# Did you guys see this? New INDIE search category on Amazon? Whoo hooo!



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=amb_link_374582142_27?ie=UTF8&node=3059252011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=left-1&pf_rd_r=0K4MZDN42X0JC7PFY3DX&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1552619282&pf_rd_i=154606011

Just noticed this today. Now on the main page, a person can click on "Indie" and find us.

In the words of Napoleon Dynamite: _Sweeeeet._


----------



## GWakeling (Mar 23, 2012)

WOW! Well that is rather neat! Great for readers looking to support us indie's


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

OMG this is so cool! And you can browse by Fantasy and Teen!!! Love it.


----------



## Annette_g (Nov 27, 2012)

Fantasy is a rather big umbrella there, I like the stuff that isn't UF or paranormal, but they all get lumped into fantasy as well, LOL!


----------



## Lissie (May 26, 2011)

Hmm so long as it doesn't turn into a ghetto as the ONLY place we can add our books


----------



## Saffron (May 22, 2013)

It looks like a fab idea, and they are grouping/theming collections. I was thrilled to see my book cover there, until I noticed the heading "You viewed", which presumably means it's not actually on the general page and other people don't see it, but see what "they viewed" (LOL).  Would we have to add an "indie" tag somewhere in our book metadata? I'm a bit confused about that.


----------



## Raquel Lyon (Mar 3, 2012)

Not sure about this.
My first thoughts were:


Lissie said:


> Hmm so long as it doesn't turn into a ghetto as the ONLY place we can add our books


Then I thought I'd check it out. So I clicked on the link, then on the 'teen' link at the side. It showed me 7 books with no scrolling bar or way to search for others except a link that says _see more in the Kindle Indie Store_. Clicking on that takes you back to the first page.

There are 25 books in the other categories, but I can't see an advantage to any authors who aren't one of the privileged.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

Yeah, does this mean we're no longer visible alongside the "real" books? Can't say the thought of blatant segregation fills me with joy. Like does anyone actually search specifically for indie books?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Have to say, this was my first thought...very few readers search this way.  I certainly don't.  (But then, I rarely search...I usually go to Amazon knowing the book I want.)

Betsy


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

I remember looking at the Amazon forums, a while back, and some people were begging for a way to search so they didn't have to see the 'indie' books.  I hope they didn't get it.


----------



## Daizie (Mar 27, 2013)

I don't know. I'm not sure I like this idea.


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

Yeah, I'm not sure this is a good thing. I have a bad feeling this is the start of indie segregation.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I don't know. When I tried to find the Indie section without going through the link here, I couldn't even find it. So I'm not sure it will make a difference either way. All the lists I could find had both trad and indie books on them, so I don't think they are segregating anything.


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

Interesting...

"Welcome to the Kindle Indie Bookstore. "Indie" is hard to define, but anything cool, creative, and different is "indie." The Kindle Indie Bookstore is a unique experience in the literary world, a place to discover the next great authors and their books."

No part of their definition actually has anything to do with being an indy.


----------



## NicoleY (May 21, 2013)

Like others said, my first worry was the segregation from other books.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Ever the cynical sourpuss, I have a bad feeling about that.

How does Amazon know you're an indie, anyway? I have listed my company as the publisher on some of my books, to see if it makes a difference NOT to look like an indie when people look at the book page. 

I do see Wool listed on the sci-fi page - I can't imagine that they'd shift him over there.  The sci-fi page has one page of titles before you have to go to the "Kindle Indie Store" for more. wth? That's just bad news, because that link is miniscule.

Then following that they list only top sellers and, for some reason Mystery & Thrillers, and LIterary.  I see no way to find titles in other categories. 
I am really worried at this point.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Have to say, this was my first thought...very few readers search this way. I certainly don't. (But then, I rarely search...I usually go to Amazon knowing the book I want.)
> 
> Betsy


^^This.

When I do search it's by genre, not by what publisher puts the book out. I don't care about that at all. I will occasionally search on author name, but usually know exactly what book I want. . . . more often than not it's been recommended here (or sometimes elsewhere) and I'm linking directly to it anyway.


----------



## Isabelking (Jan 16, 2012)

How did you find that category? I couldn't find it when I went to AMazon.com - although I'm only on my first cup of coffee.

If this is going to end up being where all indie writers are featured - a separate category for self-published - then I think we're in deep trouble. I think the vast majority of readers wouldn't bother looking in the indie section. This is my livelihood - I'm honestly very worried.

If it's just a way to promote successful indies - looking over the titles, I see a lot of huge sellers and well known names - then bravo!  God, I hope that's what it is. I was getting used to earning a living wage.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

Prepare to be filtered and removed from general search, guys. It's not going to be just erotica anymore. This is not a pro-indie move.

M


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

It there any similar rumblings about this at the other vendors?

This would certainly be the last straw I need to ditch Select and move out.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Isabelking said:


> How did you find that category? I couldn't find it when I went to AMazon.com - although I'm only on my first cup of coffee.


When you go to Kindle books and look down the genre sections on the left one of the options is Indie. No idea how long it's been there. . . . . .


----------



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

Am I the only one who is paranoid and seeing downsides here? 

A short while ago there were threads in amazon forums expressing reader's wishes to avoid indie books or for a way to avoid self pubbers. Now there is this search tool. What is to stop amazon using whatever tag they use to enable this search to exclude our books from searches? Nothing. It is just one step away. A tick box to exclude or include indies. How many of you think that readers won't untick us?

I'm against segregation based upon publisher type. Surely search by cat, by genre, by keyword, by author, by title... asin isbn etc etc is more than enough? Labelling us as indie when we all try to match quality with trade pubs is bad. Rightly or wrongly, many readers equate indie with lower quality.


----------



## CEMartin2 (May 26, 2012)

Crossing my fingers this is Amazon being mad at the Big Six/traditional and deciding that consumers should be buying more indies.


----------



## Isabelking (Jan 16, 2012)

Arggh. This is very, very frightening to me - and it makes me realize how much I depend on Amazon for my livelihood. It's about 70 percent Amazon, 25 percent Nook, 5 percent Smashwords/Kobo at this point.  

Apparently people who publish through their own indie publishing companies are listed there too - so creating your own publishing company won't necessarily save you.

I guess the only thing constant in the digital world is change. I used to be able to make a living at Internet Marketing - then Google made a bunch of changes and made it very hard.

And when Amazon and Nook started out, absolutely everybody could upload pretty much anything that they wanted as long as it wasn't plagiarized or didn't violate very basic TOS. I always worried that opportunists (not authors, but the kind of people who create fake adsense sites) would take advantage of this by flooding the store with garbage/scam type stuff/really extreme porn and that the publishers would have to step in with more efficient ways to enforce quality control - and this could be what's happened.

I really, really hope this is just a way to promote successful indies and we don't all get slapped with an "Indie" label and told to go sit in a corner in the back.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

CEMartin2 said:


> Crossing my fingers this is Amazon being mad at the Big Six/traditional and deciding that consumers should be buying more indies.


I believe we were in that phase last year. It was called 'the big six have been caught colluding to price fix and we're going to punish them until they lose the lawsuit brought by the DOJ.' Hence 2012 was the golden year for indies.

Now we're in the phase of 'we have the pricing and contracts from the big six that we want so who needs indies?'

M


----------



## dotx (Nov 4, 2010)

TattooedWriter said:


> This is not good news.
> 
> I said this was going to happen as far back as July last year. No one listened....


I agree. I see this as being labeled "self-published and not worthy it of being in the same section as the other books." Might not be there yet, but it's going that way...


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

I wonder if books distributer via D2D get labelled indie? Could be a way out of getting the tag.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

Wait. Per KDP this looks like an indie showcase. Possibly. They can change their policy at any time, but as Amazon policy reads now perhaps it's not so dire.

https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?moduleId=200734540


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

In case it hasn't been noted, the indie bookstore itself isn't new - it's almost 2 years old.

http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2011/08/11/the-kindle-indie-bookstore-launched-yesterday/

It's not a ghetto, it's another discoverability page for what Amazon wants to promote

https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?moduleId=200734540

If anything about this is new - it's just that in a very long list on links on the left side of the kindle bookstore page, it's now a direct link to the section.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

That news story link doesn't work for me. Maybe this one?

http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2011/08/11/the-kindle-indie-bookstore-launched-yesterday/


----------



## NicoleY (May 21, 2013)

Christa Wick said:


> In case it hasn't been noted, the indie bookstore itself isn't new - it's almost 2 years old.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2011/08/11/the-kindle-indie-bookstore-launched-yesterday/
> 
> ...


This allows me to breathe easier lol. Thank you for your clarification on it. And though I often don't browse books on Amazon (I usually find other self-pub books by Bookbub or forums or blogs), it seems to be a good page to look at every so often.


----------



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

I am very worried about this. I am just about making a living writing full time and amazon is 90% of my business. Anything that reduces visibility could literally ruin me. If ingram's new spark thing has anything to do with this i am going to be vrry annoyed with them.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

mrv01d said:


> Wait. Per KDP this looks like an indie showcase. Possibly. They can change their policy at any time, but as Amazon policy reads now perhaps it's not so dire.
> https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?moduleId=200734540


You might have something there. I only seem to be able to browse main categories, top sellers and "recommendations". There is no way to drill down past that, at least not now.

Clicking around I ended up on a page that did have a small "see more recommendations" button at bottom right but when I went back there it was gone. It seems to be a work in progress.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

mrv01d said:


> Prepare to be filtered and removed from general search, guys. It's not going to be just erotica anymore. This is not a pro-indie move.
> 
> M


I agree. THIS IS NOT GOOD. I warned a couple of months ago that Amazon would add a category and start shifting self published books out of the mainstream. Plenty here scoffed and thought I was being paranoid. I pointed out it was a way to keep publishers happy as they view us as stealing our sales, and a way to keep readers happy who view self published books as low quality.

Hopefully, they won't shift all of us over; especially those of us who have proven our books sell well while competing against traditionals.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Just want to say that it's totally awesome that, at 9am on a Saturday morning, you can find people who share your concerns, panic, reassurances, and paranoia on such a narrow subject?
Thank you Harvey and gang that I don't have to freak out all by  my lonesome.


----------



## Isabelking (Jan 16, 2012)

I don't think Amazon would create an indie category to please publishers - why would they? Publishers can't afford to walk away from Amazon, they need Amazon, especially with brick and mortar bookstores going out of business left and right.  I think that Amazon would create an indie bookstore to give customers what they (Amazon) perceives as a "quality customer experience" - which is what they strive to be known for. For indie authors, it would be a disaster, of course. But it would solve the problem of opportunists uploading plagiarized books, people uploading the extreme hard-core porn that offends customers, people uploading low-quality, unedited, barely readable books...because they'd all be in indie-land behind a curtain.  

Arggh. I'm so stressed right now.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Hopefully, they won't shift all of us over; especially those of us who have proven our books sell well while competing against traditionals.


So only the "bad" books? New authors? Less than four stars? Sales rank on the wrong side of 100k? In other words, the 'trash' no one in their right mind would sort through, given the options? Shift some indies but not others? I'm sorry, Lisa, this sounds a little self-serving. You can't really be a "little bit indie".


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> When you go to Kindle books and look down the genre sections on the left one of the options is Indie. No idea how long it's been there. . . . . .


So, this is obviously just one data point, but I've been seeing that genre section for at least a month now! Perhaps they were testing it? I admit I thought it was cool.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> I remember looking at the Amazon forums, a while back, and some people were begging for a way to search so they didn't have to see the 'indie' books. I hope they didn't get it.


If this just went into effect yesterday, and they did do something to put the Indie books there, it would explain some things. It's too soon to tell, but in the last 40 hours, my books seemed to have dropped off the radar on Amazon. I had a book go perma-free, so I was all excited, it was doing well and then the free downloads stopped like someone pulled a plug. Not only that, but my three paid books, and the two set versions of them, stopped selling as well. I've sold 2 books in 40 hours when I normally sell at least 15 times that. I have no other explanation. It might not be this as it could be the holiday weekend, but I haven't had a drought like this in at least two years.


----------



## Griffin Hayes (Sep 20, 2011)

TattooedWriter said:


> This is not good news.
> 
> I said this was going to happen as far back as July last year. No one listened....


My first thought upon seeing this was: Wow, that's really not good. First Amazon puts paid and free books on two separate pages, then they (and B&N) tamper with sales ranks on indie books, now this. But here's the sad and scary reality. Even if the KB community would have listened to TattooedWriter's prediction, there isn't a damn thing anyone could have done about it. The truth is, as much as we indies love our freedom, we're completely at the mercy of the Great Zon and any other vendor who decides to play god.


----------



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

Rlyon said:


> Not sure about this.
> My first thoughts were:
> Then I thought I'd check it out. So I clicked on the link, then on the 'teen' link at the side. It showed me 7 books with no scrolling bar or way to search for others except a link that says _see more in the Kindle Indie Store_. Clicking on that takes you back to the first page.
> 
> There are 25 books in the other categories, but I can't see an advantage to any authors who aren't one of the privileged.


I also looked at 'teen'. It says books rated 4 stars, but one book has only one review. The more reviews you get, the more likely your star rating will drop.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Quiss said:


> Just want to say that it's totally awesome that, at 9am on a Saturday morning, you can find people who share your concerns, panic, reassurances, and paranoia on such a narrow subject?
> Thank you Harvey and gang that I don't have to freak out all by my lonesome.


It's not paranoia. It's going to happen. Why? KKR pointed out in her article this week that over 3 million books received ISBN numbers. Just a few years ago, that number would have topped out at 65K. 
It's a matter of giving customers what they want. As they search and buy, Amazon's algorithms will pick choices based on current buying patterns. Those of us who can publish fast, and have built up fan bases and email lists won't be affected as much, because we can get the word out there when we have new offerings. Our books will keep popping up in the also boughts and the best seller lists and we will survive.

However, those who have not built up that skill set and tool, will release a new book, get relegated to the "Indie" bookstore, and their offering will sink to the dark depths of no visibility.

Publishers do have built in marketing machines. They can schedule books for pre-order by book stores. They will automatically get a head start and start replacing some of the mid-list self published books. Less self published books will show up in the also boughts, and more trade books will pop in.

It will naturally "weed" them out.

This is a normal business practice that has been going on for ages. It goes on in other aspects of life, too.

Here's an article that at first may not seem to be related, but is:

Victorian Era People were Smarter than Today's
http://www.itechpost.com/articles/9496/20130520/victorian-era-people-smarter-today.htm

It talks about how less intelligent people have more babies, essentially over time, lowering the population's IQ.

Businesses however, can control what they want to be visible to"weed" out the rest.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Christa Wick said:


> In case it hasn't been noted, the indie bookstore itself isn't new - it's almost 2 years old.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2011/08/11/the-kindle-indie-bookstore-launched-yesterday/
> 
> ...


THIS!

If anything, it looks like *a showcase, not a "ghetto." *Hence the limited number of titles found in each subcategory. And this explains why I've been seeing that Indie genre link for so long.

I understand the inclination to worry, but I REALLY don't think that's needed here yet.

I would say that Amazon has much more of a financial interest in showcasing good indies and making bestsellers of KDP-ers thank they do in creating an Indie "ghetto" and pandering to the Big 6. Self-pub is a huge thing Amazon's got going for them, and I think they know that.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Mary- your categories, bestseller rank, and sales rank seem decent, so I am betting that sales updating might be glitching rather than any actual effect.

Also, I checked a bunch of indie titles and we all seem to be on the regular genre lists and bestseller lists (well, those books that are selling well enough that I can check that stuff). So I don't think segregation is happening as yet, if it will at all. 

The indie section isn't new. I remember a minor panic over it a while back. I think this new link in the side bar is just that, a new link to the already existing thing.  I don't think it it is in Amazon's best financial interest to somehow hide indies when they've proven that they provide content that sells. So I'm not going to panic yet. Seems way way too early for panic.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Hopefully, they won't shift all of us over; especially those of us who have proven our books sell well while competing against traditionals.


That's not really fair to newbies though. They should have the same chance to breakout as any of us who have been doing this awhile.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

For those worried about Indie segregation: If you look at the Indie 100 bestsellers list, you will see that the #100 book on that list is #266 in the entire store. In other words, there are roughly as many indies in the upper tier of sales as there are traditionally published. Why would Amazon ever want to make those moneymakers harder to find?


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

Mike McIntyre said:


> For those worried about Indie segregation: If you look at the Indie 100 bestsellers list, you will see that the #100 book on that list is #266 in the entire store. In other words, there are roughly as many indies in the upper tier of sales as there are traditionally published. Why would Amazon ever want to make those moneymakers harder to find?


Agreed - why would Amazon shoot itself in the foot w/ KDP? For every Indie sale they get a percentage. It wouldn't make sense to create a ghetto for all of Indie. When there's proof this is happening, I'll worry.


----------



## Ernie Lindsey (Jul 6, 2010)

Is it possible that you guys didn't notice it until now? This little subsection store, and the link to Indie Books has been there (for me, at least) for _months_. Sara's Game was listed down there under Indie Popular New Releases for a while and J. Carson Black has been the featured author for months as well.


----------



## Isabelking (Jan 16, 2012)

Amazon is constantly evolving and trying new things, and also reacting to the current conditions - and among those conditions being that more and more and more people are uploading books. And this would most likely make it harder and harder for Amazon customers to browse the store and find the books that they're looking for.   

My hope is that if Amazon DOES make a movie to segregate us all - that this is an experiment that will fail.   There are a lot of very successful, very visible indie authors out there, and I think there would be a big outcry, and it would be hard for Amazon to justify creating a separate indie store.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

Wansit said:


> Agreed - why would Amazon shoot itself in the foot w/ KDP? For every Indie sale they get a percentage. It wouldn't make sense to create a ghetto for all of Indie. When there's proof this is happening, I'll worry.


The indie percentage is pretty low compared to margins on a $10 kindle book from the big six though.

It's the same math that causes most indies to abandon the 99 cent price point in favor of 2.99. You make more money.

Amazon looks at the math the same way we do.

M


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Well, count me in with the group that hopes this isn't going to turn into an indie ghetto. 

I don't search by publisher, so this seems pointless to me, especially in light of reports that Amazon readers don't want indie books.

Going to fine-tune my tinfoil hat and wait to see what happens.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

For the love of god, you guys.



Mike McIntyre said:


> For those worried about Indie segregation: If you look at the Indie 100 bestsellers list, you will see that the #100 book on that list is #266 in the entire store. In other words, there are roughly as many indies in the upper tier of sales as there are traditionally published. Why would Amazon ever want to make those moneymakers harder to find?


THIS.

THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS!

Amazon wants to make money. There are almost as many indies who make a ton of money for Amazon as there are traditionally published authors. In addition to that, Apple and Friends very recently attempted to force Amazon out of business by colluding so horrendously that Amazon took it to the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. It's not like they just got into a slap-fight. It was Serious Business. Why on earth would you think Amazon is so eager to kowtow to the Big Ever-Shrinking Number now? Amazon doesn't need them. It doesn't need us, either. But we have not harmed it, and it makes a healthy profit from us. Amazon didn't get where it is by its leaders making stupid decisions.

Plus, how many of you actually read Christa Wick's post? This rolled out two years ago when the indie craze was starting to take off, and is only now getting some refinements to increase discoverability. It's a showcase, not a ghetto, and it doesn't seem to be intended to function as anything but a tool to increase sales. The fact that they are now trying to play it up two years later tells me that Amazon is betting its man-hours and payroll that we are about to come into a second big wave of indie success -- not that they are trying to keep us down.

And if I turn out to be wrong, and this is because a handful of people who can't be assed to read samples before they buy yelled and screamed in the Amazon forums, well, go round up your fanbases and have them yell and scream in the Amazon forums that they want MORE indie stuff. I'm sure we have more people on our side than they have.

I'm not saying a nightmare scenario could never happen. Of course it could. So take this brief moment of unfounded panic as a lesson and ask yourself: how are you going to ensure that your business survives such a scenario? Are you being flexible and broad-based enough to remain successful even if a worst-case scenario were to happen? If you don't know the answer to that yet, there's no time to start strategizing like the present.

And my books are still selling the same as they ever have. I remain solidly in the indie midlist. Though, to be honest, yesterday sales ranks of my normally-steady historical novels climbed 10,000+ spots unexpectedly, for no apparent reason. Maybe they got featured in the indie showcase and I didn't even know it.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Haha, THANK YOU, El.

I was watching this snowball and I was like, wait! Read Page 2!

Seriously, guys. Take off your tinfoil hats.

https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?moduleId=200734540


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Doomed Muse said:


> Mary- your categories, bestseller rank, and sales rank seem decent, so I am betting that sales updating might be glitching rather than any actual effect.
> 
> Also, I checked a bunch of indie titles and we all seem to be on the regular genre lists and bestseller lists (well, those books that are selling well enough that I can check that stuff). So I don't think segregation is happening as yet, if it will at all.
> 
> The indie section isn't new. I remember a minor panic over it a while back. I think this new link in the side bar is just that, a new link to the already existing thing. I don't think it it is in Amazon's best financial interest to somehow hide indies when they've proven that they provide content that sells. So I'm not going to panic yet. Seems way way too early for panic.


Thanks for the reassurance.  I'm still a little panicky though. I did a screenshot of my author rank and it shows the nosedive. It's over 6 months and shows some spikes that coincide with sales but it usually returns to a baseline of sorts. It looks like it fell off a cliff in the last few days.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

ElHawk said:


> For the love of god, you guys.
> 
> THIS.
> 
> ...


I'm only going to read your posts from now on. Not even my own. Seriously. 

I'm more and more convinced that the way to go would be to _increase _indie book prices across the board. Amazon wants to make money. They're getting more of that from the $10 books which, to me, would be the only reason to promote indies less. Maybe we should give them more money, too.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Sheila_Guthrie said:


> I don't search by publisher, so this seems pointless to me, especially in light of reports that Amazon readers don't want indie books.


Yeah, *no one* searches by publisher. Not people who buy books, anyway -- and the people who buy books are the only people, in the end, Amazon care about.

I don't understand why people are losing their minds over this. Not only is it not even remotely new, but the proposed scenarios are just pulled out of nowhere as a means of justifying the panic. Calm down. The sky is not falling.

But it could in the future, and you should be prepared if it does. So start thinking about the sky falling now, but for corn's sake, don't act like your life is over, because it's not.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

Amazon is not out to get indies. Indies make them a lot of money. What Amazon is doing is presenting many different ways for readers to find books they might like, and I've had several readers tell me they specifically search for indie books because they like the edgier story telling and they like searching for the next big author to tell their book crazy reader friends about. Now they have a link they can click to find them faster.

I hate knowing that so many writers here on KB see Amazon do something different and then automatically assume it's meant to beat down indies or collude with the Big 6 to keep indies "in their place." It makes ZERO sense. Amazon makes money when they sell books. Not just Big 6 books, but books from anyone. Lots of indie books are on their best seller lists. Therefore, it behooves Amazon to help readers find more best sellers, whoever the publisher is. That's all they're doing - making it easier to find books you might like. It's not a conspiracy and it's not a ghetto.

Attention everyone: The sky is not falling. I repeat. The sky is _not_ falling.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Kboards... Deja vu all over again

Check out this thread from 2011.

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,79452.0.html

3rd post, two years ago: "This is pretty ominous. Are independents being segregated into their own bookstore?"

CALM DOWN.


----------



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

Did you notice the other testing they're doing on sales pages for paperbacks? Check out your paperback pages.


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

markecooper said:


> Did you notice the other testing they're doing on sales pages for paperbacks? Check out your paperback pages.


The "Add to Collection" thing?

They reverted to the old cover on mine. I'm a little annoyed.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Quiss said:


> I'm more and more convinced that the way to go would be to _increase _indie book prices across the board. Amazon wants to make money. They're getting more of that from the $10 books which, to me, would be the only reason to promote indies less. Maybe we should give them more money, too.


I agree. I have always agreed -- for that reason, and because I have run a business before, and pricing DOES influence perception of quality. When I launched my first indie book I was totally disconnected from the indie world and knew nothing, like Jon Snow. I priced it at $5.99 -- just a hair lower than certain imprints' MMPB editions. The reason why I did that was because I have always felt that my books are as good as or better than what you can find on bookstore shelves. Why would readers not pay the same for them? I had no problem finding happy readers at that price point, and my reviews were consistently excellent. I dropped the price to $2.99 to see what would happen. My number of sales did take off dramatically, but a few negative reviews came in, too, because the book became more of an impulse buy. Ever since then I've though pricing was an even more fascinating and influential feature than I'd ever suspected before, and I am planning to experiment with it more in the future.

I am currently at the standard $2.99 because that seems to be what still gets me the most sales, but when my next book comes out I am going to bring it up by degrees until I'm back at $5.99. That's still roughly half of what readers will pay for a TP book, but they'll probably like mine better, so it's a clear bargain for them.

But yes, more benefit to your distributor is certainly a good reason to price higher. It is, in effect, a greater assurance of "job security" when you keep your business partners happier. They will be more eager to work with you and will work harder and better for you. Just one dumb indie like me on her own doesn't make any difference at all to Amazon. ALL of us becoming more profitable to Amazon makes a big difference. No, I am not suggesting collusion. I am suggesting that when we value our work higher, our distributors will, too.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

ellecasey said:


> Amazon is not out to get indies. Indies make them a lot of money. What Amazon is doing is presenting many different ways for readers to find books they might like, and I've had several readers tell me they specifically search for indie books because they like the edgier story telling and they like searching for the next big author to tell their book crazy reader friends about. Now they have a link they can click to find them faster.
> 
> I hate knowing that so many writers here on KB see Amazon do something different and then automatically assume it's meant to beat down indies or collude with the Big 6 to keep indies "in their place." It makes ZERO sense. Amazon makes money when they sell books. Not just Big 6 books, but books from anyone. Lots of indie books are on their best seller lists. Therefore, it behooves Amazon to help readers find more best sellers, whoever the publisher is. That's all they're doing - making it easier to find books you might like. It's not a conspiracy and it's not a ghetto.
> 
> Attention everyone: The sky is not falling. I repeat. The sky is _not_ falling.


Shout, sister, shout!


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Amazon launched the indie page and its Best Seller list in August 2011. There was a thread back then worrying that this was the start of some big indie segregation.

It never happened and it's never going to happen. We make them too much money.


----------



## cwashburn (May 20, 2013)

Some might consider it good business practice to keep your suppliers in the loop as to your actions and intentions.  Keeps down the rampant speculation that leads to unintended consequences on both sides.


----------



## Isabelking (Jan 16, 2012)

Oh, I hope you guys are right.

Although my tinfoil hat was very pretty and it kept out all those pesky mind control rays.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

dgaughran said:


> Amazon launched the indie page and its Best Seller list in August 2011. There was a thread back then worrying that this was the start of some big indie segregation.
> 
> It never happened and it's never going to happen. We make them too much money.


Exactly. On this matter...










But on this matter...



Mike McIntyre said:


> For those worried about Indie segregation: If you look at the Indie 100 bestsellers list, you will see that the #100 book on that list is #266 in the entire store. In other words, there are roughly as many indies in the upper tier of sales as there are traditionally published. Why would Amazon ever want to make those moneymakers harder to find?


the #100 book on that list is #266 in the entire store
the #100 book on that list is #266 in the entire store
the #100 book on that list is #266 in the entire store
























B.


----------



## Ben Mathew (Jan 27, 2013)

It's a showcase, not a ghetto. Look at the books they've put there. No way they'd want to hide those books. No way at all.

So... in addition to being listed in the regular categories, we have our own special category. And trads don't get one.  Advantage: Indie  

P.S. Someone please start a petition to redesign that horrible tongue icon already! I think it's supposed to mean nyah-nyah stick-tongue-out. But it looks like licking!


----------



## NicoleY (May 21, 2013)

B. Justin Shier said:


> the #100 book on that list is #266 in the entire store
> B.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Thanks for the nightmare fodder.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm only posting this because tin foil hats were mentioned and I love this meme. I'm taking no stand.










Betsy


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Amazon has zero interest in accommodating publishers.  The sales block represented by self-published books is one they have much more control over, and there is no reason they would want to lose that.  Also, the economic dynamic they have put in place virtually assures that a large percentage of all but huge bestsellers will eventually migrate to self-publishing.  There's a lot of misinformation and residual manipulation based on encouraging feelings of superiority, but in the end, money talks.  A midlist author selling 100k books a year and barely making a living is going to eventually realize they would make 300k on that volume if they published themselves.  Amazon doesn't want to destroy that growing source of sales.

That said, somewhere along the line they're going to do something to maintain quality.  I know this isn't a popular sentiment here, but among the universe of self-publishers, a lot of garbage gets published.  That's more of a problem for us than all the publishers' schemes combined.  The typical KB author is, I'm sure, well above the average quality level, but I've seen tons and tons of books out there with poor writing style, lots of spelling mistakes, and terrible grammar.  If Amazon can figure a way to segregate that stuff from the higher quality books, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

I wouldn't be surprised if they ultimately impose some type of standard to be in the main store.  Perhaps they will charge $500 or something to do a review process, with only approved books going into the main store.  I don't doubt that it will become more difficult for newbies in the future.  

Whatever they do, they won't sweep away the indie books with a broad brush.


----------



## journeymama (May 30, 2011)

dgaughran said:


> Amazon launched the indie page and its Best Seller list in August 2011. There was a thread back then worrying that this was the start of some big indie segregation.
> 
> It never happened and it's never going to happen. We make them too much money.


I was just going to get on here and say, "Wait, this is a really old list!" But then I wondered if I was crazy and I had just been seeing things for the last couple of years.

It's good to know I'm not crazy.


----------



## 60169 (May 18, 2012)

Nice to see David chime in on this thread, because I just finished _Let's Get Visible_ this morning, and much of what he wrote about came to mind as I saw the panicked responses.

As David accurately pointed out, Amazon has always been about getting the book the customer is most likely to buy in front of them, whether it is a .99 book or a 9.99 book. I have no reason to think that strategy, which has been stunningly effective, would be abandoned now.

I also think it was David who estimated that 25-30% of all books sold on Amazon are Indie. Do they really want to kill this segment of the market to appease Trad Pub that they have never kowtowed to before?

I actually think it's another way Amazon can help indies gain greater exposure.


----------



## Ben Mathew (Jan 27, 2013)

jayallan said:


> Amazon has zero interest in accommodating publishers. The sales block represented by self-published books is one they have much more control over, and there is no reason they would want to lose that. Also, the economic dynamic they have put in place virtually assures that a large percentage of all but huge bestsellers will eventually migrate to self-publishing. There's a lot of misinformation and residual manipulation based on encouraging feelings of superiority, but in the end, money talks. A midlist author selling 100k books a year and barely making a living is going to eventually realize they would make 300k on that volume if they published themselves. Amazon doesn't want to destroy that growing source of sales.
> 
> That said, somewhere along the line they're going to do something to maintain quality. I know this isn't a popular sentiment here, but among the universe of self-publishers, a lot of garbage gets published. That's more of a problem for us than all the publishers' schemes combined. The typical KB author is, I'm sure, well above the average quality level, but I've seen tons and tons of books out there with poor writing style, lots of spelling mistakes, and terrible grammar. If Amazon can figure a way to segregate that stuff from the higher quality books, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
> 
> ...


I agree with all of the above.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

jayallan said:


> If Amazon can figure a way to segregate that stuff from the higher quality books, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if they ultimately impose some type of standard to be in the main store. Perhaps they will charge $500 or something to do a review process, with only approved books going into the main store. I don't doubt that it will become more difficult for newbies in the future.


I'd love to see a review process and I'd be willing to pay for it. 
I don't mean the sort of thing the big publishers do, but someone going through a random chapter or two to make sure that the book has been properly edited. That alone would help matters. $50 per title would more than cover the expense of hiring someone to do that.


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

Ernie Lindsey said:


> Is it possible that you guys didn't notice it until now? This little subsection store, and the link to Indie Books has been there (for me, at least) for _months_. Sara's Game was listed down there under Indie Popular New Releases for a while and J. Carson Black has been the featured author for months as well.


^This. I've seen the indie section for a long time.

It's amazing how quickly things devolve to conspiracy theories around here. Even if Amazon was trying to hurt indies (which makes no business sense) there's nothing any of us can do about it. All we can do is all we've ever been able to do: write and foster our readership. Why waste time that could be spent doing those two things worrying about things you can't control?

Amazon loves indies because they want the prices of books to come down. Their biggest weapon in being able to charge lower prices for traditionally published books is to have a whole bunch of indies selling books for less than $5 in the bestseller lists. Amazon didn't get where it is by shooting itself in the foot.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Dan Brown is #126!


----------



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

Quiss said:


> I'd love to see a review process and I'd be willing to pay for it.
> I don't mean the sort of thing the big publishers do, but someone going through a random chapter or two to make sure that the book has been properly edited. That alone would help matters. $50 per title would more than cover the expense of hiring someone to do that.


$50 is a lot of money if you don't live in the US . I could not afford it for all my books (some of which were originally trad published).


----------



## H. S. St. Ours (Mar 24, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> Dan Brown is #126!


Odd. But who's counting?


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> $50 is a lot of money if you don't live in the US . I could not afford it for all my books (some of which were originally trad published).


I bet other writers would help out. A scholarship fund or microlending something. I know I would do something like that.

M


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Okay, folks. I know this is very harrowing news (two years ago), so we need to keep level heads about this.

What we need to do right now is panic. Panic long, hard and loud. Encourage others to panic. Do whatever you can to drown out the voices of reason who try to get a handle on this situation by spreading rumor as fact. Above all, make the situation worse.

Douse everything you hold dear in gasoline and burn it to cinders to keep the advancing horde from the satisfaction of taking what was once yours. Drive blindly and dangerously out onto the street, clogging them so first responders can't get through to render aide to people who need it. Fire wildly into the air with every weapon you own.

The only way we're going to get through this thing is to lose our minds entirely and devolve into complete savagery, fouling the infrastructure so badly that it will take generations to rebuild our once great society.

Good luck. And God bless.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

jayallan said:


> That said, somewhere along the line they're going to do something to maintain quality. I know this isn't a popular sentiment here, but among the universe of self-publishers, a lot of garbage gets published. That's more of a problem for us than all the publishers' schemes combined. The typical KB author is, I'm sure, well above the average quality level, but I've seen tons and tons of books out there with poor writing style, lots of spelling mistakes, and terrible grammar. If Amazon can figure a way to segregate that stuff from the higher quality books, they'd do it in a heartbeat.


I agree with this. Unlike many others, I don't take the view of "poor newbies" over it. Nobody should be offering their books to readers before their books are actually GOOD. For the writer's own sake. You need at least basic competence before you publish. There is no reason why the first book a person publishes can't be an enjoyable read. The writer just needs to be objective and do a little reading himself before he publishes.

While I do not like the idea of gatekeeping in general, I think Amazon is probably forward-thinking and profit-driven enough to keep it accessible to a huge variety of writers, so that in the end only those truly and woefully unprepared for the realities of publishing will find it difficult to get going, until they have brought their skills up to speed.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Charging money isn't going to make that happen. It'll just make sure rich people can make all the mistakes they want, but the poor people that spent years polishing get the shaft.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2013)

Yep, it's been there for a while. Some of you might have already been showcased there, too, without knowing it.
I only knew about my book being on the front page back in February because of a google alert  I had set up for the book


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

"Welcome to the Kindle Indie Bookstore. "Indie" is hard to define, but anything cool, creative, and different is "indie." The Kindle Indie Bookstore is a unique experience in the literary world, a place to discover the next great authors and their books."

There we and we're dressed up: Amazon calls us cool, creative and different.

But not cool enough or creative enough to just be _authors_. No. Not that. We're different then regular authors. They pretty much said so themselves.

It feels a little bit like putting lipstick on a pig, no? An insult veiled in a thin compliment?

Yes, we're cool -- we've been cool. Yes, we're creative -- we've been creative. But we're not a special breed of author who shouldn't get the same screen space as, say, James Patterson. We both do the work. The same work. More work, even, for same goal.

On one hand, this is brilliance. For Amazon. They keep their peas in one pile and their carrots in another. They keep the naysayers from staging a coop. They still sell all books, but they're flexing their discretionary muscle when it comes to just how they continue to do so.

On the other hand, it sucks. I've never had a lot of luck with "also-boughts" &#8230; but many I know have. They get boosts and jumps from big name authors who also write in the same wheelhouse, for many, this has afforded them the ability to quit the 9-5 and just write. I worry for them. I do.

Over the past years many of us indies have tried to break the stereotype of indie books. We've tried to come up with great context, worked with great editors, hired out great cover artists. We've worked and worked and worked &#8230; and now, for all that, we'll back slide. A book no longer be just a great book &#8230; it will be a great _indie_ book &#8230; no longer can an author who doesn't have a powerhouse publisher behind them be just a great author &#8230; now they will be a great _indie_ author. It's not the end of the world, but still &#8230; it feels like regression to me.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Diana Gabrielle said:


> THIS!
> 
> If anything, it looks like *a showcase, not a "ghetto." *Hence the limited number of titles found in each subcategory. And this explains why I've been seeing that Indie genre link for so long.
> 
> ...


No, don't worry, what good does that do? 
But plan on getting and promoting your books for sale in multiple outlets. Amazon will slowly funnel the majority of self published books out of the regular store and into the Indie one. It takes time. 
Opening the store two years ago was just the first phase. A lot of code writing and tweaking goes into a search engine that must be capable of handling more than 3 million (that's just the number with ISBN"s from last year) new entries a year. Just the fact that they are now rolling people into it, shows where they are going. Showcasing books? Great! Has it helped sales any? Doubtful.

I have a large reader base, and agents with major publisher contacts working on securing a paperback contract, plus, a movie deal in development. So I'll be okay. But for self publishers starting with zero fans, and no marketing skills, the road ahead will be tougher.

Shoot, with over three million books going out a year, why wouldn't it be tougher?
Again, if you're on also boughts and best seller lists you'll be fine.


----------



## David Thayer (Sep 7, 2012)

The Crap Book Section is especially designed for readers who are seeking the singular thrill of experiencing dreadful prose and ill conceived stories all at a reasonable price!

CBS Includes: Horror ( largely your own.)
Romance: ( not exactly romantic.)
Thriller: ( Breathtaking! Can be dangerous.)
Historical: ( awful tales from the past!)
Speculative: ( feel free to speculate, it's your money.)
Mystery: ( you're in a locked room wondering "why did I search by publisher?"


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

jayallan said:


> Amazon has zero interest in accommodating publishers. The sales block represented by self-published books is one they have much more control over, and there is no reason they would want to lose that. Also, the economic dynamic they have put in place virtually assures that a large percentage of all but huge bestsellers will eventually migrate to self-publishing. There's a lot of misinformation and residual manipulation based on encouraging feelings of superiority, but in the end, money talks. A midlist author selling 100k books a year and barely making a living is going to eventually realize they would make 300k on that volume if they published themselves. Amazon doesn't want to destroy that growing source of sales.
> 
> That said, somewhere along the line they're going to do something to maintain quality. I know this isn't a popular sentiment here, but among the universe of self-publishers, a lot of garbage gets published. That's more of a problem for us than all the publishers' schemes combined. The typical KB author is, I'm sure, well above the average quality level, but I've seen tons and tons of books out there with poor writing style, lots of spelling mistakes, and terrible grammar. If Amazon can figure a way to segregate that stuff from the higher quality books, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
> 
> ...


This. They're not out to "get" self publishers. They do want to keep quality high as that makes a happier customer. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE CUSTOMER. This change will not affect those self publishers with reader fan bases. It will affect new ones trying to break in.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

AshMP said:


> But not cool enough or creative enough to just be _authors_. No. Not that. We're different then regular authors. They pretty much said so themselves.


I don't think 'next great authors' means what your cynicism thinks it means.


----------



## Thomas Watson (Mar 8, 2012)

The was written in response to a different matter, but it seems just as appropriate here.

http://stevenramirez.com/why-are-we-all-so-scared/

Not to say that Amazon won't ever actually do something that makes it harder for indie books to be discovered, but so what? It's nearly impossible now, as it is! Who'd notice?

"A difference that makes no difference..."


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> But plan on getting and promoting your books for sale in multiple outlets. Amazon will slowly funnel the majority of self published books out of the regular store and into the Inde one. It takes time.
> 
> Just the fact that they are now rolling people into it, shows where they are going.


But who is getting "funneled" all of a sudden? The page is 2 years old and has consistently featured popular Indies without removing them from the regular store. Where is the evidence of people just now being rolled into it?

https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?moduleId=200734540

I agree, one should always have one's eggs in multiple baskets and be prepared for the worst. Of course it will be hard for newbies - as it should be, and as it always has been. The smart and dedicated ones have the best chance. Zero fans and zero marketing skills? Well, then they'd better educate themselves. I don't think that's unreasonable.

I prefer to make my decisions based on the facts that I have, alongside _educated_ guesses, and none of those say that Amazon is out get Indies, suppress Indies, or funnel them into an Indie ghetto. On the contrary, Amazon has a huge financial interest in maintaining its profitable relationship with Indies.

I don't see anything wrong with what Amazon IS currently doing, which is feature popular and top selling Indies on the page.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> Charging money isn't going to make that happen. It'll just make sure rich people can make all the mistakes they want, but the poor people that spent years polishing get the shaft.


They're not going to charge money for it.

My guess is it's more likely they'll use average raging to determine it, so it'll be up to the author to promote on their own to that first threshold of good reviews, and then it will kick you into a different tier of the store.

But it's pretty much pointless to speculate on it, since "it" hasn't even happened yet.


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

ElHawk said:


> They're not going to charge money for it.
> 
> My guess is it's more likely they'll use average raging to determine it, so it'll be up to the author to promote on their own to that first threshold of good reviews, and then it will kick you into a different tier of the store.
> 
> But it's pretty much pointless to speculate on it, since "it" hasn't even happened yet.


Don't think it will be as easy as just going by ratings (although the new Indie Store does feature 4 stars and above). Many of my favorite traditionally published authors can't pull a 4-5 star - the more popular they are the larger crowd of readers they attract. Look at Charlaine Harris' latest book. Because of some seriously unhappy fans she's at 2 1/2 stars.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2013)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Here's an article that at first may not seem to be related, but is:
> 
> Victorian Era People were Smarter than Today's
> http://www.itechpost.com/articles/9496/20130520/victorian-era-people-smarter-today.htm
> ...


I'm sorry, but by bringing up the bigoted, outdated philosophies of eugenics and social Darwinism, you've completely discredited yourself. I thought we gave up all that garbage when we stopped sterilizing the mentally handicapped back in the 60s and 70s.


----------



## wildwitchof (Sep 2, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> Okay, folks. I know this is very harrowing news (two years ago), so we need to keep level heads about this.
> 
> What we need to do right now is panic. Panic long, hard and loud. Encourage others to panic. Do whatever you can to drown out the voices of reason who try to get a handle on this situation by spreading rumor as fact. Above all, make the situation worse.
> 
> ...


This is my favorite post of the week. At least. I think it should be a plaque.


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

Vaalingrade said:


> I don't think 'next great authors' means what your cynicism thinks it means.


Am I cynical when it comes to frothy, umbrella-drink language Amazon used? Yes, I am. For a good reason and not without merit. Two years ago Amazon rocked for independent authors, but slowly they've changed the game, the rules, and the players it hurt is _us_. Doubt me? Look at what they did to bloggers who promoted our free-day books? Ask them if the change hurt.

This is, sadly, more par for the course (qualifier: in my opinion). And while there is an upside, there is a very real, tangible downside as well. I'm just jaded enough to look at that side of coin really hard before I flip it over for the sake of optimism.


----------



## SEAN H. ROBERTSON (Mar 14, 2011)

Diana Gabrielle said:


> THIS!
> 
> If anything, it looks like *a showcase, not a "ghetto." *Hence the limited number of titles found in each subcategory. And this explains why I've been seeing that Indie genre link for so long.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

For corn's sake.



AshMP said:


> But not cool enough or creative enough to just be _authors_. No. Not that. We're different then regular authors. They pretty much said so themselves.


It seems that some members of KB are going to see veiled insults in anything and everything Amazon or any other company says or does.

Amazon is in business to sell things. It is not in business to stroke authors' egos, whether those authors are indie or not.

No wonder so many people here were quick to declare the sky was falling. It seems this idea that the whole world is out to keep us down is pretty pervasive on KB. I am a skeptic; I won't believe anything I'm told until I see some credible evidence for it. I have not yet seen any credible evidence that there is a shadowy cabal trying to keep indie authors down just for the fun of it.



> On one hand, this is brilliance. For Amazon. They keep their peas in one pile and their carrots in another. They keep the naysayers from staging a coop. They still sell all books, but they're flexing their discretionary muscle when it comes to just how they continue to do so.


THAT. ISN'T. WHAT'S. GOING. ON. HERE.

Not only does Amazon not have any practical business interest in shuttling all of the indies off into some Shame Corner, but Amazon actively has an interest in NOT doing so, as somebody already pointed out upthread, because Amazon will eventually be able to suck all the writers out of the traditional publishing industry by offering better terms. Why on earth would they even think to "keep their peas in one pile and their carrots in another"? Amazon is a business It makes no business sense to do what you are assuming is happening. In fact, it would be an actively and aggressively stupid business decision. Amazon is not known for making stupid business decisions. And there is no profit to be had in tormenting indie authors _just 'cause it's fun._ I am sure Amazon has better things to do with its man-hours and budget than pick on people.

Plus, if you had actually read the thread, you'd see that this indie feature category has been up for two years now. And you've been doing just fine for the past two years. So what is the big deal?



> On the other hand, it sucks. I've never had a lot of luck with "also-boughts" &#8230; but many I know have. They get boosts and jumps from big name authors who also write in the same wheelhouse, for many, this has afforded them the ability to quit the 9-5 and just write. I worry for them. I do.


I don't. Nothing has changed since 2011.



> Over the past years many of us indies have tried to break the stereotype of indie books. We've tried to come up with great context, worked with great editors, hired out great cover artists. We've worked and worked and worked &#8230; and now, for all that, we'll back slide.


Not any more than we have backslid since 2011.



> A book no longer be just a great book &#8230; it will be a great _indie_ book &#8230; no longer can an author who doesn't have a powerhouse publisher behind them be just a great author &#8230; now they will be a great _indie_ author. It's not the end of the world, but still &#8230; it feels like regression to me.


Not only would I be glad to be considered "just" a great author, but I'd be even MORE thrilled to be considered a great "indie author." All of my favorite musicians are indie. Most of my favorite films are indie. I love them all the more because they found their own ways to their audiences, and because they didn't have what it takes to be in the mainstream, they are more creative, more appealing, more unique, and more memorable. Libbie Hawker and L. M. Ironside, great indie authors? Bring it on. Who knows -- first indie author to win some major awards? That would be cool! The press you could get for that! The sales!

Man, KB. So many of you are such Negative Nancies, and it seems a lot of you have huge inferiority complexes over the fact that you are indies. Why?

Look at this article. Read to the end of it. The very last lines. It was written by a woman who not only worked in traditional publishing her whole life, but who teaches university students who are majoring in publishing. Somebody who has made her entire life traditional publishing now thinks _this _of indie authors.

Everybody on KB: shake off this negativity. Get rid of it. It is not useful to you or to the community. You are shooting yourselves in the feet. Stop it. Go cultivate a little confidence. And then go write, because I think we all have better things we could be doing right now than running around in circles shrieking over two-year-old news. I've got 30,000 words to knock out this weekend alone.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, I know there are strong feelings and beliefs on this topic; let's keep the discourse civil.  No name calling.  I want to keep the thread open.  (Note that several people posted while I was posting this...)

And I have to get ready for the Memorial Day picnic.  Play nice.  Have a water pistol fight instead.

Betsy


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

It's been there 2 years. We have no control over it. Some read the description as positive and some read it as negative. Calm down, people. Do what you can to have your book as many places as possible. Continue focusing on writing good books. Those who feel the need to keep their foil hats on, please do so. It may change everything and ruin careers. It may change nothing. It may make many of us better off. Guess what? The world may end tomorrow, too. There is enough to worry about (like writing, editing, publishing, marketing, advertising)without adding "possibilities" to the list. 

And here I was just thinking it had been awhile since this board had everyone all worked up on the latest thing that will "take our industry down".


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Wansit said:


> Don't think it will be as easy as just going by ratings (although the new Indie Store does feature 4 stars and above). Many of my favorite traditionally published authors can't pull a 4-5 star - the more popular they are the larger crowd of readers they attract. Look at Charlaine Harris' latest book. Because of some seriously unhappy fans she's at 2 1/2 stars.


First, while I still think it's stupid and pointless to speculate on something that hasn't even been officially proposed yet by Amazon (as far as we know), let me just say that I think the way to do it that would make the most sense would be to go by author. So one book achieves the required minimum rating, and all that author's books get in. AND yes, it would make sense to apply it to all books, whether indie or TP. Amazon has shown it doesn't give a tin poop how the Big Five screams and flails over its business decisions; why would it balk at subjecting the Big Five's books to the same tiered system as indies?

BUT NONE OF THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN; IT IS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. AS IS EVERY OTHER ABSURD PROPOSITION THAT HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS THREAD.


----------



## Mike Dennis (Apr 26, 2010)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Hopefully, they won't shift all of us over; especially those of us who have proven our books sell well while competing against traditionals.


Don't worry, Lisa. The separate Indie page has been there for a while and it's just another way to give greater visibility to a handful of anointed self-pubbed writers so those writers can sell even more books.

If there is a "moving over", you'll probably be safe, but those who do get moved over are those who write "crap". Do I have it right?



LisaGraceBooks said:


> But plan on getting and promoting your books for sale in multiple outlets. Amazon will slowly funnel the majority of self published books out of the regular store and into the Indie one. It takes time &#8230;


The majority? Meaning, presumably, those who are _not_ anointed?



LisaGraceBooks said:


> I have a large reader base, and agents with major publisher contacts working on securing a paperback contract, plus, a movie deal in development. So I'll be okay. But for self publishers starting with zero fans, and no marketing skills, the road ahead will be tougher.
> 
> Again, if you're on also boughts and best seller lists you'll be fine.


So, if we're anointed by agents, major publishers, and movie studios, as well as Amazon's promotional mechanism, and if we're on the best seller lists, we'll be fine, like you, right? If not, we're screwed, right? Well, shoot, darlin', move over and let me score an agent, a publisher, a movie deal, and a slot on the best seller list. I want to be "fine", too.

This is the kind of arrogance that belongs in New York with the Big 6, not in the Indie world or on Kindle Boards. I'm no newbie, I'm not uneducated, and I know about marketing. In fact, I would dare to say I've been at this at least as long as you have, if not longer. You have been far more successful than I, obviously, but you don't need to rub it in my face.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Quote from: LisaGraceBooks on Today at 08:23:21 AM


> Here's an article that at first may not seem to be related, but is:
> 
> Victorian Era People were Smarter than Today's
> http://www.itechpost.com/articles/9496/20130520/victorian-era-people-smarter-today.htm
> ...


Reading the article in the link you posted, we have supposedly lost an average of 14 IQ points. If the data extrapolates out at the same rate, in 500 years, everyone will be an imbecile (and I mean that in the psychological sense: Imbecile - Merriam-Webster Online
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imbecile‎
usually offensive : a person affected with moderate mental retardation.)

Changes within a species doesn't usually happen that quickly.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> Not only would I be glad to be considered "just" a great author, but I'd be even MORE thrilled to be considered a great "indie author." All of my favorite musicians are indie. Most of my favorite films are indie. I love them all the more because they found their own ways to their audiences, and because they didn't have what it takes to be in the mainstream, they are more creative, more appealing, more unique, and more memorable. Libbie Hawker and L. M. Ironside, great indie authors? Bring it on. Who knows -- first indie author to win some major awards? That would be cool! The press you could get for that! The sales!
> 
> Man, KB. So many of you are such Negative Nancies, and it seems a lot of you have huge inferiority complexes over the fact that you are indies. Why?
> 
> ...


Oh my God, this 100 times over. I am so PROUD to be indie and wonder why so many seem either ashamed of it or "less than" because of it. So some 90 year old dinasour made fun of you? Big deal. A faltering industry makes claims that "indies" suck? Um...they fail more with each day. Hey, I was made fun of every d*mn day when I was 10 and 11 by a group of kids for my imagination until they could get me to cry. And even I don't see every little thing that happens in the publishing world as a way to hurt me as an indie. Additionally, I not only survived, I've blossomed and life has been wonderful. Indies, regardless of if people see them as roses or dandelions (and some see dandelions as the most valuable flower on earth) will florish...those whose work is good enough (and that includes presenting a product that is formatted and proofed well) Come on, people. Toughen up.


----------



## Thomas Watson (Mar 8, 2012)

"Worrin' is a lot like this here rockin' chair I spend the day in. Keeps me busy, but it don't get me nowhere."

- Great Grandma Leap


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

EDITED:  Entire post deleted.  I'm out.

The sky is not falling.  It's just not.

Return to your regularly scheduled weekend.


----------



## redandgold (Apr 6, 2011)

I apologise in advance - but this little ditty popped into my head whilst reading through this thread:

When in danger
When in doubt
Run in circles
Scream and shout!

Please - all calm down and try not to worry about things you can't control, and don't really know the full facts about either.


----------



## Thomas Watson (Mar 8, 2012)

> If it makes it harder for newbie indie authors to get in -- sorry, Charlie. Better figure out some smart strategies for promoting your books that don't rely solely on Amazon. But that's good advice anyway, even when Amazon happens to have its business decisions all aligned favorably with everything about being an indie, because no business that plans to survive for long ever puts all its eggs into one basket.


Calling this good good advice is quite an understatement.


----------



## Jason Eric Pryor (Jan 30, 2013)

I think some of us get the idea that being labeled as an indie writer is bad in EVERY reader's eyes. In actuality, it's not. I know of several people that look EXCLUSIVELY for indie writers. They want to be the first person to discover a new book or writer among their reader friends.

It reminds me a lot of the indie music scene. I have a friend and she and I are always telling each other about an indie band we just heard. We get this weird rush out of turning each other on to bands that the other has never heard of. Indie music has HUGE followings. I can easily see indie writing getting to that point as well.

Maybe Amazon does too.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

Quiss said:


> I'd love to see a review process and I'd be willing to pay for it.
> I don't mean the sort of thing the big publishers do, but someone going through a random chapter or two to make sure that the book has been properly edited. That alone would help matters. $50 per title would more than cover the expense of hiring someone to do that.


I've seen the absolutely horrible things that some people publish. But I'd be very concerned about the nature of any review process. (Not to mention that $50 is big money, for me.)

If the review was mechanical, well, it would have to be a lot better than Word. Word nags me about my _correct_ usage of lie and lay. Word doesn't understand appositive phrases. Word freaks out about sentence fragments. Even in dialogue. Even for emphasis. And, since I write fantasy, I use a massive amount of made-up words.

On the other hand, if the review was done by human beings, chances are that it'd be done by people whose understanding of English was far inferior to mine. (That comment doesn't reflect arrogance on my part. I'd be ready to concede that my grasp of _their_ native language was nonexistent.)


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> They're not going to charge money for it.
> 
> My guess is it's more likely they'll use average raging to determine it, so it'll be up to the author to promote on their own to that first threshold of good reviews, and then it will kick you into a different tier of the store.
> 
> But it's pretty much pointless to speculate on it, since "it" hasn't even happened yet.


I mixed your posts up with someone else's idea to charge money to get in. But even ratings is a terrible idea because it will encourage even more ratings bad behavior.

I'm not even kidding; I would buy reviews or sock puppet them if they were needed to get out of this theoretical oubliette.



AshMP said:


> Am I cynical when it comes to frothy, umbrella-drink language Amazon used? Yes, I am. For a good reason and not without merit. Two years ago Amazon rocked for independent authors, but slowly they've changed the game, the rules, and the players it hurt is _us_. Doubt me? Look at what they did to bloggers who promoted our free-day books? Ask them if the change hurt.
> 
> This is, sadly, more par for the course (qualifier: in my opinion). And while there is an upside, there is a very real, tangible downside as well. I'm just jaded enough to look at that side of coin really hard before I flip it over for the sake of optimism.


This is something par for the course _from two year ago_. The same two years ao you said were great. There's something to be said about them killing us by neglect, but this isn't new and people are just turning it into a boogeyman to sate the artiste's persecution complex.


----------



## Preach (May 13, 2013)

Yeah that doesn't help me AT ALL. My genre isn't even listed under categories. :0P


----------



## MGalloway (Jun 21, 2011)

ElHawk said:


> For corn's sake.


Popcorn?


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Joe Vasicek said:


> I'm sorry, but by bringing up the bigoted, outdated philosophies of eugenics and social Darwinism, you've completely discredited yourself. I thought we gave up all that garbage when we stopped sterilizing the mentally handicapped back in the 60s and 70s.


+1000

I was upset by this as well.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, there's not going to be any need for popcorn here because I'm going to lock the thread if it gets to that point.  

Frankly, I don't think there's any new points to be made, but I'm going to leave it open for now.  I suggest those who've said their piece on one side or the other move on to one of the other thousands of threads we have here on KB.  I think there are a couple of cover critique threads.  

Betsy
KBoards Moderator


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Couldn't we do a quilt critique instead?


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Joe Vasicek said:


> I'm sorry, but by bringing up the bigoted, outdated philosophies of eugenics and social Darwinism, you've completely discredited yourself. I thought we gave up all that garbage when we stopped sterilizing the mentally handicapped back in the 60s and 70s.


I was a little dissed by this, as well, but it's really FAR off-topic.
The article doesn't even talk about making babies and even mentions that the concept of IQ is debatable to begin with. Further, I somehow doubt that they had correct testing protocols well over 100 years ago.
Not to mention that it's been pretty much established that low levels of education and religious fundamentalism play a part in overproduction of humans, not intelligence.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I suggest those who've said their piece on one side or the other move on


Craft question:

"Say their piece" as in a piece of advice or a bit of opinion or
"Say their peace" as in have their say to get peace of mind.

I always thought it was "peace" but I don't use the phrase and the more I think about it, the more wrong it looks.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> Charging money isn't going to make that happen. It'll just make sure rich people can make all the mistakes they want, but the poor people that spent years polishing get the shaft.


No, the idea of charging is to pay the cost of an inspection...e.g. having someone read it and pass/fail it. Not based on subjective narrative issues, but on grammar, spelling, formatting, etc. There's no way Amazon or anyone else could pay that cost with no idea how a book will sell.

By the way, and I don't mean this in an obnoxious way, but Amazon doesn't owe the world a free and easy way to sell any book. It's a business, and the likeliest way to kill the golden goose is if too much poor quality stuff is out there. I'd wager that how to nurture the self-pub market while maintaining standards is a major topic of discussion as Amazon.

Again, I don't mean this to be insensitive, but it's a little unreasonable for someone to be unwilling to invest $50 in their book yet expect Amazon to provide unfettered access to the world's most potent sales machine. If they charged a $1,000 a book for access to the store it would still be the world's greatest bargain.


----------



## 60169 (May 18, 2012)

Quiss said:


> Craft question:
> 
> "Say their piece" as in a piece of advice or a bit of opinion or
> "Say their peace" as in have their say to get peace of mind.
> ...


I've always thought of it as the equivalent of giving someone a "piece" of their mind.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

Quiss said:


> Craft question:
> 
> "Say their piece" as in a piece of advice or a bit of opinion or
> "Say their peace" as in have their say to get peace of mind.
> ...


It's 'piece' as in a piece of advice. Maybe a way to remember it is to emphasize the pronoun. Everyone's said _their_ piece--and all the pieces together make up the puzzle.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> I've seen the absolutely horrible things that some people publish. But I'd be very concerned about the nature of any review process. (Not to mention that $50 is big money, for me.)
> 
> If the review was mechanical, well, it would have to be a lot better than Word. Word nags me about my _correct_ usage of lie and lay. Word doesn't understand appositive phrases. Word freaks out about sentence fragments. Even in dialogue. Even for emphasis. And, since I write fantasy, I use a massive amount of made-up words.
> 
> On the other hand, if the review was done by human beings, chances are that it'd be done by people whose understanding of English was far inferior to mine. (That comment doesn't reflect arrogance on my part. I'd be ready to concede that my grasp of _their_ native language was nonexistent.)


If your grasp of English is strong, your books wouldn't have any issues. But I've read stuff that my eleven year old niece could edit.

Every comment made on this board seems to be taken as a personal attack by half the people who respond. If you love this indie market so much, you should want to preserve it, and if you can't see that poorly written, edited, and formatted books reflect back on all of us , I don't know what else to say.

I don't think most book buyers differentiate between publishers and indies, but if they keep getting crap that is barely readable, they will. And then you and I and everyone on here WILL be in a ghetto...one created in readers' minds. Indies who don't put the effort into insuring their work is of professional quality are the best advertising the Big 5/6 could ever have. The real thing that should chill people on here is the fact that people on Amazon boards are begging for search results without indies. That's not the Big 5/6...that's your potential readers, so turn off by thing they've seen that they want to avoid it all.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

jayallan said:


> Every comment made on this board seems to be taken as a personal attack by half the people who respond.


^The nature of Internet discussion boards. Just sayin'.

Betsy


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

jayallan said:


> No, the idea of charging is to pay the cost of an inspection...e.g. having someone read it and pass/fail it. Not based on subjective narrative issues, but on grammar, spelling, formatting, etc. There's no way Amazon or anyone else could pay that cost with no idea how a book will sell.
> 
> By the way, and I don't mean this in an obnoxious way, but Amazon doesn't owe the world a free and easy way to sell any book. It's a business, and the likeliest way to kill the golden goose is if too much poor quality stuff is out there. I'd wager that how to nurture the self-pub market while maintaining standards is a major topic of discussion as Amazon.
> 
> Again, I don't mean this to be insensitive, but it's a little unreasonable for someone to be unwilling to invest $50 in their book yet expect Amazon to provide unfettered access to the world's most potent sales machine. If they charged a $1,000 a book for access to the store it would still be the world's greatest bargain.


Luckily, the idea hasn't even been floated by anyone in the position t make it happen.

But it is a really, really horrible idea. The genie is out of the bottle and people now know that they have an outlet to get their words out there. Putting a financial barrier in place, especially in a time when the US is just crawling out of an economic crisis is an awful PR move if anything. And if they try and pull that kind of shenanigan, BN and the other players in the game won't and then Amazon will get its lunch eaten in the same manner in which they smacked everyone else down before.

If they want to improve quality, they would instead create an opt-in paid program with bonuses for submitting to an inspection or even an editing service.

And no, $50 is not the kind of chump change where it would be okay for them to charge it.


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Okay, folks. I know this is very harrowing news (two years ago), so we need to keep level heads about this.
> 
> What we need to do right now is panic. Panic long, hard and loud. Encourage others to panic. Do whatever you can to drown out the voices of reason who try to get a handle on this situation by spreading rumor as fact. Above all, make the situation worse.
> 
> ...


FINALLY a post that makes sense and I can get behind! Now, does it matter if I only use discount gas? Summer sales slump and all that....


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> ^The nature of Internet discussion boards. Just sayin'.
> 
> Betsy


You mean me, don't you? I knew it.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Quote from: Quiss on Today at 10:09:01 AM
> I'd love to see a review process and I'd be willing to pay for it.
> I don't mean the sort of thing the big publishers do, but someone going through a random chapter or two to make sure that the book has been properly edited. That alone would help matters. $50 per title would more than cover the expense of hiring someone to do that."


My lack of success is not due to inferior competition.



> Amazon launched the indie page and its Best Seller list in August 2011. There was a thread back then worrying that this was the start of some big indie segregation.
> It never happened and it's never going to happen. We make them too much money."


So the sky has been falling for a few years, and nobody noticed?


----------



## Katherine Roberts (Apr 4, 2013)

jayallan said:


> A midlist author selling 100k books a year...


Wow, "midlist" must mean something different where you are! 

But going back to the indie category discussion, what about books that were once traditionally published and are now indie published because the publisher let them go out of print? Most of mine fall into that category.

Regarding quality, don't most readers sample before buying? If I read a sample and think I won't enjoy reading the whole book (because of its subject matter or editing/language issues) then I don't buy the rest of it - simple! More difficult are the books that promise a good story in the first 3 chapters and then don't deliver - but there are as many of those traditionally published as indie published, and every reader is different, so I don't think it's possible to rate a book artistically.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

headofwords said:


> Yeah, does this mean we're no longer visible alongside the "real" books? Can't say the thought of blatant segregation fills me with joy. Like does anyone actually search specifically for indie books?


No, it doesn't mean that. This is in addition to other categories.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

jayallan said:


> Every comment made on this board seems to be taken as a personal attack by half the people who respond.


Welcome to Earth.



jayallan said:


> I don't think most book buyers differentiate between publishers and indies, but if they keep getting crap that is barely readable, they will. And then you and I and everyone on here WILL be in a ghetto...one created in readers' minds.


This was said in 2008. 
This was said in 2009.
This was said in 2010.
This was said in 2011.
This was said in 2012.

Each year, indie market share increased.

B.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Ann in Arlington said:


> You mean me, don't you? I knew it.


Uh-huh.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

jayallan said:


> If your grasp of English is strong, your books wouldn't have any issues. But I've read stuff that my eleven year old niece could edit.
> 
> Every comment made on this board seems to be taken as a personal attack by half the people who respond. If you love this indie market so much, you should want to preserve it, and if you can't see that poorly written, edited, and formatted books reflect back on all of us , I don't know what else to say.
> 
> I don't think most book buyers differentiate between publishers and indies, but if they keep getting crap that is barely readable, they will. And then you and I and everyone on here WILL be in a ghetto...one created in readers' minds. Indies who don't put the effort into insuring their work is of professional quality are the best advertising the Big 5/6 could ever have. The real thing that should chill people on here is the fact that people on Amazon boards are begging for search results without indies. That's not the Big 5/6...that's your potential readers, so turn off by thing they've seen that they want to avoid it all.


I didn't take anything posted here as a personal attack, and I agree that poorly written, edited, and formatted books reflect badly on all of us. However, and this is the point that you didn't address, I don't see what can be done about it. I'm sure that Amazon isn't going to hire Red Adept to do quality checks for them. I see only two things that a large corporation is apt to do. A: They could do automated checks, and I addressed why that might not work well. B: They could outsource, and hire people who are semiliterate in English, and I think we can all see why that might not work well.

What do you think that Amazon should do for quality checking?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Katherine Roberts said:


> Wow, "midlist" must mean something different where you are!


I want to be that kind of midlist author!


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2013)

MaryMcDonald said:


> Quote from: LisaGraceBooks on Today at 08:23:21 AM
> Reading the article in the link you posted, we have supposedly lost an average of 14 IQ points. If the data extrapolates out at the same rate, in 500 years, everyone will be an imbecile (and I mean that in the psychological sense: Imbecile - Merriam-Webster Online
> www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imbecile‎
> usually offensive : a person affected with moderate mental retardation.)
> ...


Meanwhile, we've put men on the moon, we've built a permanent outpost in space, we've cured or eradicated numerous diseases, achieved astounding levels of world literacy, invented the airplane, invented the railroad, invented the automobile, invented the telephone, the radio, personal computing, the internet...

This idea that we are somehow breeding ourselves into collective imbecility is absolutely ludicrous. We may be headed for (or already in) another "dark age" period for any number of reasons, but this crap is nothing but pseudo-science, and unoriginal pseudo-science at that.

At the risk of vindicating Godwin's law on just the sixth page of this discussion, let me point out that social Darwinism, taken to its logical extremes, was used to justify the holocaust, as well as a number of horrific eugenics programs in Europe and the United States that persisted even after WWII.

The fact that there are people in this otherwise intelligent community who still lend this outdated and disgusting philosophy any credence whatsoever is thoroughly mind-boggling.


----------



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

jayallan said:


> Again, I don't mean this to be insensitive, but it's a little unreasonable for someone to be unwilling to invest $50 in their book yet expect Amazon to provide unfettered access to the world's most potent sales machine. If they charged a $1,000 a book for access to the store it would still be the world's greatest bargain.


It's not a case of 'unwilling' it's a case of affordability. Those with the money will pay - whether their book is good or not. Those without money will not be able to afford it. Money is then the gatekeeper. The only reason I self-published with KDP is because it didn't cost me anything.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

VydorScope said:


> FINALLY a post that makes sense and I can get behind! Now, does it matter if I only use discount gas? Summer sales slump and all that....


No, no. Spend your entire bank account on this. The world is ending, don'tcha know?


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> Those with the money will pay - whether their book is good or not.


Well, they might pay...but if their book doesn't pass the inspection they don't get published. Not saying this is a good or bad idead but what has been suggested is to have to pay for the review of the books FORMATTING, etc. to make sure it well proofed and edited. If it isn't, it doesn't go live.

I don't know if that's a fair way to do it or not, but I do know I am tired of all the poorly proofed work by indies. It DOES affect readers opinions about us in general.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

1) Everyone concerned with your competition's proofing should look into doing something to make basic proofing inexpensive and easy for newbies. Because it is neither inexpensive nor easy and it is something no one seems to understand when they tell other people to 'just' drop half a grand that isn't even going to contribute to visibility on a first novel.

2) I think we can safely ignore the IQ/eugenics thing. Much like 'you only use 10% of your brain', it is a concept people like to bring up but which has an actual negative amount of scientific acceptance (except as a pick-up line for evolutionary biologists). Remember: this is the theory that the film _Idiocracy_ was based on; a movie that features a nation that watered their plants with sports drinks and had a TV show about groin shots.


----------



## KaryE (May 12, 2012)

Re: automated checks - It will never work. My spelling and grammar checker in Word is wrong almost as often as it's right. Grammar checkers don't have a good grasp of colons and semi colons, and sometimes not apostrophes, either. My grammar checker says something's a sentence fragment when it's not, and sometimes I write fragments on purpose. (The horror!) 

Amazon already does automated checks, and the hits I get on my fantasy stuff are nothing but time wasters for them and for me.

Examples: 
Laris - the name of a character. Amazon says it's a typo. They left Jerra, Maytri and Marrec alone, though - go figure.
Mawe (with an umlaut over the e) and Chimawe (same umlaut) - the first is a made up word for magical power, and the second is the name of a goddess.
checaquo - an Inuit word. Amazon says it's a typo.

I could go on, but probably enough said.

Am I all for editing and proofreading? Heck, yes! Mandatory quality checks? No, thank you. Automated doesn't work, and humans are prohibitively expensive.


----------



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

Terrence OBrien said:


> My lack of success is not due to inferior competition.


Hahah, this couldn't be put better.

Anyway. Amazon thinks the ebook market does best when most titles are $2.99 - 9.99. Major publishers prefer to charge as much as they can. Indie authors price almost exclusively at $0.99 - 5.99 and are probably the single biggest pressure for downward prices in the ebook market.

But Amazon has no use for us and it's just a matter of time until we're stuffed into the closet.

A thriving indie market gives Amazon access to tens of thousands of titles no one else has. They have more books and more data than anyone else in publishing. By not setting arbitrary prices or restricting what gets published, they don't have to make guesses about what might sell or how to sell it. They have hundreds of thousands of books creating a living ecosystem they can analyze to make their storefront even better--and they're the only ones with access to that data. The more authors they allow in, and the more those authors are allowed to innovate, the more Amazon learns, and the bigger the advantage they have over every other publishing company on Earth.

But sooner or later Amazon is going to decide the jig is up and they've learned everything there is to know about ebooks and publishing.

We cost Amazon nothing. We're free money. The only possible threat indies pose to their business is if we somehow poison the pool with bad books, but they've built their system so no one _sees_ those books. And sometimes books that everyone here would agree are "bad"--terrible editing, ugly covers, derivative plots--sell like gangbusters anyway. Why? I don't know. But I bet Amazon has a few theories.

Because they were happy to let everyone publish, let consumers decide what they wanted to buy, and take advantage of that emergent behavior to get even better.

It's tougher than ever to get started as an indie, but I think that has much less to do with Amazon squeezing us and more to do with how hypercompetitive indie authors have become at every aspect of the business. And not only do they get 30-65% of everything we sell, they know everything about how we sell it. The moment Amazon starts segregating us from the market is the moment they forfeit their knowledge-advantage to Kobo, Apple, Barnes & Noble, and anyone else looking to grab a corner of the ebook world.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

Let's say that 1 million terrible books are self-published at Amazon this year.  Let's say that they each sell five copies to the authors' nearest and dearest.  Let's say that Amazon makes an average of a buck on each one.  That's 5 million dollars to Amazon for nothing but some server space.  Amazon wouldn't want to lose that income.  In fact they'd love to double it and triple it every year.


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

IMHO, there is no business reason for Amazon to segregate Indies and plenty of business reasons not to. Bottom line, Indie authors are LEVERAGE for Amazon against the Big 6. If the Big 6 become too big a part of the Amazon ebook business, there is nothing stopping them from pulling all of their books and setting up their own book stores, thereby cutting Amazon completely out of the loop.

Amazon has a vested interest in promoting Indie authors and making Indies indistinguishable from Big 6 authors -- Amazon actively needs to turn a few Indie authors into superstars. That way, if the Big 6 ever try to muscle Amazon and pull out of the store, Amazon can counter with "Doesn't matter, we still have millions of books, we have all of these *big stars*. And if you pull out, we are going to sic the mad readers after you because we are going to blame you."

Amazon NEEDS us more than most of us realize.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

This was launched almost two years ago:

[URL=http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,79452.125]http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,79452.125.html[/url]

Apparently, they weren't very good at spreading the word.  

The funny part: That two-year-old thread contains all the same concerns you are expressing now, but nothing has changed.


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> this is the theory that the film _Idiocracy_ was based on; a movie that features a nation that watered their plants with sports drinks and had a TV show about groin shots.


_
Idiocracy_ always seemed like a documentary to me.


----------



## Maggie Dana (Oct 26, 2011)

Last month I was one of 20 KDP authors selected at random for a lengthy phone interview. For over an hour I spoke with “Brian” from Amazon about my experiences with KDP and what I felt were needed improvements.

Immediately, I asked for a YA category (I write MG and women’s fiction, but have many friends who write YA) and also for more visibility and marketing help for DIY authors. We also discussed sales rankings, algorithms, and why Amazon doesn’t offer a direct way for authors to make their books free (it costs Amazon for each download, and they make nothing from them).

And then I brought up the subject of books that get no reviews, have a 1 million-plus ranking, and seem to be going nowhere. I asked Brian, point blank, if Amazon would ever pull them from the system because, perhaps, they were clogging it up.

His answer was an emphatic “No.”

I have no idea if this information adds to the current thread, but thought I’d toss it out anyway.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Am I the only one bothered by how we, who all at least have a foot in the door and are less likely to be impacted, are sitting around, coolly contemplating just how best to slam the door on the faces of people who are now in the same place we were before taking part in free (and several senses of the word) entry into the publishing world?

Not only that, but all of the suggestions specifically target people with low incomes and small support networks.

And yet we're angry with _Amazon_ for forcing people into a ghetto? Meanwhile, we're proposing tearing down the projects to build a country club. We have become the villains in an 80's movie.

This can only end with us falling into water/mud/manure.


----------



## The world would be prettier with more zebra strip (Apr 20, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=amb_link_374582142_27?ie=UTF8&node=3059252011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=left-1&pf_rd_r=0K4MZDN42X0JC7PFY3DX&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1552619282&pf_rd_i=154606011
> 
> Just noticed this today. Now on the main page, a person can click on "Indie" and find us.
> 
> In the words of Napoleon Dynamite: _Sweeeeet._


 

That has existed for some time, at least six months. I remember the first time I found it, I was like 'Indie means cool?' Cool.

I was trying to find the definition of indie at the time, and Amazon's indie page popped up in the search engine. I was like, "Okay, I buy that definition."


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Am I the only one bothered by how we, who all at least have a foot in the door and are less likely to be impacted, are sitting around, coolly contemplating just how best to slam the door on the faces of people who are now in the same place we were before taking part in free (and several senses of the word) entry into the publishing world?


Not me. Break down the gates! Throw them wide open and let everyone inside!


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> Luckily, the idea hasn't even been floated by anyone in the position t make it happen.
> 
> But it is a really, really horrible idea. The genie is out of the bottle and people now know that they have an outlet to get their words out there. Putting a financial barrier in place, especially in a time when the US is just crawling out of an economic crisis is an awful PR move if anything. And if they try and pull that kind of shenanigan, BN and the other players in the game won't and then Amazon will get its lunch eaten in the same manner in which they smacked everyone else down before.
> 
> ...


Wow. I just couldn't disagree more. First, Amazon is NOT a worldwide charity that exists for the purpose of allowing people to publish whatever they want. It is a business that allows people to use its platform to generate sales that both parties profit from. A lot of people seem to think Amazon owes them something. Quite the contrary, they have, more than anyone, created this market and done a great service for indie publishers. However, they have done what they have done to generate their own profits.

Second, I can't think of a better PR move they could make. It would be an answer to the complaints (and the default position of traditional publishing) that indie work is inferior. Yes, there would be intense whining on Internet message boards, but among the customers (who are the ones who ultimately decide what happens), I can't imagine it wouldn't be universally hailed as a good thing.

Third, the state of the economy is immaterial. Amazon provides access to it platform, customer service, etc. You may not be willing to invest $50 in your book, but they already do. I doubt $50 would do it...I was thinking more like $500. That's probably what it would take to have a trained person go through an entire book and clear it as meeting minimum basic publication standards. Btw, when I made my original post I wasn't talking about charging to be sold on Amazon, I was talking about funding a review process that would keep an indie book out of some possible future segregated area. IT wouldn't need to be an Amazon fee. They could license freelancers to provide the service to authors. The point is having some sort of third party verification that a book meets minimum standards.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all, and I doubt anything is going on now. But if customers are on message boards complaining about having indie books coming up in searches, that is a problem EVERY indie should take seriously. If enough people clamor for that, Amazon will give it to them somehow. Their top priority is the customer experience. Indies need to fit into that framework as a group or they will be segregated somehow. Eventually.

Technology allows anyone to publish anything, and anyone who wants to should create the book they want. Access to a sales channel like Amazon is not an inherent right.

I know some people are going to take this as an attack, but it is not. Quite the opposite. A healthy indie market is crucial for all of us.


----------



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

How many people are complaining about indie books? How many people are buying indie books?

Amazon doesn't seem super-interested in stuff that isn't automated and scalable.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> Am I the only one bothered by how we, who all at least have a foot in the door and are less likely to be impacted, are sitting around, coolly contemplating just how best to slam the door on the faces of people who are now in the same place we were before taking part in free (and several senses of the word) entry into the publishing world?
> 
> Not only that, but all of the suggestions specifically target people with low incomes and small support networks.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what a country club or housing projects has to do with this, but it's probably best to avoid turning this into some sort of proxy political debate. Book selling is a business, and Amazon can be expected to make business decisions.

Don't you understand at all that a healthy market is absolutely vital to new people coming into the market? Would you prefer Amazon let's all the indies at a certain sales level in with the published books and puts all the rest in a ghetto? Then new writers would have a much harder time rising up to get out.

Whether you think it's inevitable or not, you have to acknowledge the possibility that customers may at some point demand the removal of books that are full of mistakes and misspellings.

How would you propose Amazon handle that? Thumb their noses at customers after spending 18 years building a rep for customer service?


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

At the moment, Amazon seems to be letting the marketplace sift the books, and then discussing things with the individual authors when there are customer complaints about formatting or errors. (The only complaints that I've seen people report on Kboards were the erroneous ones, but I'm sure there are ones that are valid.)


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Amazon will never get rid of indies, or do anything to reduce their impact on the trad publishing industry. We are the stick with which they beat the publishers about the head.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

jayallan said:


> I doubt $50 would do it...I was thinking more like $500. That's probably what it would take to have a trained person go through an entire book and clear it as meeting minimum basic publication standards. Btw, when I made my original post I wasn't talking about charging to be sold on Amazon, I was talking about funding a review process that would keep an indie book out of some possible future segregated area. IT wouldn't need to be an Amazon fee. They could license freelancers to provide the service to authors. The point is having some sort of third party verification that a book meets minimum standards.


I'm really curious now...

Are you published through Amazon? I don't have sigs turned on to save bandwidth, so I can't tell. But if you are, when you first started putting your work out there did you have half a grand to hurl mightily into the void on a wing and a prayer at seeing your work distributed to the masses?

But not _just_ a half-grand; oh no. This is just a verification service to escape a publishing oubliette specifically designed with an eye toward telling people your book isn't worth reading--unless you can pay Amazon some bribe money to let you over the wall. You still need to pay for the professional editor that can get you through a paywall _that would profit Amazon if you repeatedly failed_ (because this is an 'inspection fee', you see), plus formatting (Because again, it will be exacting so they can squeeze you), maybe cover... I'd say you're in for a full thou.

That's a thousand dollars. With no promotion and nothing new on Amazon's part to help you out. That's more than many people make in a _month_.

Congratulations, Amazon is now worse than a vanity press and hemorrhaging talent to places like Barnes and Noble that have no paywall.

It's a terrible plan both in terms of Amazon's business model and in terms of the spirit if 'indie' publishing. Oh, I know, maybe we can get the $500 fee waived if we promise to work for scrip!


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

There is a wisdom generator hidden behind those cherubic features:



Edward W. Robertson said:


> A thriving indie market gives Amazon access to tens of thousands of titles no one else has. They have more books and more data than anyone else in publishing. By not setting arbitrary prices or restricting what gets published, they don't have to make guesses about what might sell or how to sell it. They have hundreds of thousands of books creating a living ecosystem they can analyze to make their storefront even better--and they're the only ones with access to that data. The more authors they allow in, and the more those authors are allowed to innovate, the more Amazon learns, and the bigger the advantage they have over every other publishing company on Earth.
> 
> But sooner or later Amazon is going to decide the jig is up and they've learned everything there is to know about ebooks and publishing.
> 
> ...


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all, and I doubt anything is going on now. But if customers are on message boards complaining about having indie books coming up in searches, that is a problem EVERY indie should take seriously. If enough people clamor for that, Amazon will give it to them somehow. Their top priority is the customer experience. Indies need to fit into that framework as a group or they will be segregated somehow. Eventually."


I don't much care about message boards because they tend to be populated by enthusiasts. I have no reason to think they are representative of the larger set of Amazon consumers.

I agree that if enough people want something, Amazon might give it to them. Perhaps the fact they haven't given it to them indicates not enough people want it?


----------



## NicoleY (May 21, 2013)

I admit I do like the concept of a first-time self-publishing author paying Amazon a small amount to have their book checked. By small amount I don't mean $50, and _definitely_ not $500, but something like $20-30. Not to read and check the entire book, but just to have someone look over random portions of it and make sure it's up to snuff.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Anyway. Amazon thinks the ebook market does best when most titles are $2.99 - 9.99. Major publishers prefer to charge as much as they can. Indie authors price almost exclusively at $0.99 - 5.99 and are probably the single biggest pressure for downward prices in the ebook market.
> 
> *But Amazon has no use for us and it's just a matter of time until we're stuffed into the closet.*
> 
> ...


Maybe I misunderstand what your "a matter of time until we're stuffed into the closet" remark means, but I think these two bolded points are _completely contradictory_. Yes, we provide data which Amazon will probably have enough of eventually, but I do not think they will ever decide they have enough _free money_.

I don't think any time in the foreseeable future they will "stuff us in a closet". Not as long as we are free money for them. Now the day we COST them money, you can bet we're gone, but I don't see any way that is likely to happen. Now things change so that could come about. But I don't see it as "just a matter of time" at all.

ETA: And on thinking about it, I'm not sure they ever will have enough data, because they implement changes or changes come about in publishing which require new data.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> But not _just_ a half-grand; oh no. This is just a verification service to escape a publishing oubliette specifically designed with an eye toward telling people your book isn't worth reading--unless you can pay Amazon some bribe money to let you over the wall. You still need to pay for the professional editor that can get you through a paywall _that would profit Amazon if you repeatedly failed_ (because this is an 'inspection fee', you see), plus formatting (Because again, it will be exacting so they can squeeze you), maybe cover... I'd say you're in for a full thou.
> 
> That's a thousand dollars. With no promotion and nothing new on Amazon's part to help you out. That's more than many people make in a _month_.
> 
> ...


You do realized that this is a purely hypothetical suggestion casually tossed out in a discussion and not actually anything even remotely hinted at by Amazon?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Quiss said:


> You do realized that this is a purely hypothetical suggestion casually tossed out in a discussion and not actually anything even remotely hinted at by Amazon?


That would be why I was making jokes about panicking, yes.

But I personally find the idea being suggested and the attitudes behind it offensive and far more corrosive to the industry as a whole than any number of non-proofed self-pubs.

I stand against the idea now; that it may never take root and fester.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> I'm really curious now...
> 
> Are you published through Amazon? I don't have sigs turned on to save bandwidth, so I can't tell. But if you are, when you first started putting your work out there did you have half a grand to hurl mightily into the void on a wing and a prayer at seeing your work distributed to the masses?
> 
> ...


Ok, let's take this one piece at a time. Yes, I am published at Amazon, and yes, I would have paid $1,000 to publish two books if I'd had to.

Now, I can only assume you are deliberately misinterpreting what was said to push a specific point of view. To clarify what I said:

1. I was referring to covering the cost of reviewing a book on basic standards of publishability. The specific issues I specified were spelling errors, poor grammar, and incorrect formatting. If you care to refer back to the earlier posts, you will find this list verbatim. I understand it adds an Orwellian veneer and makes the proposal seem superficially sinister to describe it as "telling people your book isn't worth reading." There is a far higher level of objectivity in the areas I set forth. Unless it is specifically being used in dialogue or to set a mood, I think it is safe to say that 185 spelling mistakes or grammatical errors every three lines is a quality control issue and not an attempt to squelch anyone's point of view or artistic voice.

2. Producer-funded quality control exists everywhere. Why does a small restaurant that is tight on funds need to pay fees to a health department, for example? It is in the interest of any industry, retailer, or block of producers to maintain the confidence of its customers that quality is a priority.

3. It isn't an issue whether someone can afford the cost. From Amazon's perspective, the purpose is to insure the quality levels their customers expect. That is their only concern and their only real responsibility. Again, real world comparisons abound. If I want to be in any business, there is some level of investment I must make. If I want to be in any professional field, there are educational and licensing requirements. We have to pay fees to get a driver's license, take a subway, ride a bus...all things that are required for basic employment. If I get a job in an office, and I need to wear suits, I don't get to wear shorts because the purchase of suits is burdensome. Based on the content of the previous post, I can imagine a response to the effect that I am some callous cartoon of a villainous millionaire, rubbing my hands together and laughing maniacally at the masses who can't afford the costs I gleefully mandate. This is not the case. Quite frankly, I have tremendous sympathy for those in difficult circumstances. Indeed, I have experienced them before myself, and most people can find themselves in such a situation at one time or another. However, my empathy in this situation runs more toward things like rent, food, and utilities, and not the fact that evil Amazon won't subsidize someone's publishing efforts.

4. Your characterization of Amazon as imposing some fee to fail books repeatedly to fatten its coffers is a pure fantasy not derived in any way from the posts on this thread. Amazon had never proposed any such charge, nor in any way made an effort to profit from authors other than through the sale of books. Further, my conjecture on a possible future way to control quality never suggested it as a profit center. I very clearly said to cover the costs...and the bottom line is, if there is some sort of review process, it is going to have a cost that must be covered. Why you would argue against my point by inserting the idea that this is some plot to bilk authors for profit is beyond me. Is it simply an attempt to discredit the concept by assigning to it characteristics that were never suggested in the first place?

5. Suggesting that the imposition of a producer-funded quality control system as a precondition of unfettered access to their store would make Amazon "worse than a vanity press" defies my ability to comprehend. Sure...desiring to insure that a book meets very basic standards of grammar and formatting before selling it to their customers is the "same" as bilking an author out of tens of thousands of dollars in overpriced services. Yeah, that's the same thing. No, wait...you said it's _worse_.

6. Again, I can understand different points of view, but what I do not get is offering up arguments that are statistically invalid just to attempt to discredit the opposing point. The notion that Amazon would lose significant sales to B&N and the other retailers is baseless. Amazon is 65% of the total market and much more of the indie market. Posts on these board relentlessly confirm that even authors who sell well are frustrated with the difficulty of building decent sales on the other platforms. Yes, there are sales there. I actually do pretty well on BN. But the notion that Amazon is expendable to most indie authors is pure fantasy. If they lowered the royalties, if they imposed fees, if they called us nasty names...most indies would stay put, because it's the main place they get sales. People would be mad, they'd complain, but the ones who wanted to sell books would live with it, because there is no place to replace it. I don't happen to think this is healthy for the market, but it is reality.

FYI, the only reason I even spitballed a possible solution of this sort is because it is clear that many people expect indie work to be segregated somehow. I don't particularly share that belief, but if it were to happen, the ONLY reason it would is because of the number of poor quality works that caused customer satisfaction to decline. I think such angry, automatic resistance to any solution to this issue only diminishes the future.

Video game sales dropped 97% from 1983 to 1985, destroying whole companies in the process. A big part of the cause was the massive numbers of new companies publishing games with no oversight by the game manufacturers. Customers were turned off because a lot of the games were of appalling quality (despite the fact that many very good ones were produced as well.)

The early adopters of ebooks were precisely the group to find it interesting to explore the world of indie books, and they were far more tolerant of the quality issues we are discussing. The more mainstream the market becomes, the more an indie ebook is going to be expected to be as neat and clean as any publishers book. If that isn't the case, you'll have ghettoization alright, but the market will do it.


----------



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

JRTomlin said:


> Maybe I misunderstand what your "a matter of time until we're stuffed into the closet" remark means, but I think these two bolded points are _completely contradictory_. Yes, we provide data which Amazon will probably have enough of eventually, but I do not think they will ever decide they have enough _free money_.
> 
> I don't think any time in the foreseeable future they will "stuff us in a closet". Not as long as we are free money for them. Now the day we COST them money, you can bet we're gone, but I don't see any way that is likely to happen. Now things change so that could come about. But I don't see it as "just a matter of time" at all.
> 
> ETA: And on thinking about it, I'm not sure they ever will have enough data, because they implement changes or changes come about in publishing which require new data.


I agree with you completely. It may not be as clear now that things have calmed down, but the first bolded part was sarcasm.

As long as indies have an incentive to put out high-grade content--like, oh, say, money--there's no danger of indie books being cordoned off to the part of the store no one visits.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

jayallan said:


> Ok, let's take this one piece at a time. Yes, I am published at Amazon, and yes, I would have paid $1,000 to publish two books if I'd had to.


I am very happy for you that you are well off. Not everyone is, nor should that be a prerequisite for publishing an indie book.



> Now, I can only assume you are deliberately misinterpreting what was said to push a specific point of view. To clarify what I said:


I know very well what you said AND the end result. What you are proposing is abominable AND counter to the tactic that made Amazon the king of ebooks. I mean since things like fairness, compassion and art are no-gos for this conversation, let's talk mad Benjamins, yo. (Because that is ALL that matters. Money never sleeps and coffee is for CLOSERS)

To wit: Amazon won the ebook war by throwing open the doors to a self-perpetuating horde of new talent who produced a LOT of titles and required little to no intervention on Amazon's part. A book that doesn't make them money simply disappears into the sea of chaos thanks to the ranking system and those that do sell but generate complaints trigger canned emails.

The whole thing costs them very little while making sure that the writers that DO produce work that makes money produce it on Amazon regardless of their business savvy or income level.

You see, here is the secret that Amazon keeps us around for: a well off guy with a thousand dollars to throw up in the air is only just as likely as a single mom with three kids to feed to write something that sells hundreds of thousands of copies.

Yes, maybe you can get more money up front and provide the illusion of quality by only letting the well off publish... (I mean charging quality assurance fees--no wait _*those would be exactly the same thing*_ under you proposed system) ...but if both are equally as likely to bring in ten thousand dollars and you system will quietly bury any bombs anyway, you would literally be throwing money in the garbage by instituting a paywall or an oubliette with a paywall escape hatch.

What would happen if you implemented the idea would be that other sites like B&N, who don't have that paywall will now get that mother of three who you rejected for not being rich. And if she then hits it big, you will not only be making zero dollars off her, but your competition will be making more money and gaining more market share.

And that is why, even under the cold, calculating eyes of business, that idea is absolutely terrible.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> I am very happy for you that you are well off. Not everyone is, nor should that be a prerequisite for publishing an indie book.
> I know very well what you said AND the end result. What you are proposing is abominable AND counter to the tactic that made Amazon the king of ebooks. I mean since things like fairness, compassion and art are no-gos for this conversation, let's talk mad Benjamins, yo. (Because that is ALL that matters. Money never sleeps and coffee is for CLOSERS)
> 
> To wit: Amazon won the ebook war by throwing open the doors to a self-perpetuating horde of new talent who produced a LOT of titles and required little to no intervention on Amazon's part. A book that doesn't make them money simply disappears into the sea of chaos thanks to the ranking system and those that do sell but generate complaints trigger canned emails.
> ...


And the mother of three would be lucky to sell 10% as many books on B&N, with their smaller market share, poorer customer experience, and (if they didn't copy the change at Amazon) new reputation as the ghetto where there is no quality control.

I'd also be likely to argue that the average work put through a basic quality control process would be vastly more likely to sell well, but this debate is utterly pointless.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

B&N's marketshare wouldn't stay small if Amazon started handing them an entire talent pool by creating the Poor People Garbage Can Program.


----------



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

jayallan said:


> I'd also be likely to argue that the average work put through a basic quality control process would be vastly more likely to sell well, but this debate is utterly pointless.


If that were true, it would be to our incentive as authors to put our books through quality control. Meaning it will happen without any intervention or investment on Amazon's part. Maybe it's already happened.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> I agree with you completely. It may not be as clear now that things have calmed down, but the first bolded part was sarcasm.
> 
> As long as indies have an incentive to put out high-grade content--like, oh, say, money--there's no danger of indie books being cordoned off to the part of the store no one visits.


Sorry. The sarcasm flew right over my head, but I wasn't reading the thread when it was more heated. LOL

Now it makes sense.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> B&N's marketshare wouldn't stay small if Amazon started handing them an entire talent pool by creating the Poor People Garbage Can Program.


Ok, sure.


----------



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

Question, Jay. Say Amazon put in some quality control fee. $500 or whatever. What percentage of the books currently being published on Amazon would still get published with such a barrier in place? 10%? 1%? Do you think it's really in Amazon's interests to throttle their available content in that manner when the other stores don't? Do you think the top-selling indies by and large don't already put their books through such quality control? Do you think many of the books that don't get it but go on to sell anyway would still be published on Amazon?

I don't buy it at all. But I hope this difference of opinion doesn't impact our status as alsobot-buddies on B&N.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

In this hypothetical scenario, Amazon either rejects anyone that can't pay the $500 or who pay and is still rejected (No, seriously, what happens if you pay your bloodprice and still get rejected? Are you just out all that money?), or they bounce them into the oubliette.

The question is: who the hell would want their book put into the oubliette? The implication is that this would be a place on the site that's not searchable from the main site and is clearly for the books that 'aren't quality controlled'.

If the idea is that B&N would become a leper for not using the same policy, then the oubliette suffers the same stigma AND is in a specific section to highlight that stigma. And it doens't matter if you're there because you aren't edited, or simply because you can't afford five hundred freaking dollars to take the sign that says 'LOSER' off your book.

So let's assume that I wrote a book and maybe I have a friend who is a pro editor who did me a solid, or I spent years polishing, or my kids now eat dog food so I could afford a pro editor. But... I can't afford the paywall still.

Why should I put my novel, which is now polished and shiny and guaranteed to make money hand over fist, on Amazon if they're just going to shove it in their 'Amazon Cesspit' section because I'm poor when B&N has no such policies and I can sign up for free?

It is this situation that means Amazon will continue to be open to indies. It is far, far worse for a brilliant book to not be on their site than it is for even a million bad ones to be there.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Question, Jay. Say Amazon put in some quality control fee. $500 or whatever. What percentage of the books currently being published on Amazon would still get published with such a barrier in place? 10%? 1%? Do you think it's really in Amazon's interests to throttle their available content in that manner when the other stores don't? Do you think the top-selling indies by and large don't already put their books through such quality control? Do you think many of the books that don't get it but go on to sell anyway would still be published on Amazon?
> 
> I don't buy it at all. But I hope this difference of opinion doesn't impact our status as alsobot-buddies on B&N.


First, understand that I'm not advocating this...it was just a thought about a way to provide some sort of quality filter. I do think, at some point, the industry or the retailers are going to have to do something. There's a lot of prickly pride on these boards from indies who bristle at the suggestion that traditionally published are superior, but without some way of insuring that indies publish responsibly, I don't see how parity can be attained in the consumer's mind.

Any comment like that will elicit responses like, "well my work is well done, and I proofread carefully and hire an editor, etc." Fine, I'm sure that's usually the case for the people posting here. But I can say for certain that I've bought books that looked interesting to me, and I found that I really didn't want to fight my way through the difficult writing and the mistakes, even though I knew the story was probably interesting. I saw one book that 47 North picked up that was selling very well. It's description very specifically stated that it had been cleaned up to deal with the errors and the issues people complained about. And that was a book that was strong enough to become a significant seller. What else is out there?

I don't want to pay a fee any more than anyone else, but what is the answer long term? It appears the general opinion is that indie publishing ranks will continue to grow. Don't you think the early adopters are probably, on average, more committed and producing more polished work than those who will follow...the ones who didn't have to do the research that those here earlier did? If so, we can expect average quality to decline, even as the work of experienced self-publishers becomes more sophisticated. There's some sort of ghettoization coming...there has to be.

Like I said, I don't want a fee. But what options are there to have some basic production quality filter?

Require indies to have agents?
Segregate all indie books until they sell 10,000 copies?

Those options seem much worse to me.

Why charge a fee for review? Amazon couldn't afford to absorb the cost. Sure, they'd do it in a heartbeat for established sellers...they'd probably waive the requirement entirely for proven commodities. But what about the thousands (millions?) of newbies who might never sell more than a book to mom? I think there's an erroneous idea that an uploaded ebook doesn't cost Amazon anything. But that isn't true. There is customer service, for example. It might be frustrating at times, but it's there, regardless of how few books you sell. Every time we decide we want one of those non-standard categories, for example, we get into an exchange with a human being who is paid, has an office to work in and supervisors who manage them. A small percentage of books will end up requiring more interaction, and this is apportioned across the entire line of books.

Amazon probably does very well on strong-selling indie books, but they probably lose money on most titles. Yes, that pool of new titles is where the next strong seller comes from, but don't overplay the indie hand. Of course Amazon wants a healthy indie market...they practically created it. Don't you think they will do what they need to preserve it?

I certainly do think strong selling indies put their work through strong filters themselves...and a lot of lower-selling ones do too. But the strong sellers aren't the issue.

As far as what percentage would still get published, I think any guess I could make would be meaningless. I do tend to think that the people who are serious would comply with such a policy. That's not an absolute, of course, but I don't think they'd lose a huge percentage of their total unit sales, though numbers of titles would decline. Wouldn't that be a good thing in many ways?

I understand you disagree...I don't even know what I think will happen. But I've never seen an industry where there was absolutely no quality control imposed anywhere along the line. Sure, lots of authors do a great job and put out very good stuff. But a lot throw up poor quality books too. Like it or not, these books get pegged as indies, just like your books.

I just think there's a lot of hubris floating around on the part of some indies. There's plenty of reason for justifiable pride by a lot of people, but if you really enjoy and value the market and opportunity you need to consider the things that can harm it, not just today, but down the road. As control over shelf space becomes less of an advantage, don't you think publishers will start marketing on the basis that many indie books are poorly finished?

There's nothing wrong with different opinions. And you can never have enough also-bought buddies. I wonder why we're not on Amazon as well as BN.

Actually, I do pretty well on BN, but it's still a small percentage. Anyone who things BN is a viable replacement for Amazon is fooling themselves, imo.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

But as a reader I come built in with a my own personal quality filter. I can tell at a glance if a book interests me. I can tell within a minute of being on the book's page if it is something I want to read.  I am almost never disappointed (in fact, the last time I had to quit reading a book because of formatting and grammar issues, it was a book published by a big NY publisher).  I have no problems finding quality, interesting books to read. In fact, I find more of them than I could ever read in my lifetime and I read 350+ books a year.

Anyway. I'm glad the sky isn't falling. Yay.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> In this hypothetical scenario, Amazon either rejects anyone that can't pay the $500 or who pay and is still rejected (No, seriously, what happens if you pay your bloodprice and still get rejected? Are you just out all that money?), or they bounce them into the oubliette.
> 
> The question is: who the hell would want their book put into the oubliette? The implication is that this would be a place on the site that's not searchable from the main site and is clearly for the books that 'aren't quality controlled'.
> 
> ...


I didn't realize that your books were "guaranteed to make money hand over fist." I'm sure if you can prove that to Amazon's satisfaction they will exempt you from the policies aimed at the rest of us, who are subject to the vagaries of the marketplace.

You should put your novel anywhere you see fit, subject to the current requirements and terms of service of the various retailers, just as Amazon should (and will) do whatever they decide is in the best interests of their overall business. It is a business, and in the case of Amazon, one extremely focused on customer satisfaction. In the end, they will do what they think serves those customers.

I'd also wager that if Amazon instituted some type of quality control policy, BN would trip over its own feet trying to follow. Dealing with indies isn't really in BN's DNA like it is in Amazon's. They are a creature of the old way of doing things, a dinosaur trying to get its foot out of the tarpit. I hope they do make it, but the image of BN as the bastion of unedited, unverified indie books after Amazon has called in the sheriff is a little hard for me to swallow.

Btw, the $500 was a wild guess at what it would cost to have someone read an entire book just to verify the basics (grammar, spelling, etc.). Someone suggested they could spot check a few chapters too, and that seems like a great idea. So maybe that cost is $100...or $50.

You can agree or disagree, of course, but I don't understand the overwrought characterizations. "Blood money?" Seriously? Do you think it is such a preposterous idea that Amazon would want to control the basic quality levels of products it offers through its enormously valuable sales system?

For that matter, Amazon could have very easily charged a listing fee to sell books on their system all along. It's worth it. You can sell your books on your own web site, but Amazon offers the chance to move thousands. They spent almost two decades and untold millions of dollars building that. Would it be such a ludicrous position if they charged for access?

But they don't. They could lower the royalty rates any time they wanted to, and there's nothing anyone could do about it. Drop Amazon and go to BN? Sure, but you'll leave 80-99% of your sales behind. And, btw, BN has been 65% all along, not 70%. Is that 5% they clip blood money too? Every time a discussion about royalties comes up I see posts saying something like, "if Amazon drops the rates, I'm gone. I'll go to Kobo. Sure, and you'll sell 30 books where you sold 10k on Amazon.

But Amazon hasn't lowered their royalties. I think you'd have to look far and wide to find a company that made itself easier to deal with, and yet the mere mention of a potential need to charge something for quality control evokes attacks and accusations of "blood money" and driving people to eat dog food.

You can certainly have an opinion either way, but I think the discussion is more productive if it's based on facts of some sort.


----------



## WG McCabe (Oct 13, 2012)

Have a conversation that is 100% speculation but base it on facts of some sort?

Gotcha!


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Patrick Szabo said:


> Have a conversation that is 100% speculation but base it on facts of some sort?
> 
> Gotcha!


It was a speculative suggestion to an actual problem. If everyone didn't suspect there was a problem out there, this board wouldn't go all grassy knoll every time some finds an article about Amazon making any changes regarding indies.

Example:

What would you do if you lost your job? Pure speculation there.

What are your skills? Your resume? Education? Savings and investments? Does your spouse work? Does he/she have benefits your family needs? All facts relevant in analyzing potential answers to the original speculation.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

The second you provide facts, we can do that. But until then we're dealing with the hypothetical and this idea you have of a paywall acting as a faux quality control measure.

Amazon doesn't charge to be on their system for one reason: content.

Their entire shtick in the world of ebooks is having more titles and more variety than anyone else. There's why they let everyone jump in the pool. That's why they have Select to lock people into their system.

Amazon's approach to ebooks is a shotgun and a sluice grate. They blast everything into the air all at once and let what doesn't work trickle out through the algorithms. They depend on sheer volume, boosted by new, strong selling talent in the same way someone panning for gold sifts through tons of mud for dust and the occasional nugget.

A paywall stops that. Dead.

You talk like five hundred dollars is nothing. Well, it's not. It isn't a matter of 'being serious' to some people it's 'making the rent' or 'not letting their kids starve'. No matter how good a person's book is, your idea boils the ability to get your work out there down to being financially well off. With the paywall, it stops being about book quality like it is now with the algorithms and makes it about how much money you're willing to spend.

And no, Barnes and Noble won't be stupid and follow Amazon if they pulled something like this. You know why? *Because not doing this is exactly how Amazon curb stomped them in the first place.*

Maybe you weren't in this thing a few years ago, but Kobo used to require representation, iBookstore used to actually cost money (and a quality check) to get into, and Nook was way late to the indy party.

In the meantime, Amazon threw open its doors, welcomed indies with a simple, self-serve, zero-dollar entry, and beat the pants off everyone by garnering a huge lead in the content race.

Which reminded me: *Apple tried this before and got the crap kicked out of them by Amazon, which didn't.* There it is. That's the reason this isn't going to get picked up by anyone with business sense. The one company that makes a living off grabbing old ideas, buffing them up a bit and reselling them is the one that tried and abandoned it.

And if Apple can't retread something and sell it to you for way too much money, no one can.


----------



## L.Miller (Oct 17, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> And if Apple can't retread something and sell it to you for way too much money, no one can.


Sorry O/T, but this made this Apple fangirl laugh. Love them, but so true. Anyway, really interesting discussion. I can sympathize with readers and authors wanting quality control, but I agree this type of paywall isn't the way to go. Isn't this why readers and booksellers avoided vanity presses like the plague? Money to publish != quality. I'm wondering if Amazon couldn't set up a very, very basic spellcheck.

By basic, I mean bypassing even grammar. Let authors add character names, and if applicable, invented language, to a dictionary _before_ the MS gets run through a spellchecker. (Ie, authors can't say 'thier' is 'invented language' when it gets flagged by spellcheck.) It wouldn't come anywhere near guaranteeing quality work, but it might catch the worst offenders.

Uh, of course, my spellcheck thinks that 'paywall' and...'spellcheck' are not words, so. Amazon would need to have a dictionary that's with the times, as well. I don't know how much processing power, and by extension money, that would cost them. But if it's substantial they might cut down on it by having the spellcheck run the first, say, ten pages. Too many errors first ten pages and it gets booted back to the author. If it passes that, then maybe have it take a random sample. Save processing power (and money), reduce risk of gaming. I don't know. I definitely don't want people getting kicked out unfairly, but I also don't want to see authors who bust their -- to be professionals get lost among those who couldn't be bothered. Are we allowed to say -- on KB? I'll go check now...we should be allowed, I _see_ -- on here all the time. Not that I'm complaining. (_ETA: *cough* Aaaand no we are not okay. ^_^'_) Anyway! Yes, indies, quality, etc.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

At the very least, if you are uploading an .epub file, Amazon does do a spell check. I got a hilariously long list when updating the backmatter of my fantasy book.


----------



## L.Miller (Oct 17, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> At the very least, if you are uploading an .epub file, Amazon does do a spell check. I got a hilariously long list when updating the backmatter of my fantasy book.


Ah, okay, I've not published yet, so I didn't know that. So they've already got some structure in place, it would be a matter of updating and tweaking it--again, letting fantasy authors include their own dictionary. Then bouncing it back to the author if there are too many errors. I'm hopeful that it will be as you said, Amazon is content to let the algorithms and the market do the filtering. But if not, I'd rather see this in place than a paywall for sure.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

I went looking for a new book to read this evening and chanced upon something that looked interesting. When I brought it up on an Amazon search, I found the reason why Amazon will maintain its relationship with indies.

_The Hive [Kindle Edition] 
Gill Hornby 
Gill Hornby (Author) 
› Visit Amazon's Gill Hornby Page
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author 
Are you an author? Learn about Author Central 
(Author) 
Be the first to review this item

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Print List Price: $25.00 
Kindle Price: $17.92 includes applicable taxes & free international wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet 
You Save: $7.08 (28%) 
Sold by: Hachette Book Group 
This price was set by the publisher _

By the way, you can buy the hardcover from Amazon for $16.83.


----------



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

This shouldn't be about an indie store or main store argument.

Amazon don't need to physically segregate Indie books, all they need do is identify them in their system. Once that's achieved, they can be and probably already are, tagged for searches the same way the system uses keywords. Does anyone here think that Amazon doesn't already know which books enter their system through KDP, Smashwords, and D2D?

The real problem is reader perception. We know from those forum threads on Amazon that readers are already unhappy with quality in some areas. Enough customer support for the idea will have Amazon reacting. I would be very surprised if there aren't already tags and keywords assigned to ebooks that are for Amazon official use (by that I mean invisible in the store) and used by their system to track certain things like click throughs, or sample downloads etc. All that neat data is of use. Amazon split testing uses it I am sure.

My concern is when Amazon makes it possible to filter indie ebooks in their search engine. Such a filter can be positive for readers looking for indie books, and will be welcomed by them. Amazon will be happy because they are "improving customer experience" -- a stated goal. But what is the percentage of readers wanting to filter IN indie books as opposed to those wanting to filter them OUT?


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Amazon doesn't care about the crap because it is *invisible* - nobody buys it, nobody returns it, nobody *sees* it. Amazon has no incentive to introduce quality control because the algos already serve that purpose by giving a spotlight to books that will sell and cutting off the oxygen to books it thinks won't sell.

Also, the crap serves a purpose. It allows Amazon to boast about have 2 million books in the Kindle Store (or whatever the number is), and 300,000 books tied up in exclusivity. It's a big selling point, and something they mention in every single press release. And if you look at the history of bookselling in America, the store with the biggest selection always wins.

The idea that Amazon would begin to start segregating indie work is laughable. Seriously, guys, produce one shred of evidence. Some people on this thread have been doing the same Chicken Little routine for two years now and what has happened?

Nothing. 

Let's be very, very clear about this: indies make Amazon lots and lots of money. By my estimates, self-publishers have captured *at least* a quarter of the Kindle market in the US, and probably closer to a third. All the indications are that readers will buy more self-published work the more they are exposed to it.

In short, there's no quality control issues. Readers love indie work and are buying more and more of it. The idea that Amazon would segregate indie work makes no sense and has no basis in reality. You can form your view of the market based on a couple of voices in a forum, or you can look at the numbers - which clearly show indies grabbing more and more market share.

But it's fun to run around shrieking, right?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

dgaughran said:


> Amazon doesn't care about the crap because it is *invisible* - nobody buys it, nobody returns it, nobody *sees* it. Amazon has no incentive to introduce quality control because the algos already serve that purpose by giving a spotlight to books that will sell and cutting off the oxygen to books it thinks won't sell.
> 
> Also, the crap serves a purpose. It allows Amazon to boast about have 2 million books in the Kindle Store (or whatever the number is), and 300,000 books tied up in exclusivity. It's a big selling point, and something they mention in every single press release. And if you look at the history of bookselling in America, the store with the biggest selection always wins.
> 
> ...


+1,000,000
THIS


----------



## B.A. Spangler (Jan 25, 2012)

KaryE said:


> Re: automated checks - It will never work. My spelling and grammar checker in Word is wrong almost as often as it's right. Grammar checkers don't have a good grasp of colons and semi colons, and sometimes not apostrophes, either. My grammar checker says something's a sentence fragment when it's not, and sometimes I write fragments on purpose. (The horror!)
> 
> Amazon already does automated checks, and the hits I get on my fantasy stuff are nothing but time wasters for them and for me.
> 
> ...


There _are_ systems available that provide scoring for performing the kind of checks discussed. They exist but also run into the same issues as even the most basic checker such as Word, which is style. Look at how Cormac McCarthy writes. How would that score in an autocheck, even if the autocheck hit 90%, styles like Cormac McCarthy would get dinged and his work turned away.


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

Amazon's spell checker is a joke. I have a lot of made up names, names of races, and etc in my fantasy novel and in almost 400k words of that it found exactly THREE words that it thought were misspelled. I do not see how you could create a automatic program to check spelling on fiction novels when you are including books that are building worlds, languages and so on.


----------



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

Caddy said:


> Well, they might pay...but if their book doesn't pass the inspection they don't get published. Not saying this is a good or bad idead but what has been suggested is to have to pay for the review of the books FORMATTING, etc. to make sure it well proofed and edited. If it isn't, it doesn't go live.
> 
> I don't know if that's a fair way to do it or not, but I do know I am tired of all the poorly proofed work by indies. It DOES affect readers opinions about us in general.


I meant that the book could be properly formatted and the spelling and grammar correct - but it could still be a rubbish book published merely because the writer was able to afford to pay to have it checked.


----------



## ClaireMarie (Feb 23, 2013)

dgaughran said:


> Amazon doesn't care about the crap because it is *invisible* - nobody buys it, nobody returns it, nobody *sees* it. Amazon has no incentive to introduce quality control because the algos already serve that purpose by giving a spotlight to books that will sell and cutting off the oxygen to books it thinks won't sell.
> 
> Also, the crap serves a purpose. It allows Amazon to boast about have 2 million books in the Kindle Store (or whatever the number is), and 300,000 books tied up in exclusivity. It's a big selling point, and something they mention in every single press release. And if you look at the history of bookselling in America, the store with the biggest selection always wins.
> 
> ...


Yep. This whole thing stopped my heart yesterday. Then it started again when cooler heads prevailed. David, you make perfect sense. Maybe this has been said before, but I think that we 'indies' make a lot more out of being indie than the average reader does. Especially in certain genres, I don't think the average reader even considers whether a work is published by one of the big companies or by me sitting at my desk at home. They buy because they're looking for something tempting to read next. Romance readers are voracious as I believe other genre readers are as well. The big houses can't produce stuff fast enough for them.

Honestly, all this talk of 'indie reputation' and 'indie quality'. I don't see it. Maybe only authors really have an itch about it.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> The second you provide facts, we can do that. But until then we're dealing with the hypothetical and this idea you have of a paywall acting as a faux quality control measure.
> 
> Amazon doesn't charge to be on their system for one reason: content.
> 
> ...


I believe that you wildly, massively, staggeringly overestimate the value to Amazon of the masses of content provided by authors not wiling to participate in even the most basic effort at quality control. But there is no point in arguing that.

This is a little off-topic, but since you persist in trying to suggest I'm in favor of starving children, let me just note that if someone's kids are so close to starvation, they might be better served getting another job to buy food instead of spending hundreds of hours on something as speculative and low percentage as writing a book that very well may not sell appreciable copies. I know that's what I would do if I had children on the verge of starving.

You continue to suggest that some cost related to quality control is outrageous. Do you feel the same way about cover art and design? Editing? Proofreading? I'd wager most indies who achieve any success spend money prepping their books. Is the market starving people's children by demanding decent covers?

The assertion that Amazon achieved its dominance (solely or primarily) on the back of indies is amusing. Almost twenty years of building a massive customer service organization, an unparalleled database from decades of bookselling, a massive investment in money and knowledge, and being the first to move into the market in a serious and customer friendly way, it was actually just the indie books that caused their success. Not only that, but specifically the indie books whose authors were unwilling to accept even basic standards of quality control.

Using Kobo and iBookstore, especially a year or two ago, as examples seems odd to me. Are you suggesting that Kobo could have had Amazon's position if they'd courted indies more aggressively early? That Amazon's market credibility and willingness to subsidize the Kindle business with hundreds of millions of dollars had nothing to do with it? It's just the public' unquenchable need for indie books that made Kindle the dominant platform?

I'm a big supporter of the indie market, but I'm also realistic about it. Indie books have sold because they got exposure on Amazon, and because most readers don't even think about the difference between self-published and trad-published books when they see them side by side on Amazon. If we don't keep our house in order, we risk creating that distinction in a way that is not good.

It's hard to discuss possible problems, because every discussion seeks to force each poster into one of two camps - the relentless zealots who sneer at any suggestion of problem or lack of perfection in the indie world and those who see doom and conspiracy around every corner. It would be nice if there was a middle ground, but there rarely is, unfortunately. I don't think disaster is around the corner by any means, but I do think this is a problem that sooner or later will be resolved one way or another.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

jayallan said:


> Indie books have sold because they got exposure on Amazon, and because most readers don't even think about the difference between self-published and trad-published books when they see them side by side on Amazon.


Because is a powerful word. I'd use it with more care. Surely, Amazon's indie promos have helped, but you must also explain why indies have managed to capture 30%* of the Nook market while B&N is making a concerted effort to counter-promote traditionally published ebooks and 126ing indie women's romance titles?

B.

*as stated by B&N exec earlier this year


----------



## 60169 (May 18, 2012)

kcfalls said:


> I think that we 'indies' make a lot more out of being indie than the average reader does. Especially in certain genres, I don't think the average reader even considers whether a work is published by one of the big companies or by me sitting at my desk at home. They buy because they're looking for something tempting to read next. Romance readers are voracious as I believe other genre readers are as well. The big houses can't produce stuff fast enough for them.
> 
> Honestly, all this talk of 'indie reputation' and 'indie quality'. I don't see it. Maybe only authors really have an itch about it.


I have come to believe this is true. On my FB page a few weeks ago, I asked my readers if they mostly read traditionally published books, indie books, or a mix. Since they were fans of an indie writer's page, I assumed I would find a lot of supporters of indie writing. Instead, the most common responses were "I can't tell the difference" "I don't care, I just read books that look good to me" and "What's an indie book?"


----------



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

jayallan said:


> I'm a big supporter of the indie market, but I'm also realistic about it. Indie books have sold because they got exposure on Amazon, and because most readers don't even think about the difference between self-published and trad-published books when they see them side by side on Amazon. If we don't keep our house in order, we risk creating that distinction in a way that is not good.


I'm sure this is an ongoing debate in whatever tower they keep the KDP wizards locked up in. But I think that, for the most part, there isn't a huge quality control difference between trad titles and the best-selling indie books (i.e. the ones that customers regularly see). Amazon is really good at structuring their store to make sure people really only see the stuff that's got a lot of appeal.

And when the system does start to break down, they change it. I think this is one of the major reasons they shook up their algorithms in March and May of last year. It was too easy for us to get our books in front of lots and lots of customers regardless of whether the books had much appeal. There were probably major quality control issues with a lot of the books bouncing up the popularity lists. (Including one of mine, for the record, but a couple reviews saying "Dude, typos" encouraged me to improve on that front.  ) Rather than sequestering all indie titles or implementing front-end quality checks, they simply revised their system to make the "screening process" much more vigorous--instead of getting a bump any time you could give away 1000 books, it then took 5K-20K+ downloads to get visible on Amazon. Far fewer books were able to achieve that.

It's a rough filtering process that doesn't exactly target typos or poor formatting or questionable editing or whatever, but it works pretty well at ensuring only the "good" stuff, the books with a lot of appeal, actually make it to readers. No direct and ongoing intervention necessary on Amazon's part.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

dgaughran said:


> Amazon doesn't care about the crap because it is *invisible* - nobody buys it, nobody returns it, nobody *sees* it. Amazon has no incentive to introduce quality control because the algos already serve that purpose by giving a spotlight to books that will sell and cutting off the oxygen to books it thinks won't sell.
> 
> Also, the crap serves a purpose. It allows Amazon to boast about have 2 million books in the Kindle Store (or whatever the number is), and 300,000 books tied up in exclusivity. It's a big selling point, and something they mention in every single press release. And if you look at the history of bookselling in America, the store with the biggest selection always wins.
> 
> ...


I say this with all due respect, because I know you've done a considerable amount of research, but you ask for evidence, yet provide none for your assertions. You state that Amazon makes lots and lots of money for Amazon. Is there any evidence of this and a breakdown of where it comes from? Amazon is a low margin business, and they look at many things besides current profitability. Number one on that list is the Amazon franchise and customer satisfaction.

This topic wasn't about whether indie-published books were useful or profitable overall to Amazon...it was about how to address a need at some point for quality control. Even if Amazon did impose a fee for quality control, it is very likely that most of the books lost would be marginal sellers. Would they lose a potential big seller or two? Yes, probably. Would it be statistically relevant to them? I doubt it. If it cost $100, $200, $500 to get listed in the main Kindle store at some point, what would you do? Rely on Kobo for your sales? Most of the authors who are serious about publishing would go along with it. Would it be burdensome for some? Possibly. But is it really an unreasonable cost of doing business? Is it such an insane thing for a company to demand verification of a minimum quality level before providing unfettered access to their store?

Indie authors have long bristled at being treated as inferiors by publishers and traditionally published authors, and every obnoxious article published somewhere sparks a furious round of understandable condemnations on this board. But it is starting to feel that a similar arrogance is developing among indies. Amazon needs us. Amazon wouldn't dare change anything that would anger us. The public demands indie books. They will storm the Bastille if they don't get their indie books. Quality isn't an issue. Nothing is an issue. We make Amazon millions...billions. Kindle would vanish if we exercised our awesome might and went to Kobo en masse.

There just seems to be very little along the lines of "we've made good progress, but here are the challenges we face." It would be nice if there was something between relentless cheerleader and crazy conspiracy theorist.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Right, Ed. And we can observe an analogous system in the way Google filters the innumerable choices available to the internet cruiser into focused, digestible junks. Their crawlers do the initial heavy lifting, and then user choices further filter the results. 

At times, Google's system also began to break down. I remember a phase when keywords such as "best book of the year" were repeated 50,000 times in off-color text at the bottom of webpages to snag more attention from Google's crawlers. Google didn't exclude certain websites. They tweaked their algos, and the internet largely chugged onward.

Now, lets engage in some of that dreaded speculation. Imagine if Google announced tomorrow that they were limiting their search results to corporate-generated websites. Would their stock go up or down?

B.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

L.Miller said:


> Sorry O/T, but this made this Apple fangirl laugh. Love them, but so true. Anyway, really interesting discussion. I can sympathize with readers and authors wanting quality control, but I agree this type of paywall isn't the way to go. Isn't this why readers and booksellers avoided vanity presses like the plague? Money to publish != quality. I'm wondering if Amazon couldn't set up a very, very basic spellcheck.
> 
> By basic, I mean bypassing even grammar. Let authors add character names, and if applicable, invented language, to a dictionary _before_ the MS gets run through a spellchecker. (Ie, authors can't say 'thier' is 'invented language' when it gets flagged by spellcheck.) It wouldn't come anywhere near guaranteeing quality work, but it might catch the worst offenders.


Actually, I think they have!  I made some category changes on my books yesterday, and I noticed a box that said something about spelling and an error/possible error. This is on a book that has been out for 2.5 years and I have made changes before and never saw that box come up before. As it turned out, it flagged panaderia. twice in fact--it flagged it in the Omnibus version too). I clicked the box to ignore it because it is the correct spelling and the character was in Mexico, so I didn't want to change it to the English equivalent. I hope it goes through with the word uncorrected.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

I sent Amazon a mobi file, and they didn't have any comments at all about misspelled words. (And my book is fantasy: Word almost melted down as it tried to deal with unfamiliar names and words.)


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

There is absolutely no need for any vetting or quality control above what is already in place at the 'Zon.

Why is that?

Sampling. Every customer has the opportunity to sample a substantial portion of any book before purchase. Reading the sample gives the potential customer ample opportunity to see if the book meets their standards of style, grammar and storytelling. 

There is no reason for a customer to purchase a book and then try to return or criticize it for poor grammar or style. All they have to do is read the sample offered by Amazon.

It is not Amazon nor the authors' fault if customers choose not to make use of those sampling options.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "I don't want to pay a fee any more than anyone else, but what is the answer long term? It appears the general opinion is that indie publishing ranks will continue to grow. Don't you think the early adopters are probably, on average, more committed and producing more polished work than those who will follow...the ones who didn't have to do the research that those here earlier did? If so, we can expect average quality to decline, even as the work of experienced self-publishers becomes more sophisticated. There's some sort of ghettoization coming...there has to be."


The long term answer is to do nothing about quality of any books because it isn't a problem. Consumers are smart enough to sort through offerings to get what they want. They don't need help from authors.

Authors don't like it? They bristle and are arrogant? So what? Consumers are spending more and more on independent books. Their market share increases every year. Spending matters. Chat boards don't.

There is no reason to think early adapters produce better work than later entries. Critics started telling us how bad those early books were as soon as KDP debuted. They told us something had to be done or consumers would shun independent books. To date the critics are wrong. But they can always point to next year.

Nobody has to create or enter a ghetto. Critics will continue as they have, and consumers will continue as they have. Follow the money.


----------



## Jason Eric Pryor (Jan 30, 2013)

BillSmithBooksDotCom said:


> There is absolutely no need for any vetting or quality control above what is already in place at the 'Zon.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> ...


Exactly! This is why I've never understood why some readers wanted Amazon to not include indie work in search or why some refuse to read indie books. Why would they limit themselves as to what they can read?

If someone complains and refuses to read indie work, it's not because they have refined taste. It's because they're too lazy to try the free sample.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

You want a reason Amazon will never shoot themselves in the foot with a paywall of enforced quality check? Allow me to direct everyone's attention to this thread:

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,148767.0.html

In it, someone is talking about a book there has a (in their opinion) bad cover and blurb and reviews complaining about the editing. Why is this a reason why Amazon _won't_ do something to correct that?

The book moves 100 books/day at $5.99 with not publisher BS attached on Amazon's part. All they have to do is sit back, relax and rake in that mean green.

If they kept this guy out of KDP with a paywall or dropped him into an oubliette, they would be making significantly less money or even zero dollars.

But oh please go on about how sadpanda authors and customers who are the same kind of folks that only buy designer are going to convince Amazon to cash in those ducats.

All this plan really does is lose Amazon money, punish the poor and feed egos of people who love to discuss their superiosity*.

*Not a word, but it should be.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

jayallan said:


> I say this with all due respect, because I know you've done a considerable amount of research, but you ask for evidence, yet provide none for your assertions. You state that Amazon makes lots and lots of money for Amazon. Is there any evidence of this and a breakdown of where it comes from? Amazon is a low margin business, and they look at many things besides current profitability. Number one on that list is the Amazon franchise and customer satisfaction.
> 
> This topic wasn't about whether indie-published books were useful or profitable overall to Amazon...it was about how to address a need at some point for quality control. Even if Amazon did impose a fee for quality control, it is very likely that most of the books lost would be marginal sellers. Would they lose a potential big seller or two? Yes, probably. Would it be statistically relevant to them? I doubt it. If it cost $100, $200, $500 to get listed in the main Kindle store at some point, what would you do? Rely on Kobo for your sales? Most of the authors who are serious about publishing would go along with it. Would it be burdensome for some? Possibly. But is it really an unreasonable cost of doing business? Is it such an insane thing for a company to demand verification of a minimum quality level before providing unfettered access to their store?
> 
> ...


Where has ANYONE said: "Amazon wouldn't dare change anything that would anger us." or " The public demands indie books."? In fact, no one has and those are classic strawman arguments.

At the moment there is NO indication that I see that Amazon feels any need for "quality control" beyond what they have. If they do, paying to publish would be highly unlikely to work for that purpose. You want evidence of that? Go look at some Trafford Publishing novels that cost THOUSANDS to publish. Paying to publish never has and never will guarantee quality.

There are all kinds of ways that Amazon could tweak the novels that went in front of their customers, just as they have in the past. But as long as KDP makes money for Amazon, they aren't going to kill it.

ETA: Many of us here are very willing to discuss the challenges we face. What some of us are not willing to do is discuss the challenges we not only don't face but are unlikely to ever face.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Many of us here are very willing to discuss the challenges we face. What some of us are not willing to do is discuss the challenges we not only don't face but are unlikely to ever face.


 

This!!!


----------



## Josie Gerard (May 20, 2013)

I did a fair amount of delving into this and learned: The Kindle Indie Book Store was started in 8/2011. Amazon _selects_ indie titles to highlight in 7 categories (including Kindle Singles). You can't "opt in," although you can write to Amazon and nominate your book for inclusion. Indies includes small, independent publishers and self-pubbers.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Josie Gerard said:


> I did a fair amount of delving into this and learned: The Kindle Indie Book Store was started in 8/2011. Amazon _selects_ indie titles to highlight in 7 categories (including Kindle Singles). You can't "opt in," although you can write to Amazon and nominate your book for inclusion. Indies includes small, independent publishers and self-pubbers.


Does this mean the relocation to the ghetto is nearly two years behind schedule?


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

As the words fly
On a cold and gray Chicago mornin'
A poor little indie ebook is born
In the ghetto

And its author cries
Cause if there's one thing that he don't need
It's another editor to pay
In the ghetto

People, don't you understand
The ebook needs a helping hand
Or it'll languish in the lower ranks some day
Take a look at that cover,
Are we too blind to see,
Do we simply turn our heads
And look the other way

Well the sales churn
And a poor little ebook with a crappy cover
Languishes in the lower ranks
In the ghetto

And his story burns
So he starts to roam the internet at night
And he learns how to spruke
And he learns how to market
In the ghetto

Then one night in desperation
A young middleaged author breaks away
He gets a job, earns a wage,
Tries to run, but he don't get far

And his Mama cries
As a crowd gathers 'round an angry young middleaged man
With a Kindle in his hand
In the ghetto

As the readers suffer,
On a cold and gray Chicago mornin',
Another indie ebook is born
In the ghetto


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

Elvis just rolled over in his grave, but I applaud you anyway, sir.


----------

