not really into Trees.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Sorry. I grew up in a time when hard work actually meant something. Success was not predominantly hinged on luck or gaming algorithms, but actually being _good_ at something, or working to become good at something.


If you grew up in America, you are either three hundred years old... or _no you didn't_. You might have been told that growing up, but that's not how it works. Luck and cheating is what this country was founded on--but rich rum smuggelrs.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> It's not sitting well with you because you are misquoting. I said they are making less while continuing to produce the same amount of work. Different people in different genres are saying this. They attribute it to visibility.


So, what they used to do isn't working any more. Maybe they should readjust their model to reflect the changing times?



> True but if it's on a downward trend overall, how low will it go?


Who knows? But if it's on an upward trend overall but along a different path, shouldn't we also ask how high can it go and how to I get off this branch going down and get on that branch going up?



> Visibility, bigger slush pile. Of course, there is no way to know this for certain. But it's the only thing that's really changed. Algorithms change, but people learn the new ones.


And what's preventing these people who are working 'just as hard' but not getting anywhere from also learn the new algorithms? This is a business. If I wanted to just be a writer, I'd query to get picked up by trad publishing. Being Indie means doing it all yourself and adjusting to the changes as they come, not sitting and lamenting things are like the good old days.



> These aren't trad pub authors. Or rather, some of them are actually hybrid authors and they were specifically talking about self published digital titles.


Okay. So? Whether it's trad pub authors talking about their indie released titles or pure indie writers who are operating under an old operating system, what's the difference? The question is have they adapted to the way things work now? Or are they still clinging to the way things used to be?



> My question is: What if you can't? What if you can't make a living as an author going indie in five or ten years (assuming you do now)? Not saying that'll happen, but who knows? If it does, will you go to Trad Publishing and beg for a deal? Or will you get a second job?


Here's a thing. Why not ask your father (if he's still alive. My sympathies if he's not  )? He went into business for himself, surely he must have some insight into that question. What would he have done if he couldn't have made a living being self-employed? Would he have had to sit down and some point and work out if what he was doing was still viable? If he had run it as far as he could and now it was too different for him to keep up? Maybe if he had just hit a hard patch, would he have gotten out and gotten that second job?



> I'm not the only person wondering if self-publishing is sustainable. What might the new models look like? What systems might emerge as a way to keep it as profitable as possible for all people involved?


Which is as it should be. The thing is, clinging to the way things used to be, trying to model business on how things used to be, wishing that things were still like they used to be is pretty darn useless.

The market _is_ changing. Buyer habits _are_ changing. Publishing, specifically indie publishing _is_ changing. Adapt or do something different. This question of can you make a living doing this down the road? No one can answer that. No one knows what that far down the road holds. Things are still changing and they're changing fast and predictive models can't keep up. All we can do is hang on for the ride.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Note: 'worth more', not 'harder working'. Someone who picks up a phone once a day and brings in a million dollar order is worth far more than someone who's calling hundreds of people in a day and bringing in a hundred dollar order.


I kind of fall into the Stephen King philosophy that if you're a competent writer and you work your ass off (his words not mine) you can become a good author.

Who picks up a pen and writes a bestseller as their first book? Someone probably has, but I can't think who at the moment. Even 50 Shades was fanfiction tweaked and polished for years on the net before being published.

The guy who can make one phone call for a million dollars? He made contacts, honed his people skills so he could get to that point.

Amazon created imprints and no one bats an eye when an indie author gets signed to one, but when you suggest that there be a similar digital equivalent without having to be signed exclusive to Amazon, it's suddenly unacceptable. I wonder if it's the "label" that bothers people. The idea that even though technically someone now could just check to see whether or not you were signed, they would have to expressly do that, not just see it on their screen without looking.

Having "Tier 1" or "Amazon Preferred Author" or whatever it would say by your name would give some legitmacy to some readers, while not having it or having a "Tier 2" or "Not Quite Ready for Primetime" next to their name seems somehow insulting. As though requiring the customer to dig a little deeper, if they were so inclined, to find out you're not signed somehow makes you feel better.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Cherise Kelley said:


> The only thing that has changed is now we are pitching directly to readers instead of to agents. All the hard work still comes into it, but we have to constantly pitch to new readers. It's no longer a one and done with scoring a good agent.


I don't think that it ever was like that. At least not for anyone who wasn't Tess Gerritsen or JK Rowling. I've read tales of authors whose agents simply forgot they even represented them. A guy sent his agent a new manuscript and the agent emailed him and said "Sorry we're not taking on new clients at this time." A bit of an awkward moment there when he had to remind the agent he was already being represented by them. And people who got book deals only to have Book 2 underperform and Book 3 was subsequently yanked from the publishing queue.

If Tales from the Internet can be believed, I don't think Traditional Publishing was as good or bad as either fundamentalist camp wants us to believe.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Vanilla Moon said:


> It was intended it to be a virtual dogpile.
> 
> "Hey, ya'll! In case you didn't see this person spouting a very unpopular opinion, I'll just make it look like they started a thread about it. So come on over and put your .02 in!"
> 
> ...


That may happen in other forums; it doesn't happen here. I assure you, that was NOT the reason it was moved. I moved it for the reason I explained. It was a perfectly legitimate, civil discussion. And I'm glad to see it has resumed. And hopefully stays civil. I haven't read beyond this yet.

Off to cook dinner.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

> kind of fall into the Stephen King philosophy that if you're a competent writer and you work your ass off (his words not mine) you can become a good author.


I would agree 100% with this statement. BUT being a good author does not equal being a successful author. They are not one in the same.

All that means is you can write, it does not mean bestseller.

Oh and thanks for the lovely afternoon. I did find a recipe too. We are having Indian Beef Curry.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> If you grew up in America, you are either three hundred years old... or _no you didn't_. You might have been told that growing up, but that's not how it works. Luck and cheating is what this country was founded on--but rich rum smuggelrs.


I'm just going to leave this one alone. I can tell by your posts that you are young and liberal and there is absolutely nothing either of us can say to the other that will have any impact.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

I can't ask him, unfortunately.

But I don't think I'm comfortable with the idea of "Let's not worry about whether or not the boat is sinking. We'll know if our feet get wet."

Right now the self-publishing model is changing. But who is doing the changing? It's not us. It's Amazon changing things, tweaking them. I think maybe authors should take more of an interest in writing as a career/ business pursuit and look for things that aren't working and find a way to fix them. Or at least know they exist.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> I would agree 100% with this statement. BUT being a good author does not equal being a successful author. They are not one in the same.
> 
> All that means is you can write, it does not mean bestseller.
> 
> Oh and thanks for the lovely afternoon. I did find a recipe too. We are having Indian Beef Curry.


He doesn't qualify "good." He only says if you're not born great, you never will be. No amount of hard work will make you a great author. On the back end he says that no matter how hard a bad author works, they will never be competent (and therefore never good.)

Interestingly enough, he never says which one he thinks he is.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Boyd said:


> Vanilla, I'd love to read one of your books, can you PM me a link?


Absolutely. It was just published today. Because I was born yesterday, you know?


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> It's not sitting well with you because you are misquoting. I said they are making less while continuing to produce the same amount of work. Different people in different genres are saying this. They attribute it to visibility.


But what if these people belong in that second tier you'd like? What if their books simply aren't that good or are getting worse? What if they put up five books in one month (that had been languishing under their coffee table), each the first of a new series, then proceeded to write one or two books over the next 12 to 18 months. Isn't any of those a far more likely explanation for a decrease in income than "I continue to produce the quality products readers liked and still want, but now no one is buying me because they have more choices."

Speaking for myself, I made almost as much in the first quarter of this year that I did all of last year. And last year was pretty darn good. I don't know of a single author friend whose revenue is moving in the wrong direction. Not a single one.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I kind of fall into the Stephen King philosophy that if you're a competent writer and you work your ass off (his words not mine) you can become a good author.


I think that still holds true. But good author does not mean they'll be a selling author. Good author does not guarantee successful author. Good author means good author and there's still that chance of languishing in obscurity.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I can't ask him, unfortunately.
> 
> But I don't think I'm comfortable with the idea of "Let's not worry about whether or not the boat is sinking. We'll know if our feet get wet."
> 
> Right now the self-publishing model is changing. But who is doing the changing? It's not us. It's Amazon changing things, tweaking them. I think maybe authors should take more of an interest in writing as a career/ business pursuit and look for things that aren't working and find a way to fix them. Or at least know they exist.


The self-publishing model is always changing, and it's always been that way. Our energies are best spent understanding the model and changing with it. Some people will fail to adapt, and they will fall off. I don't know what to say about that. I care. Kind of. But at the same time that's just the way it is. That's the way everything in the world is, and I'm quite confident that any effort spent trying to change the evolution of the self-publishing model would be better spent on changing myself in an attempt to adapt.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how paying for a cover and editing is 'honing your craft' or 'hard work'? Vanilla sailed right past that and it's like the core of everything he's saying here.

Also Vanilla please either stop hinting that you're someone's smurf account or just tell us who you are/were.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Take the following post with a grain of salt or sand or sugar.

Oh yes the boat is sinking.  You must unpublish now before it gets any worse.  You must find a new career now.  Can I recommend cross stitch book marks or crocheted blankets or those necklaces you see all over the place?  Or if you don't like that you can always knit something and sell it for a penny a stitch.
Because you can make a fortune in the creative arts.  But alas you can only sell each project once.

Now seriously if you are doing good at your writing; 
30% for taxes, 30% in savings for if the boat does sink and 40% to use for today.
Never count your chickens before they hatch.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I don't feel bitter. How can I? I'm not even a midlister yet. I'm doing pretty well, though at the moment. Sucks that it won't always be that way even if I work hard. I think I have a unique perspective. I've never done Trad Pub. I've never even queried. I just started self-publishing a few months ago to see what would happen.
> 
> So I'm not firmly entrenched in the Old System, never even put my toe in. And I wasn't beaten down by it and now taking up the pom poms for self-publishing while refusing to admit there might be significant problems with it. I think I'm new enough to self-publishing that I can spot things that other people won't talk about.
> 
> _It seems like many people have so thoroughly hitched their wagon to this star that I wonder about their ability to be objective. Maybe they're scared. Maybe they're angry. Maybe they're completely deluded. I don't know. _But when I read forums, or listen to podcasts, or read blogs, I'm intrigued by self-publishing while at the same time some things stick out to me that either don't make sense or just seem flat out untrue. And I wonder why there are so few people in the indie world pointing these things out.


Or maybe 'those people' are getting sales and making money and don't believe you don't know what you are talking about.

I can see that you are convinced that having come into this a few months ago (according to your own statement) that you are now an expert. I reserve the right to be skeptical.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> But I don't think I'm comfortable with the idea of "Let's not worry about whether or not the boat is sinking. We'll know if our feet get wet."


Which is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that if our feet are getting wet, conditions have changed and paddling faster is not going to keep our feet from getting less wet. Maybe we need to fix the leak instead of waiting for the boatmaker to do that.



> Right now the self-publishing model is changing. But who is doing the changing? It's not us. It's Amazon changing things, tweaking them.


And here is where I definitely disagree. Amazon is not changing things. Readers buying habits are what changes things.



> I think maybe authors *should take more of an interest in writing as a career/ business pursuit and look for things that aren't working and find a way to fix them. Or at least know they exist.*


And the bold is exactly what I'm saying, too. I'm just going one step further and saying it's the _individual author_ who needs to take charge of that and look to their own house first.

I'm just taking issue with your implication that things suck all over and nothing works like it used to, so let's implement changes so it changes back to the way it used to be, which is how you're coming across to me.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> Can someone PLEASE explain to me how paying for a cover and editing is 'honing your craft' or 'hard work'? Vanilla sailed right past that and it's like the core of everything he's saying here.


It's not. Editing and good covers are part of being a professional PUBLISHER, not a professional author. Improving craft is the authors job.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Or maybe 'those people' are getting sales and making money and don't believe you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> I can see that you are convinced that having come into this a few months ago (according to your own statement) that you are now an expert. I reserve the right to be skeptical.


+1


----------



## MT Berlyn (Mar 27, 2012)

anderson_gray said:


> I think that still holds true. But good author does not mean they'll be a selling author. Good author does not guarantee successful author. Good author means good author and there's still that chance of languishing in obscurity.


This is true. Very true. And I think this truth tends to be forgotten sometimes.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I'm just going to leave this one alone. I can tell by your posts that you are young and liberal


I am indeed awesome and know history. Thanks for asserting that, because I have limited space in my sig to do so.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Can someone PLEASE explain to me how paying for a cover and editing is 'honing your craft' or 'hard work'? Vanilla sailed right past that and it's like the core of everything he's saying here.
> 
> Also Vanilla please either stop hinting that you're someone's smurf account or just tell us who you are/were.


No. This is another one of those things that I can't explain to you. It's like asking, "Can someone explain why I would bother to put more effort into something when a mediocre effort will do just fine?"


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> Take the following post with a grain of salt or sand or sugar.
> 
> Oh yes the boat is sinking. You must unpublish now before it gets any worse. You must find a new career now. Can I recommend cross stitch book marks or crocheted blankets or those necklaces you see all over the place? Or if you don't like that you can always knit something and sell it for a penny a stitch.
> Because you can make a fortune in the creative arts. But alas you can only sell each project once.
> ...


Is that my only choice? Or can I make inroads with Trad Pub and use them as a lifeboat? Or suggest to Amazon to make changes, for all the good it would do. Or invest in someone's kickstarter for a Steam- the ebook version? Could I not just expend less effort for the same return and focus on something else in the downtime?

There are lots of options, if the boat was sinking. No one should count their chickens before they hatch, but neither should you put all your eggs in one basket maybe?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Okay, let's lay this out here, Vanilla.

You have asserted that your idea is intended to reward hard workers who know their craft and write awesome books.

However, your only criterion for getting that reward are things that a) have nothing to do with the actual content and craft of the books and b) can be taken care of by hurling money at the problem.

For someone who values hard work and skill, it's odd to me that you would advocate a quality assurance is based on paying to pass the requisite checks. I could sit on my keyboard for an hour, pay an editor $600 dollars to learn to hate me and buy a custom cover and I'm Tier 1.

On the other hand, I could work for years building up and carefully crafting my series over 4.5 million words at last check, not have the cash for either of those things despite the story and writing being as solid as a single pair of hands and as many proofreaders as the finest pizza and character focused stories requests can buy can make it and be Tier 2.

It's almost as if this idea doesn't do the thing you want it to do.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

JRTomlin said:


> Or maybe 'those people' are getting sales and making money and don't believe you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> I can see that you are convinced that having come into this a few months ago (according to your own statement) that you are now an expert. I reserve the right to be skeptical.


Not skeptical about self-publishing in general though, only about people who ask questions. That's your right.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Still reading through the thread while eating dinner (my, y'all have been busy today ) and things are looking pretty good overall.  Let's steer clear of personal comments about others and stick to debating the ideas, OK?

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Okay, let's lay this out here, Vanilla.
> 
> You have asserted that your idea is intended to reward hard workers who know their craft and write awesome books.
> 
> ...


Maybe not. If fiver and istock photo are out of your price range, I do have to wonder where you got your computer and who pays for your internet connection though.

So everyone's fine with people getting signed to an Amazon imprint as an example of doing well in self-publishing. But no one likes the idea of a digital version where you don't have to be exclusive. Got it. It was still worth asking about, in my opinion.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Can I give permission to make personal comments about me?


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Briteka said:


> The self-publishing model is always changing, and it's always been that way. Our energies are best spent understanding the model and changing with it. Some people will fail to adapt, and they will fall off. I don't know what to say about that. I care. Kind of. But at the same time that's just the way it is. That's the way everything in the world is, and I'm quite confident that any effort spent trying to change the evolution of the self-publishing model would be better spent on changing myself in an attempt to adapt.


Very well said. This is how I see it, too. I didn't when I was young. I was idealistic then, believing in the lie of the meritocracy.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Can I give permission to make personal comments about me?


I've gotten as personal as I'm going to get. And I only did it to point out that we are so far removed from each other in philosophy/values that there is just no point in going down that particular road. It can only lead to a slugfest, which is not what should happen here.

I didn't say you were better or worse, just that some things are so deeply entrenched in a person's psyche/personality that it's as much a part of who they are as the color of their eyes. I'm not opposed to dying on a hill, but I wouldn't pick that one because it doesn't further anything we're talking about really.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Maybe not. If fiver and istock photo are out of your price range, I do have to wonder where you got your computer and who pays for your internet connection though.


Hold up.

Fivr and homemade knocktogethers are now okay? When did this happen? What happened to the hard work and quality of getting a pro editor and cover guy?

Somebody inform the kicker, cause these goalposts are moving.



> So everyone's fine with people getting signed to an Amazon imprint as an example of doing well in self-publishing. But no one likes the idea of a digital version where you don't have to be exclusive. Got it. It was still worth asking about, in my opinion.


That's not what you initially proposed, which is pretty hard to prove since I destroyed the post where you propose it, but you wanted _separate stores_ akin to the Adult Dungeon. Amazon Imprints are still part of the Amazon book store and connects to all the other books (even mine!).

It just seems that standards have degraded considerably since the original post.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

AND you can make all the personal comments you want about me too.

Oh and I was just saying that if books are sinking perhaps another creative endeavor would suit you better.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I've gotten as personal as I'm going to get. And I only did it to point out that we are so far removed from each other in philosophy/values that there is just no point in going down that particular road. It can only lead to a slugfest, which is not what should happen here.


Who said anything about slugging? I'm just taking a crowbar to the logic of your plan and that has nothing to do with my politics.

The cunning plan to end the slush pile is... to do absolutely nothing about quality and instead convert it into payola.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Hold up.
> 
> Fivr and homemade knocktogethers are now okay? When did this happen? What happened to the hard work and quality of getting a pro editor and cover guy?
> 
> Somebody inform the kicker, cause these goalposts are moving.


I maintained all along that someone could do their own editing/cover art. There are plenty of people who can. Who cares how it got that way (other than plaigarism?) Remember the Smashwords analogy? Smashwords doesn't care who did the formatting, just that the final product is good. Editing is the same way. I don't care if you did it yourself, hired a bunch of beta readers, or kidnapped Stephen King's editor and went all Annie Wilkes on him until he edited your latest book (though I don't recommend that because I don't think you can't get royalties from a crime you committed).



> That's not what you initially proposed, which is pretty hard to prove since I destroyed the post where you propose it, but you wanted _separate stores_ akin to the Adult Dungeon. Amazon Imprints are still part of the Amazon book store and connects to all the other books (even mine!).
> 
> It just seems that standards have degraded considerably since the original post.


It's exactly what I proposed. I said similar to but _not exactly like_ the Adult Dungeon. It still appears on the front page, just like the Top 100 Free list does. Does it really bother you so much that there would be an extra tab that says "Amazon Top Tier Authors" sandwiched somewhere between "Daily Deals" and "Free Reading Apps" and Amazon's best ranked authors are listed when you click it?


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I've gotten as personal as I'm going to get. And I only did it to point out that we are so far removed from each other in philosophy/values that there is just no point in going down that particular road. It can only lead to a slugfest, which is not what should happen here.
> 
> I didn't say you were better or worse, just that some things are so deeply entrenched in a person's psyche/personality that it's as much a part of who they are as the color of their eyes. I'm not opposed to dying on a hill, but I wouldn't pick that one because it doesn't further anything we're talking about really.


The odd thing is that your position seems to be the liberal one, to me.

I see liberalism as the meritocracy where someone keeps score and we all work for points.

I see conservatism as the free market where we all have equal opportunities but market forces determine our success or failure and we each must take responsibility for our own success.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Who said anything about slugging? I'm just taking a crowbar to the logic of your plan and that has nothing to do with my politics.
> 
> The cunning plan to end the slush pile is... to do absolutely nothing about quality and instead convert it into payola.


I don't want to end the slush pile. I just want to be able to work my out of it entirely. And having a top tier digital marketplace might be a way for me to do that.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I maintained all along that someone could do their own editing/cover art. There are plenty of people who can. Who cares how it got that way (other than plaigarism?) Remember the Smashwords analogy? Smashwords doesn't care who did the formatting, just that the final product is good. Editing is the same way. I don't care if you did it yourself, hired a bunch of beta readers, or kidnapped Stephen King's editor and went all Annie Wilkes on him until he edited your latest book (though I don't recommend that because I don't think you can't get royalties from a crime you committed).
> 
> It's exactly what I proposed. I said similar to but _not exactly like_ the Adult Dungeon. It still appears on the front page, just like the Top 100 Free list does. Does it really bother you so much that there would be an extra tab that says "Amazon Top Tier Authors" sandwiched somewhere between "Daily Deals" and "Free Reading Apps" and Amazon's best ranked authors are listed when you click it?


Yes because how many people would actually see that tier. And it is an extra click for no good reason.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I don't want to end the slush pile. I just want to be able to work my out of it entirely. And having a top tier digital marketplace might be a way for me to do that.


Or Amazon could think you belong in the slush pile. It could be good or bad for you. Since I am assuming on two tier idea that the authors don't get to pick where they belong.

Note to self apply for a job at Amazon as an author/amazon go-between.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Cherise Kelley said:


> The odd thing is that your position seems to be the liberal one, to me.
> 
> I see liberalism as the meritocracy where someone keeps score and we all work for points.
> 
> I see conservatism as the free market where we all have equal opportunities but market forces determine our success or failure and we each must take responsibility for our own success.


Regardless of whether it's liberal or conservative, what do you think should be done with the "points" we all earn? Because right now we do nothing with them except a few Amazon-only bestseller lists.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> Or Amazon could think you belong in the slush pile. It could be good or bad for you. Since I am assuming on two tier idea that the authors don't get to pick where they belong.
> 
> Note to self apply for a job at Amazon as an author/amazon go-between.


So you think you get to pick where you belong now?


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

This is waaaay funner than just reading the even pages of _The Great Gatsby_, though only half as meaningful.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2014)

Saul Tanpepper said:


> This is waaaay funner than just reading the even pages of _The Great Gatsby_, though only half as meaningful.


If you're searching for meaning on an internet forum, you're doing it wrong. Just saying.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> So you think you get to pick where you belong now?


I have not written my book yet although somedays it is tempting.
Cin is a joy the uncut version.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Cherise Kelley said:


> The odd thing is that your position seems to be the liberal one, to me.
> 
> I see liberalism as the meritocracy where someone keeps score and we all work for points.
> 
> I see conservatism as the free market where we all have equal opportunities but market forces determine our success or failure and we each must take responsibility for our own success.


Methodology is bugged. Liberalism's (American Librealism at least) would be a meritocracy where everyone is free to play and there controls on cheating or otherwise getting unearned advantages... like say sealing people out of the market.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

Vanilla Moon said:


> If you're searching for meaning on an internet forum, you're doing it wrong. Just saying.


What can I say? I'm a romantic at heart.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I don't want to end the slush pile. I just want to be able to work my out of it entirely. And having a top tier digital marketplace might be a way for me to do that.


I think I've read all of this thread -- but I didn't read the one that spawned it and therefore might be a bit confused -- but I'm curious about something that I don't think has been addressed. Who gets to be the arbiter of what is top tier and what is not? Would it be Amazon employees, the same ones who decide what goes in the adult dungeon? Would it be a neutral third party? Would it be put to a vote, and in that case who would be allowed to vote?

Also, is the decision going to be strictly based on whether the book has a nice cover and a lack of typos? Because I have seen some stories that had lovely covers and no real typos to speak of, but the story itself was a steaming pile. If I had to choose between one or the other, I'd take the good story with the typos over the steaming pile any day.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2014)

Greer said:


> Also, is the decision going to be strictly based on whether the book has a nice cover and a lack of typos?


Yep.



> Because I have seen some stories that had lovely covers and no real typos to speak of, but the story itself was a steaming pile. If I had to choose between one or the other, I'd take the good story with the typos over the steaming pile any day.


I don't care about content. Let the readers sort it out as they always do. Some titles will sink to the bottom of their respective lists. But even the bottom of the Top Tier list earns you more money than the bottom of Tier 2.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I maintained all along that someone could do their own editing/cover art. There are plenty of people who can. Who cares how it got that way (other than plaigarism?) Remember the Smashwords analogy? Smashwords doesn't care who did the formatting, just that the final product is good. Editing is the same way. I don't care if you did it yourself, hired a bunch of beta readers, or kidnapped Stephen King's editor and went all Annie Wilkes on him until he edited your latest book (though I don't recommend that because I don't think you can't get royalties from a crime you committed).


First, that's not what you said. In fact, you specifically implied that people who pay for covers and editing 'deserve' rewards for their expenditures.

Second, and this is important *IT STILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CRAFT*. Craft is about the storytelling and concept, not the typos and cover art. All your proposal is doing is rewarding people for everything _but_ craft, but you keep touting it as something to do with skill.



> It's exactly what I proposed. I said similar to but _not exactly like_ the Adult Dungeon. It still appears on the front page, just like the Top 100 Free list does. Does it really bother you so much that there would be an extra tab that says "Amazon Top Tier Authors" sandwiched somewhere between "Daily Deals" and "Free Reading Apps" and Amazon's best ranked authors are listed when you click it?


1) This isn't what you proposed and I wish to Bahamut that I'd copied and pasted what you _did_ say. You specifically suggested segregating the books because you didn't think Amazon's filters were doing what you wanted.

2) How in the name of all that is fluffy and adorable does this new proposal differ from the best sellers list? Shouldn't, according to incorrect market theory, the best books already be on _that_ list? Shouldn't all the 'bad' books already be at the very bottom already?

How is this thing even populated? Are there guys ranking these by best cover or something?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

OH so you are saying money talks and [expletive] walks.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Greer said:


> I think I've read all of this thread -- but I didn't read the one that spawned it and therefore might be a bit confused -- but I'm curious about something that I don't think has been addressed. Who gets to be the arbiter of what is top tier and what is not?


*ME*


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Yep.
> 
> I don't care about content. Let the readers sort it out as they always do. Some titles will sink to the bottom of their respective lists. But even the bottom of the Top Tier list earns you more money than the bottom of Tier 2.


But who gets to decide what makes a nice cover?

And if what you want is a lack of typos, why don't we just go one step farther, and say that Amazon should reject any manuscript outright that has more than one typo per ten thousand words? Or whatever your benchmark for quality happens to be. That would certainly cut down on the 'slush pile'.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I don't care about content. Let the readers sort it out as they always do. Some titles will sink to the bottom of their respective lists. But even the bottom of the Top Tier list earns you more money than the bottom of Tier 2.


How are you enforcing this?

Since in your original deleted proposal, you suggested the tiers have minimum and maximum prices respectively, what's stopping the bottom Tier on from selling 1/month a 5.99 and the top of Tier 2 from selling 10,000/month at 99 cents?


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> *ME*


But I wanna do iiiiiiiiit.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I'd also like to point out that the KDP uploader spellchecks your book when you upload it, so any typos will be spellcheck-proof errors in the first place, so no robots to check up on it.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Greer said:


> But I wanna do iiiiiiiiit.


Too bad. Called dibs.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> Too bad. Called dibs.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> I'd also like to point out that the KDP uploader spellchecks your book when you upload it, so any typos will be spellcheck-proof errors in the first place, so no robots to check up on it.


That isn't entirely true. As of the last time I uploaded a book, you can simply bypass the spellchecker by telling it that the mistakes are not actually mistakes. I'm guessing a lot of the books that are rife with errors got pushed through without ever being checked.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I don't care about content.


Quotin' dis so it can't be deleted.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Greer said:


> That isn't entirely true. As of the last time I uploaded a book, you can simply bypass the spellchecker by telling it that the mistakes are not actually mistakes. I'm guessing a lot of the books that are rife with errors got pushed through without ever being checked.


I can't imagine why you wouldn't use it though, since it automagically puts it into the file.

It also learns! After the first RB book, it stopped complaining about flaer, ere-a, akua and the like with all the books thereafter.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Really? Nobody ever heard of Poe's Law?

(And I don't mean Edgar Allan)


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Greer said:


> But who gets to decide what makes a nice cover?


Can I vote for more half-naked bodies?

I'll be okay with kittens. You know, the fuzzy ones with their kitten fur and their blue eyes? Upvote those, please.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Vanilla Moon said:


> I don't care about content. Let the readers sort it out as they always do. Some titles will sink to the bottom of their respective lists. But even the bottom of the Top Tier list earns you more money than the bottom of Tier 2.


Okay, so for those of us in the back, let me see if I heard this right. This...conversation that has been going on for 6 pages now, is not about quality of the content rising and crap sinking. It is not about the better author or the good author.

It's about letting those with the slicker packaging rise to the top to knock boots with the big boys and the rougher packaging sinks to the bottom of the cesspool.

And that it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the author can actually write. Only that they have the prettier cover.

...?


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

I think that everyone who is unhappy with how they are selling should immediately unpublish.  Visibility problem, such as it is, solved--by definition.


----------



## Gennita Low (Dec 13, 2012)

The top tier books are in the Amazon Daily Deals, yo.

The rest of us are Tier Two, with no secret sauce //hangs head.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Really? Nobody ever heard of Poe's Law?
> 
> (And I don't mean Edgar Allan)


Poe?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Poeslaw

Or Sturgeon?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SturgeonsLaw


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

anderson_gray said:


> Okay, so for those of us in the back, let me see if I heard this right. This...conversation that has been going on for 6 pages now, is not about quality of the content rising and crap sinking. It is not about the better author or the good author.
> 
> It's about letting those with the slicker packaging rise to the top to knock boots with the big boys and the rougher packaging sinks to the bottom of the cesspool.
> 
> ...


Yeah. Who cares about content or craft? As long as it looks pretty, it's tier one, baby!

This whole thread must be someone just having a go. It's of the nutty.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> Poe?
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Poeslaw
> 
> Or Sturgeon?
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SturgeonsLaw


Sturgeon's Law is a fundamental law of the universe.

But this is definitely a poe. And if I'm not mistaken Betsy knows who it is. (If it isn't Betsy herself).


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Not skeptical about self-publishing in general though, only about people who ask questions. That's your right.


Self-publishing buys my groceries, pays my mortgage and buys me the occasional bottle of wine. People who ask questions don't. So guess which one I consider skeptically.

Yep, you guessed right.


----------



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

Vanilla Moon said:


> I don't want to end the slush pile. I just want to be able to work my out of it entirely.


Then you have a solution at hand that should make you happy. Submit to traditional publishers. They will judge your worthiness. Once you finally satisfy them you will be *out of the slush pile.* You may be further away from earning a living than a lot of us trudging along in the tsunami of crap, but you will be *out of the slush pile.* Maybe by that time KBoards will have a signature icon for it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Andrew Ashling said:


> (If it isn't Betsy herself).


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

I've been out of the slush pile.  It's not all it's cracked up to be.  My chances of letting a publisher have another crack at my books is approximately the same as frost, hell, etc.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Vanilla Moon said:


> Regardless of whether it's liberal or conservative, what do you think should be done with the "points" we all earn? Because right now we do nothing with them except a few Amazon-only bestseller lists.


There are no points. The points don't exist. They are an illusion. (Matrix reference)

There is no score keeper.* Not in a free society. Only in a dictatorship can there be a score keeper with the power to make the points 'worth' anything. I prefer the freedom of infinite possibilities we have when the system remains open to market forces.

You are right that we need Amazon more than it needs us. Amazon does have all the power. I believe that if Amazon created this two-tier system that has been proposed, then Amazon would be even more of a dictator than it already is. It could pigeonhole us more easily into the second tier where we never got any visibility.

Everyone who supports a ruler getting more power assumes he or she will stay in that ruler's good graces. History tells us this is a foolish assumption. You assume you will be in the top tier. I am not willing to make that assumption.

If we think of Amazon as the score keeper and the money we make for Amazon as the points... As it is now, an indie is able to get into the top 100 bestsellers, right up there with the trade published authors. I love that. I am still in awe that my books are even on Amazon right up there with the trade published books. I vote to leave things as they are. The popular books that readers like make it to the tops of the charts. The unpopular books that readers dislike sink into obscurity. But we are all in the same marketplace together competing for the same readers under the same rules. I like that. I like it a lot.

*I do believe in God, but I do not think He is keeping score. I do not believe we can earn our way into His good graces. But that is off topic.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Sturgeon's Law is a fundamental law of the universe.
> 
> But this is definitely a poe. And if I'm not mistaken Betsy knows who it is. (If it isn't Betsy herself).


Sounds like Vanilla is actually applying the Ghetto Corollary:



> A "respectable" genre will always be judged by the 10% of good works, but a stigmatized genre will always be judged by the 90% of bad works.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Monique said:


> Yeah. Who cares about content or craft? As long as it looks pretty, it's tier one, baby!
> 
> This whole thread must be someone just having a go. It's of the nutty.


All the person's posts but one appear to be in this thread, and there are already dozens. We've seen this all before.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

shelleyo1 said:


> All the person's posts but one appear to be in this thread, and there are already dozens. We've seen this all before.


Yup. I'm surprised so many bothered to post (11 pages!) to a thread like this


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Monique said:


> Yup. I'm surprised so many bothered to post (11 pages!) to a thread like this


Slow day?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

If you're not interested in the thread, don't read it, don't post to it.

Betsy


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Me thinks we've been had.  So drinks all around provided there is any booze left.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> If you're not interested in the thread, don't read it, don't post to it.
> 
> Betsy


What if I'm interested in why other people are interested? That's a valid interest.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

My Amazon homepage has "Top New and Upcoming Releases" right there in plain sight. Top tier, ready for der clickety. The Books page has lists on the left of the Best of This, the Best of That, Best, Best, Best. There are bestseller lists and rankings and featured books aplenty. Tiers are already in place.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I knew this thread would end with someone in tiers.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Briteka said:


> At this point, I have no idea what I was responding to.
> 
> My point is that it's debatable that the things you listed should be allowed in a free market and that they add to competition. I may be agreeing with you. I may be disagreeing with you. I have no idea. This entire thread now confuses me.


I didn't say they should be allowed. I said they exist. The extent to which they exist diminishes the freedom of the market.



Koko said:


> LOL You don't think they're making a profit now?


Amazon makes a very small profit now. I think it will take a loss this quarter.



> So I ask again: When Amazon has the market mostly cornered on everything from toilet paper to bananas, what happens when they decide to actually turn a profit on publishing and distribution?


There have been very few successful corners. It requires controlling both supply, stocks, and future supply. There are zillions of suppliers, and we have no reason to think Amazon can control them. It would help if we had an example of a retail monopoly or retail corner. Then we could compare it to Amazon.

Alternatively, one could corner all that stuff with government force.

The most successful modern corner was DeBeers. They controlled supply until the Russians broke their power, and the blood diamond producets ignored it. But that was with a single product, and they couldnt maintain it.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Monique said:


> I knew this thread would end with someone in tiers.


Monique wins the Internet today.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Monique said:


> What if I'm interested in why other people are interested? That's a valid interest.


Off topic.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I wouldn't mind at all if Amazon initiated a two tiered system. I would expect both Google and Apple to bid for the second tier. I challenge anyone to divide a million books into good and bad tiers. Nobody has a grasp of what is lurking in there. Top tier would contain only one of several subsets of good books. 

Amazon would be doing the work, and Google and Apple would reap the rewards.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hey, folks, I've been in conversation with the OP (although, for truth in advertising, Vanilla Moon is only the OP because of the thread split I did) and he/she will not be rejoining the thread.

It's been fun, but it's time to move on. Monique does, indeed, win the thread.

Congrats to Terrence for being in our newest posting level, the Jeffry S. Hepple, for posters who have at least 9808 posts. (See this thread for more discussion: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,184691.0.html)

Y'all have a great evening.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------

