# Kindle Users Giving 1 Star Reviews for Books with Delayed eBook Release



## Dana (Dec 4, 2009)

Thought this was an interesting blog post about how some Kindle users are giving 1 star reviews for a hardcover book with a delayed release of the eReader version... in the same vein as the anti-DRM people have given the Kindle 1 star reviews. 

http://ireaderreview.com/2010/01/15/1-star-reviews-for-game-change-inappropriate/

I can understand the frustration of having to wait for a new release, but I hate to see the review system tainted, even when I agree a point needs to be made. Hopefully publishers will see the value of eBooks and stop delaying release dates hoping to up hardcover sales.


----------



## xianfox (Dec 7, 2009)

I hate to see good books getting bad reviews due to the lack of ebook availability, but I can see where this is an ideal way to express frustration.

By putting up one-star reviews, not only are the customers expressing their displeasure, but authors will see their books getting poor reviews and hopefully will begin putting pressure on publishers from the opposite side. This kind of vice technique is among the most effective to get corporations or governments to move in the desired direction.

Big Pub has lost focus on who their customers are. They think, like the RIAA and MPAA before them, that they exist unto themselves. Or at least that's the impression they're giving by not choosing to support this community who has already demonstrated that they are heavy readers. They failed to learn lesson one in business: _carpe diem._

I won't say I won't buy their books, I may, if it's still on my radar when the ebooks are released.


----------



## rbbyrbsn (Jan 15, 2010)

How is this any different then books coming out in hardback edition then the cheaper paper back about a year later,


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

It's the same thing as giving "bad" reviews because the book cost more than $9.99, and I highly suspect that it's mostly the same people doing it.  It's a pity that people can't find constructive ways of creating a dialog instead of using their one hammer over and over, without even realizing that they're doing it to themselves.


----------



## cheerio (May 16, 2009)

Maybe i dont understand, but why give a book a bad review that is not released yet. It might make the publisher not want to release it if people dont seem to like it


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

The book IS released. . . .just not available yet on Kindle. . . the 1-star reviewers seem to think that a lot of bad reviews will make the publishers realize they're not happy about that and therefore speed up the release. . .but I don't really think it's going to affect the publisher's decision. . . .and it could completely backfire: they could say, well, these Kindle people think the books sucks so why should I release it on Kindle at all.  

I think it's really kind of silly. . . but I guess it makes people feel better.


----------



## Lyndyb (Jan 4, 2010)

I do feel there is a difference in the delay of the e-book release than with the delay between the hardcover and paperback versions.  The medium the book is being delivered in is the same with a hardcover and a paperback.  The consumer has chosen to wait until the less expensive version is available to buy it if they opt to buy the paperback version.  An e-book is a different medium and it's our preferred method of reading. Sure, we have the option of buying the hardcover, but it's not in the format we have chosen (and paid a premium for the device to be able to do so).  

I don't know the financials, but it would seem to me that an e-book is a whole lot less expensive for the publisher than the hardcover or even the paperback.  

All that said, I don't think it's fair to the author to give a 1 Star rating for a book that has a delayed e-book release.  The authors are no doubt captives to the decisions made by their publisher.


----------



## klopus (Dec 8, 2009)

Review should be about the Book, you know, the literature.  It shouldn't be about that your desire of instant gratification isn't being, well, instantly gratified. If you aren't happy with the format or delivery method and want author/publisher to know then vote with your wallet and don't buy (and don't steal) the book.


----------



## brainstorm (Dec 8, 2009)

I think the publishers are trying to hold onto all the readers who want to be the first on the block with a particular title. They'll lose them if DTB readers see that they're paying more than double for the privilege than people with e-readers. I'm guessing that right now, there's more money to be made from the hardcover DTB readers. I think waiting four months is a good compromise for getting a new book at such a price. C'mon, what's wrong with a little capitalism every now and then?

I don't like what the reviewers are doing to Game Change. But at least it's very obvious what they're doing and others can see how skewed the ratings are because of it (as opposed to posting phony reviews about how lousy the book is).


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

I don't think it would be as big of a problem as it is if Amazon kept reviews separate rather than combining them all together, not that I've had much problem with them using a variety of DTB reviews for Kindle reviews, but I most definitely have a problem with DVD reviews showing up for Blu-ray versions. If they kept them separate the comments made in reviews would at least serve a purpose in warning people about the issues of the particular version they're looking at, and I see nothing at all wrong with that.



brainstorm said:


> I think the publishers are trying to hold onto all the readers who want to be the first on the block with a particular title. They'll lose them if DTB readers see that they're paying more than double for the privilege than people with e-readers. I'm guessing that right now, there's more money to be made from the hardcover DTB readers. I think waiting four months is a good compromise for getting a new book at such a price. C'mon, what's wrong with a little capitalism every now and then?


The only reason why people are getting e-book versions of best sellers for less than the hardback price is because the retailers are absorbing the difference. If you look at retailers that have to sell at a profit you'll see that their prices are comparative to the hardbacks (Books On Board is selling their e-book versions of "Under The Dome" for $19.9.

The publishers are not concerned with the money they're making right now as they make the same amount of money per unit, maybe even more from the e-book versions. They're worried that people will get accustomed to the lower prices that Amazon, Sony, and B&N are putting on the best sellers, or the 100% Micropay Rebates that fictionwise puts on their bestsellers (results in prices as good as or better than the competition), so that if/when those retailers stop absorbing the difference that they'll be forced to lower the price they sell to retailers in order for those retailers to sell their books, not just for the e-book versions but on the paper versions as well.

Publishers cannot force retailers to sell at the price they want their books to be sold at since they cannot stick together, but the ones that want to can keep the e-book versions out of retailers hands by forcing a delay. That's all they're doing here, attempting to force a price point they want, and I hope that it blows up in their face.


----------



## nabrum (Jan 1, 2010)

rbbyrbsn said:


> How is this any different then books coming out in hardback edition then the cheaper paper back about a year later,


It's different because the world has changed. Both HB & PB are still PRINTED versions. PB's got their start because of "re-releasing" the book in a cheaper module ie, re-releasing it in HB again may not be cost effective. Over time, PB's became a thing onto themselves. Some books go straight to PBs, just as some movies go straight to DVDs.

However, with e-books, DTBs are going, albeit, slowly the way scrolls did before Gutenberg, and rock & chisels did before papyrus. It's a new world out there, and people will lose interest in a tome if it's delayed long enough. I know I will.


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

Dana said:


> Thought this was an interesting blog post about how some Kindle users are giving 1 star reviews for a hardcover book with a delayed release of the eReader version... in the same vein as the anti-DRM people have given the Kindle 1 star reviews.
> 
> http://ireaderreview.com/2010/01/15/1-star-reviews-for-game-change-inappropriate/
> 
> I can understand the frustration of having to wait for a new release, but I hate to see the review system tainted, even when I agree a point needs to be made. Hopefully publishers will see the value of eBooks and stop delaying release dates hoping to up hardcover sales.


The review system is already tainted. How is this any different from the authors who pay for their "good" reviews?


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

klopus said:


> Review should be about the Book, you know, the literature.


Are restaurant reviews all about the food? Or are they also about the service, price, and overall experience?


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

911jason said:


> Are restaurant reviews all about the food? Or are they also about the service, price, and overall experience?


That is not really a fair comparison. The price of the book is right there, at the top of the page; easier to find than the menu prices at a restaurant. Also, the price will fluctuate, but no one is going to come back and remove a one-star review once the price has dropped.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I agree with Verena.  Plus, with restaurant reviews, while you do expect all that stuff to be part of what the reviewer considers, the 1 star reviews at Amazon have based their assessment on only 1 criterion.  That's not responsible reviewing.  They didn't eat in the restaurant and see how good the service and ambiance was, because they looked at the menu, decided it was too expensive, and then said, 'Don't go eat there."  Or, maybe more relevantly, they looked in and saw that they used square plates instead of round plates and said, "don't go there, they don't serve food on the right shaped plate."


----------



## Rasputina (May 6, 2009)

klopus said:


> Review should be about the Book, you know, the literature. It shouldn't be about that your desire of instant gratification isn't being, well, instantly gratified. If you aren't happy with the format or delivery method and want author/publisher to know then vote with your wallet and don't buy (and don't steal) the book.


+1


----------



## Daithi (Dec 9, 2009)

I just left several 1-star-reviews (Game Change, Impact, and The Swan Thieves). The books deserved the reviews.

Ebooks are NOT the digital equivalent to paperbacks. An ebook is the next stage of book evolution and is closer to the difference between a scroll and a book, or a scribe derived book compared to a book made with a printing press. Ebooks are an entirely new media that provide benefits not found in paper based books. I can carry my entire library in the palm of my hand, I can search the book, I can have the computer read the book, I can change font sizes to help my tired old eyes, etc. I don't want a paper based book.

Imagine that the new Emenim album is released in January, but people wanting the iTunes version are told they will have to wait until May. Do you think there might be some bad reviews? So why wouldn't you give a bad review to a publisher that trys pulling the same thing?

The publishers are making the choice to withhold the ebook and they damn well deserve bad reviews for making this decision.

Bad reviews are also the most effective way of getting publishers to change this horrible business practice. I have emailed both publishers and authors and I am usually ignored. Not even a form letter in response (there have been some exceptions). However, if you affect a publishers sales it is a different story -- change happens quick. And make no mistake about it -- people look at those ratings and if a book has 100 or more 1-star-reviews they'll probably buy something else.


----------



## Thumper (Feb 26, 2009)

Daithi said:


> So why wouldn't you give a bad review to a publisher that trys pulling the same thing?


Because the review doesn't hurt the publisher; it hurts the writer. When you give bar reviews to a book simply because it's not available in your preferred format, you influence the purchasing decision of others, which in turn results in a lower royalty base for the writer. The publisher won't be hurt over this; they'll get their money one way or the other, but the person who poured potentially _years_ into that book? They get creamed.


----------



## Magenta (Jun 6, 2009)

rbbyrbsn said:


> How is this any different then books coming out in hardback edition then the cheaper paper back about a year later,


EXACTLY!


----------



## Daithi (Dec 9, 2009)

What do you mean it doesn't hurt the publisher -- of course it hurts the publisher. Does it hurt the author? I argue that in the long run it HELPS the author. What? How can that be?

Simple -- the PUBLISHER is hurting their own authors by not releasing ebooks when the book first becomes available. Authors do not receive ANY royalties from people who don't buy their book. I flat out won't buy a paper based book, and there are a lot of people exacly like me. Four months later, when the marketing buzz of a new release has died down, it is also not likely that I will go back and buy the book (unless it is something I REALLY want). Instead, in all likelyhood, in four months I'm going to be more interested in a new release by a more progressive publisher and author. Withholding the release loses sales and hurts authors. 

If you really want to help authors then the only right thing to do is give these books a 1-star-review. Will this hurt them in the short run? Yes. However, in the long run it will help authors by getting rid of a policy that is definately hurting. The quicker we can get the publishers to change this policy the better it is for the authors.


----------



## raven312 (Jan 12, 2010)

It's definitely a double-edged sword but I have to agree that it's unfair to punish the writer who, once under contract, has the least amount of say-so in this matter.  The publisher can determine whether they want to deal with specific sellers, the price point, and when each pressing of the book will be delivered to the vendor; we, as the consumers, can determine whether we agree with the business practice of publishers holding back the eversion and vote with our wallets; the writer, once under contract, is stuck in the middle.  How people rate this particular work can influence their future sales also.  By their next book, this whole thing could well be sorted out.  However, if their first (or last) book got unfairly rated due to malcontent with the publishing scheme, that can well affect how their new book sells.  There has to be a better way, where the innocent don't get trodden on.


----------



## davem2bits (Feb 2, 2009)

Daithi said:


> What do you mean it doesn't hurt the publisher -- of course it hurts the publisher. Does it hurt the author? I argue that in the long run it HELPS the author. What? How can that be?
> 
> Simple -- the PUBLISHER is hurting their own authors by not releasing ebooks when the book first becomes available. Authors do not receive ANY royalties from people who don't buy their book. I flat out won't buy a paper based book, and there are a lot of people exacly like me. Four months later, when the marketing buzz of a new release has died down, it is also not likely that I will go back and buy the book (unless it is something I REALLY want). Instead, in all likelyhood, in four months I'm going to be more interested in a new release by a more progressive publisher and author. Withholding the release loses sales and hurts authors.
> 
> If you really want to help authors then the only right thing to do is give these books a 1-star-review. Will this hurt them in the short run? Yes. However, in the long run it will help authors by getting rid of a policy that is definately hurting. The quicker we can get the publishers to change this policy the better it is for the authors.


Exactly. Well put.


----------



## askenase13 (Mar 1, 2009)

One of the major threads on the Amazon forum on this issue has to do with Douglas Preston's new book "Impact." Separate from that thread, I wrote a 1-star "review" in which I panned the delay of the book. My review generated its own thread of 59 posts, including from Douglas Preston himself!! So, to help on this discussion, I am putting here the Amazon thread from my "review": http://www.amazon.com/review/R1G9LV42GCIAEW/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?ie=UTF8&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest

Also, to further set the record straight, I am putting below my thoughts on this issue, coming from my response near the end of that thread:

The fundamental question being asked is, was it appropriate to post a negative review of a book, based NOT on the book itself, but on a "political" issue surrounding the book- the delayed Kindle release. My answer- probably NOT, but I'll live with that. Here's why. I think it is fair to say that to post a review NOT on the product, but on circumstances surrounding the product, is unfair. However, there are several reasons why my review is NOT unfair, to my mind.

1) The "review" was clearly not a review but a comment on the delayed Kindle release. That it was not a review was perfectly clear from the title of the review ("Kindle delay unconscionable"), so no one was misled by that.

2) The review caused a huge amount of comment- WHICH WAS THE POINT!! Also, I would bet that it has been seen (as have these comments) by higher ups at the Publisher's main office. Again, that was the point of posting that review.

3) There are forums thread for these type of comments- but they will NOT have the impact (sorry for the pun), that a negative review has. Just look how many comments are here compared to the "Impact" forum thread.

4) Douglas Preston is a MAJOR author- selling many thousands of copies. He is not an indie author or a bit player. (I have read every one of his books with Lincoln Child (when will "Relic" be out in a Kindle edition?), and most of his separate books. (I have enjoyed them all.)) He is big enough to withstand a one star review. He is also big enough (in my opinion) to tell his publisher to issue the ebook contemporaneously with the hard cover. I did not pick on an indie author for whom reviews can be a life blood to a succesful carreer.

5) Preston wrote that he has no control over the release of his books. I don't buy that. He has a say, IF he chooses to use it. Maybe now he will get the message.

6) One of the things that prompted my negative review was that, in a thread on the book, two posters had written that Preston had responded to their e-mails by supporting the delay and bashing ebooks. One of those posters (LadyVolz) is a frequent contributor to these forums, so I placed some stock in what she had to say. So, I wanted to make the point about my protest of the delay of the ebook, and Preston's support of same. I stand by that.

7) I have posted negative reviews of Kiindle books, where the Kindle formatting/typos are prevalent (see my reviews of "Tai Pan" and "Gai Jin", both by James Clavell). Is it fair to post a negative review of a book, because the Kindle edition is poorly done? Of course it is. THAT'S what these reviews are for. Note that on my reviews I clearly stated in the title, that it was the Kindle edition that was a problem. Writing such a review, is really not that much different than writing my review above, though it is based on the actual reading of the Kindle edition of the book.

I am satisfied that my "review" was fair and it did have the effect intended- sparked a major discussion, and HOPEFULLY, sent a clear signal to the publishers and authors that Kindle owners are watching this very closely. And, remember, most Kindle owners like myself, buy and read LOTS of books. We are their biggest customers. Pay attention to what we say.


----------



## VictoriaP (Mar 1, 2009)

I'm a little torn on this one.  I've been pretty vehemently against the "negative reviews for books over $9.99" trend, because I think it's ineffective, and because I feel it's based on the incorrect assumption that ALL books must be priced that way.  

And I do think that reviews should be about the writing, not about the price tag.

But....

I also think that reviews should reflect the version used.  The paperback differs from the hardcover differs from the ebook differs from the audiobook, and a portion of the review can and should be used to illustrate any issues that may arise as the book changes formats.

In that respect, I can see where it may be appropriate to use the review tool to reflect the growing outrage in our community against publishers dumb enough to try this trick.  What askenase13 did is at least thought provoking, or should be, to both authors and publishers, and was well done in that it targeted an author who by and large is popular enough to dodge any negative sales impact.  Every Kindle related 1 star review on that book was specifically designated in the title of the review as being Kindle related, so anyone who might be interested enough to care about the reviews is going to see exactly what the issue is--and it's not with the subject matter or the writing.

Since the publisher gets the same cut based on the identical list price regardless of whether the book you read is in paper or electronic form, I think they're being incredibly short sighted on this score.  Getting them to understand this point is going to take a lot of publicity, and I have to admit that at this point I'm not against this being part of that educational process.

But I'm also open to thoughts on what might be more effective!


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

Thumper said:


> Because the review doesn't hurt the publisher; it hurts the writer.


From the Wall Street Journal:



> Ms. Reidy, who described herself as a strong supporter of digital sales, said *only one author had asked not to be included on the list of titles*, which are being published in the first four months of 2010.


Sounds to me like the authors have some say in this...


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

Also just ran across this article:

*Harper's Delayed Kindle Release Of "Game Change" Just Blew Up In Its Face*

Harper's decision to delay new releases for the Kindle so it can protect hardcover sales is blowing up in its face.

On Amazon's website, "Game Change" has 74 one-star reviews, versus 45 five-star reviews. While some one-star views lament the poor quality of the book, plenty of the reviews come from Kindle users ripping Harper for not making the book available.

As TechFlash points out, the one-star reviews are dragging down the overall rating of the books which could ultimately hurt the sales of the book.

If enough Kindle users take to Amazon's reviews to thrash books that aren't available, they might actually be able to get publishers to change their minds.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

911jason said:


> From the Wall Street Journal:
> Sounds to me like the authors have some say in this...


But I would guess that the authors probably didn't get both sides of the story. No doubt the publishers told them they would get more money if they waited to release the ebook versions, but failed to mention that it could result in bad press/reviews for the titles.

I would wager that most authors think their publishers on on their side.


----------



## kevindorsey (Mar 4, 2009)

pidgeon92 said:


> But I would guess that the authors probably didn't get both sides of the story. No doubt the publishers told them they would get more money if they waited to release the ebook versions, but failed to mention that it could result in bad press/reviews for the titles.
> 
> I would wager that most authors think their publishers on on their side.


Authors don't always have a say in this though, especially with the big publishers.s


----------



## davem2bits (Feb 2, 2009)

pidgeon92 said:


> But I would guess that the authors probably didn't get both sides of the story. No doubt the publishers told them they would get more money if they waited to release the ebook versions, but failed to mention that it could result in bad press/reviews for the titles.
> 
> I would wager that most authors think their publishers on on their side.


And lost sales. I for one, will not be purchasing any kbook that has a long delayed release date after the DTB version.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

kevindorsey said:


> Authors don't always have a say in this though, especially with the big publishers.s


Well, according to Jason's post at the bottom of the previous page. . . .it implies that authors were given the option and only one chose same day paper and kindle release. . . if that's so, they did "have a say". . . but I agree with Verena that it is very possible -- some might say likely -- that the publishers only presented 'their' side of the issue when asking. It's also possible authors weren't specifically asked at all. . . they might have had to know to speak up. . . . .


----------



## Phil75070 (Dec 30, 2009)

I am not sure which way to "vote" on the 1-star review issue. I can see both sides. 

What I think the authors and publishers are missing is that a hardcover book bought for $25-27 will eventually be shared among many people for no additional cost. At least that is the way it works within my immediate family, relatives and friends. Delaying the eBook addition is just a way of trying to grab extra revenue by creating demand for the hard cover version.  An eBook has limits on its shareability (if there is such a word), plus the fact that eBook owners tend to be voracious readers. Since I went into retirement in April, I think I read three DTBs (I am quickly catching on to the slang used here - LOL) before Christmas. Since owning the Kindle, I have read twice that many, now working on my 7th in less than a month. Unless it is a blockbuster or something by a truly favored author, if I have to wait four months before it sells for $9.99 there is no longer the rush to get it even at that price and I might as well wait and see if it drops a little further in price. There is plenty of other material I can read in the meantime.


----------



## HappyGuy (Nov 3, 2008)

I also no longer buy paper based books, at least not without a specific reason. I also wait for the electronic version and if, in the meantime I forget that I wanted it, oh well... the publisher loses, the retailer loses and, unfortunately, the author loses. And meanwhile, there are PLENTY of interesting books available now (certainly a lot more than I can afford and have the time to read!)


----------



## klopus (Dec 8, 2009)

Daithi said:


> The publishers are making the choice to withhold the ebook and they damn well deserve bad reviews for making this decision.


Then go to forum about *publishers* and leave 1 star reviews there condemning their practices. Instead you leave misleading reviews about contents of the particular *books* on a site that sells books (not publishers). If some novel isn't available in an electronic form it doesn't make it a bad literature, does it?


----------



## pomlover2586 (Feb 14, 2009)

OK so lately there has been a lot of talk about delayed releases on Kindle for a new book, and how that seems unfair. So it got me thinking.....if a publisher releases hardback copies of a book for say $20 and the paperback comes out 6 months later for $12 couldn't the same concept be applied to Kindle E-books.....and all E-books in general?

Release the Hardcopy and the Kindle version on the same day.....hardcopy $20 and Kindle version $15 [or higher] and then X months down the road when paperback is released, lower the price on the Kindle version back down to $9.99.

This way the book is available for our chosen way of reading [e-book] and the publisher still makes a larger profit margin on the sale. I was also thinking it could be incorporated so that TTS is ONLY available on the higher priced E-book version.....just a thought.

I wanna know what you all think of this, and whether you'd be willing to pay a higher price to get it right away on Kindle....or whether you'd wait.


----------



## modkindle (Feb 17, 2009)

that's pretty much what they are doing now, only it is Hardcover Price & $9.99 with the price going down again when it comes out in paperback, especially if it is mass market paperback. 

I don't know what I would do for sure, I find it easy to say I would wait, but convenience and instant gratification may prove a strong temptation. I would probably only do it for series I was invested in though.


----------



## VictoriaP (Mar 1, 2009)

pomlover2586 said:


> I wanna know what you all think of this, and whether you'd be willing to pay a higher price to get it right away on Kindle....or whether you'd wait.


I already regularly pay more to get books on Kindle than I would for the DTB. A.) I've read literally 50x as many net new books this year than I have normally, and most of those were purchased, not free. B.) If I want a book, I don't care if it's $5 or $15, or what it is relative to the hardcover/paperback. All I care about is can I legally get the book in the format of my choosing--which now is strictly Kindle compatible.

The publishers and Amazon already dictate Kindle book prices according to the hardcover/paperback price. But they're even sneakier than that.

This summer, I picked up a freebie that was at the time the first of three. The fourth book in the series was set to release in mid August. The freebie released one week before the third book came out in paperback.

Because the third book was no longer an NYT bestseller, the Kindle price had gone back up to around $14--a little below the hardcover price. This happens all the time--the $9.99 price is really only in place while the book is a bestseller. Plus Amazon is forever tinkering with prices, sometimes changing them every day.

So I read the first book, picked up the second at a tiny discount off the paperback price, realized the third was going to be $14--and bought it, even knowing that a week later, it would drop in price by probably half. I wasn't interested in waiting. Put myself on the preorder list for book four, and again, bought it before the price dropped once it too hit the bestseller list--saved a whopping 50 cents over the hardcover price on the day of release.

Know what? Not a single regret. I had book four at one minute past midnight on the day of release, while already in bed, before anyone waiting on the DTB version did--in fact, I had FINISHED it before a single Barnes & Noble had opened even on the East Coast. Yes, I probably could have paid less for it by waiting, but that wasn't my priority. There are plenty of people like me out there who aren't as fussy about the prices as they are about getting the book they want *when they want it*. Problem for the publishers is, plenty of us are also pretty damn picky about what format we want that book in nowadays!

This is why this strategy is going to ultimately backfire on publishers. The smart ones are learning to release the ebook versions on the day of wide release, or even better, a week or so earlier. That way, they get the early reviews posted in anticipation of the release.


----------



## hera (Mar 25, 2009)

Enough 1 star reviews will get the publishers attention, but, if it doesn't work quickly to change publishers minds, using 1 star reviews to protest long-term will hurt the authors.  Still, we need to let publishers know why we aren't buying their books. Emails work, when they are read.

On Amazon, tagging may work for protesting if you can get large enough numbers.  I have no idea if publishers pay attention to tags, but combined with emails it might get their attention.  Plus, once the publisher realizes the error of their ways, tags are easily removed.  Even if the original tagger doesn't bother to remove the tag, if enough other taggers disagree with it, it will "disappear".

Anyway, it bothers me that publishers are delaying ebooks, but so far it hasn't affected any of the books I read.  I've been tagging books that have disabled TTS, and would be happy to trade tags if people let me know which ebooks have been delayed and what tag(s) to use.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

modkindle said:


> that's pretty much what they are doing now, only it is Hardcover Price & $9.99 with the price going down again when it comes out in paperback, especially if it is mass market paperback.


No. It's not hardcover price & $9.99, it's just hardcover price. Really, take a look at the best sellers, the list prices are *identical* to the hardcovers. Then take a look at the retailers that are offering the e-book versions for $9.99. They're Amazon, B&N, and Sony.

Amazon doesn't dump their hardcover prices, except when they were doing that price war with Wally World, as there's no advantage. They dump the Kindle versions of the bestsellers because there is something to be gained, market share. B&N matches in order to remain competitive. Sony does the same.

Take a look at any e-book retailer that *has* to make a profit off their books and you will see that there is no $9.99 price for bestsellers. They'll be at least $15 and will go all the way to $30, the same as hardcovers because that's what they are, only in electronic form.

Amazon has a lot of weight behind them, add in B&N and Sony, and you have enough power to change the price of new releases forever. But if they do not have the e-book version of a bestseller to sell then there is nothing they can do. Consumers cannot be spoiled with a new release at $9.99 if they cannot buy them, and that is the goal of these delays. Not to protect their precious hardcovers, but to try to prevent consumers from becoming unwilling to pay anything higher than $9.99.

It's a losing battle for these publishers that are trying to use delay tactics because there is no unified front, if all publishers would agree to delay their e-book releases of bestsellers they might get somewhere, but they won't. Consumers will continue to get spoiled, and then one day there will be no $9.99 bestsellers as the retailers will stop absorbing their cost, and then publishers will be forced to drop *their* price in order to generate sales.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

I absolutely disagree with this.  These ratings hurt the author, not the publisher.  And have stated my case on mobile read.  Seriously, who cannot wait for a couple of months to get the book on kindle.  I think we are developing into a generation of "I must have this on my kindle now or my life will not be worth living".  

Authors have very little say in the distribution of their work.  And contracts for books being published now, were signed off years ago.  Well before the ebooks took hold.  My husband agreed to a digital version of his book, but that hasnt happened anyway.  How a book is distributed is out of the author's control.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Now, I may be wrong (or outdated) on this, but from what I've seen, ebook sales do not count toward the major best seller lists - particularly the New York Times.    If this is the case, then that may well be a reason the publishers are delaying ebook release on titles they expect to to do well.  As ereader-ship increases, the number of ebooks v hardcover could negatively impact the book's spot on the list and thereby drive down the associated free advertising and buzz around that book.

Ebook sales are only a percentage of overall book sales at the moment.  That will change.  As it does, perhaps how bestsellers are calculated will change.  On the other hand, there are those who look down their collective noses as paperback readers and these same people will look down their noses at ebook readers as well.  It's just a guess, but I think a disproportionate number of them work in the publishing and journalism worlds.


----------



## WilliamM (Feb 10, 2009)

IMO reviews should be for the book content itself..to give a low review for anything other than that is ludicrous..that would be like giving a movie bad rating because it hasnt been released on blu ray or dvd quick enough


----------



## davem2bits (Feb 2, 2009)

I'm confused, do people really base their purchase of a book on the number of stars it has received at amazon.com or do some people think we are that dumb.  Or is this just the folks that never cheat at solitaire trying to fence in the wide open internet.


----------



## cincinnatideb (Mar 7, 2009)

davem2bits said:


> And lost sales. I for one, will not be purchasing any kbook that has a long delayed release date after the DTB version.


I totally agree. I haven't left any 1 star reviews but I'm wildly ticked about the delayed releases. I'll not purchase any form of a long delayed book.


----------



## brainstorm (Dec 8, 2009)

> Not to protect their precious hardcovers, but to try to prevent consumers from becoming unwilling to pay anything higher than $9.99.


I think publishers have more than just one reason. Lots more. Yet another might just be their fear of their publishing world changing.

Fear of hardcover people jumping ship after seeing $9.99 prices for e-books and waiting for paperbacks.

There's got to be a little free advertising involved in people sitting on planes or doctors' offices with hardcover books (surprisingly, there are a lot of them). You can't see what people with e-readers are reading.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

davem2bits said:


> I'm confused, do people really base their purchase of a book on the number of stars it has received at amazon.com or do some people think we are that dumb. Or is this just the folks that never cheat at solitaire trying to fence in the wide open internet.


There are so many books I want to read, that if I take a quick glance and a book has less than 4 stars, I do tend to just close the page.


----------



## brainstorm (Dec 8, 2009)

pidgeon92 said:


> There are so many books I want to read, that if I take a quick glance and a book has less than 4 stars, I do tend to just close the page.


I use the ratings, too. But I also look at what some of the higher and lower-star raters are saying to get an idea of why people liked or disliked a book. I'd've noticed the single stars from the Kindle people and would've blown them off.


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

pomlover2586 said:


> OK so lately there has been a lot of talk about delayed releases on Kindle for a new book, and how that seems unfair. So it got me thinking.....if a publisher releases hardback copies of a book for say $20 and the paperback comes out 6 months later for $12 couldn't the same concept be applied to Kindle E-books.....and all E-books in general?
> 
> Release the Hardcopy and the Kindle version on the same day.....hardcopy $20 and Kindle version $15 [or higher] and then X months down the road when paperback is released, lower the price on the Kindle version back down to $9.99.
> 
> ...


They tried that first, and there was a gigantic boycott, including 1-start reviews, of that, too.


----------



## Magenta (Jun 6, 2009)

davem2bits said:


> I'm confused, do people really base their purchase of a book on the number of stars it has received at amazon.com or do some people think we are that dumb. Or is this just the folks that never cheat at solitaire trying to fence in the wide open internet.


Never, at least for me. I read a couple of good and bad reviews. I completely ignore the star ratings.


----------



## Neekeebee (Jan 10, 2009)

The reason I am less likely to buy a book that is not released in Kindle format on Hardcover release date is not because I want to "punish" the publishers and make a statement. I am unhappy about it, but that is not the reason. I don't _want_ to own the hardcover. There are few books I have purchased in hardcover on release day (even before Kindle) and most of those series (e.g. Harry Potter) are completed. I have purchased paper books post-Kindle, but they just kind of sit there. I _want_ to read them, but find it much easier to pick up my Kindle.

That being said, there are probably books now I would purchase on release day if I could get it in Kindle format, even at the higher price (though I don't know that I could justify paying the _same_ price as Hardcover). _Post_-Kindle, I find that I am more up to date on the buzz in the book world, and it has made me want to read new releases more than I used to. I won't buy them in Hardcover, though. If I can't get the Kindle book, I might get it from the library or borrow it from a friend. I might have to wait just as long to get the paper copy, but at least I can have the trade-off of getting it for free. Or, I might see so-so reviews in the meantime and decide there are better books to read with my time. Or, I might just forget how much I _had_ wanted to read the book by the time the Kindle version is available.

Basically, if the book is not available for Kindle on release date, there are several ways they could lose me as a buyer before Kindle release date. It is not a way to "get back" at them, but just how things will work out.

N


----------



## davem2bits (Feb 2, 2009)

hera said:


> I've been tagging books that have disabled TTS, and would be happy to trade tags if people let me know which ebooks have been delayed and what tag(s) to use.


'delayed release boycott' would be the relevant tag to use.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

There is a world of difference (to an author) in not buying paperback books that are not on the kindle or have a delayed release, than giving these books a one star rating when not having even read the book. I only buy kindle books now, but as an authors partner (and knowing what goes on behind the scenes), I am furious that people think giving a book they wont read, a one star rating comes even close to being ethical.


----------



## Daisy1960 (Feb 10, 2009)

Pushka said:


> There is a world of difference (to an author) in not buying paperback books that are not on the kindle or have a delayed release, than giving these books a one star rating when not having even read the book. I only buy kindle books now, but as an authors partner (and knowing what goes on behind the scenes), I am furious that people think giving a book they wont read, a one star rating comes even close to being ethical.


*Pushka, I totally agree with you. I think giving a book a one-star rating simply because it hasn't been released in the format the reviewer prefers is unethical, petulant and just plain immature.*


----------



## kevindorsey (Mar 4, 2009)

Pushka said:


> There is a world of difference (to an author) in not buying paperback books that are not on the kindle or have a delayed release, than giving these books a one star rating when not having even read the book. I only buy kindle books now, but as an authors partner (and knowing what goes on behind the scenes), I am furious that people think giving a book they wont read, a one star rating comes even close to being ethical.


Yes, I agree too to a degree too. PRobably pretty infuriating on authour's end.


----------



## brainstorm (Dec 8, 2009)

911jason said:


> Also just ran across this article:
> 
> *Harper's Delayed Kindle Release Of "Game Change" Just Blew Up In Its Face*


The sole response was special:

"Anyone who likes books knows that Amazon reviewers are collectively morons.

Complaints by people dumb enough to have paid for a Kindle are very unlikely to affect sales to anyone else. "


----------



## Rasputina (May 6, 2009)

Daisy1960 said:


> *Pushka, I totally agree with you. I think giving a book a one-star rating simply because it hasn't been released in the format the reviewer prefers is unethical, petulant and just plain immature.*


It reminds me of the 1 star ratings I see with comments from people saying the shipping was slow and they haven't received their product yet.

sigh.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

Hey thanks KB'ers - I think this forum has some very mature people on board, as opposed to some of the red-necks on mobileread who cant see past their own petulance to consider the big picture.  Kudos to all!   (Although my kudos ratings on mobileread has soared since I first posted - I guess there are some anonymous authors in the forum!)


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

brainstorm said:


> The sole response was special:
> 
> "Anyone who likes books knows that Amazon reviewers are collectively morons.
> 
> Complaints by people dumb enough to have paid for a Kindle are very unlikely to affect sales to anyone else. "


Well, I guess that kind of nasty collective mob mentality does always come back to haunt those (and 'innocent' others like us) who partake.


----------



## davem2bits (Feb 2, 2009)

Pushka said:


> There is a world of difference (to an author) in not buying paperback books that are not on the kindle or have a delayed release, than giving these books a one star rating when not having even read the book. I only buy kindle books now, but as an authors partner (and knowing what goes on behind the scenes), I am furious that people think giving a book they wont read, a one star rating comes even close to being ethical.


About as ethical as authors or their friends and relatives posting glowing reviews. Not saying you do. But it is an open forum and can be abused by anyone. Anyone that bases their purchase on the number of stars on amazon.com gets what they deserve. At least a Kindle owner can return the kbook if he/she finds out they have been duped.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

davem2bits said:


> About as ethical as authors or their friends and relatives posting glowing reviews. Not saying you do. But it is an open forum and can be abused by anyone. Anyone that bases their purchase on the number of stars on amazon.com gets what they deserve. At least a Kindle owner can return the kbook if he/she finds out they have been duped.


Yes, I think that is very unethical too!

I dont base my purchases on the number of stars, but I do look at them as part of the process. Not sure what you mean about the kbook and returning it though?


----------



## davem2bits (Feb 2, 2009)

Pushka said:


> Yes, I think that is very unethical too!
> 
> Not sure what you mean about the kbook and returning it though?


A kbook can be returned within seven days of purchase for any reason. And if the reason is because the buyer feels he/she was misinformed by the customer reviews at amazon.com; use it.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

So, if I feel a book has been given really good reviews and I think it is well, rubbish, I can return it?  Crikeys, wish I'd known that earlier!


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

brainstorm said:


> I think publishers have more than just one reason. Lots more. Yet another might just be their fear of their publishing world changing.
> 
> Fear of hardcover people jumping ship after seeing $9.99 prices for e-books and waiting for paperbacks.


Judging by the stink that was made over the Wally World/Amazon/Target price war with bestselling hardbacks, complaints regarding Amazon's tendency to price bestsellers at $9.99, it's pretty clear that they are worried about sub $10 sales on new releases. There may be other issues but I think this is the biggest.

I will have to say that I was wrong about Amazon not being able to do anything though. I've checked three of the delayed titles. The Kindle versions of Game Change has a pre-order price of $8.61, Impact has a pre-order price of $8.87, and The Swan Thieves has a pre-order price of $8.79.

In between the ill will being generated by the delays and the ability to lock in good prices from Amazon, I just don't see this working out well.


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

Pushka said:


> So, if I feel a book has been given really good reviews and I think it is well, rubbish, I can return it? Crikeys, wish I'd known that earlier!


Beware of doing this too often. There have been instances of Amazon locking people out of their accounts because they were abusing the return system with large ticket items. Don't know how much it would take to push them over into doing that with Kindle products, but just so you know.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

I know what you mean sheryl, and I dont think I would ever return a book - hmm, maybe so -  if I had bought 'Eat Pray Love' on a kindle that would have been returned in a nanosecond!


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

This is certainly a contentious issue, with lots of strong feelings on both sides. First of all, I'd like to compliment everyone on the level of civility I've seen here... I've read discussions on this topic on another forum that degenerated into far more name-calling and crap like that. It's good to see people intelligently disagree on a topic without resorting to "You're stupid if you disagree with me!" or "It's obvious to anyone with a brain!"

As an author, my first instinct is that I would be devastated by one-star reviews of my work to make a point about publishers. I also know that, had I been approached by a big publisher, and they told me that they control all the marketing decisions, I would have accepted it in a heartbeat. And I am confident that they would never listen to me (unless my last name was King or Rowling) if I complained about them withholding eBook versions.

For the record, I think the eBook delay is certainly short-sighted (as is much of what the traditional publishing industry is doing regarding eBooks), and I strongly disagree with it. On the other hand, the simple fact remains that traditional publishers are really our only shot of doing this for a living. As much as I like the control self-publishing gives me, the fact remains that it doesn't pay the bills.

Anyway, I personally wouldn't post a 1-star review unless it was deserved by the book itself. But I also understand readers' frustration with a silly, harmful, and short-sighted policy. Personally, I would just "vote with my wallet," and not buy the delayed book, spending my money on available, non-delayed books instead. If enough people did that, the message would get across.


----------



## Sandpiper (Oct 28, 2008)

Greg Mortenson's (my relative) book Stones Into Schools has 99 reviews on Amazon.  Ninety-six 5-star, two 4-star, and one 2-star.  Two-star is due solely to unreadable maps on Kindle version.  I suppose I am biased, but in any case that's no reason for a 2-star review.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

David Derrico said:


> As an author, my first instinct is that I would be devastated by one-star reviews of my work to make a point about publishers. I also know that, had I been approached by a big publisher, and they told me that they control all the marketing decisions, I would have accepted it in a heartbeat. And I am confident that they would never listen to me (unless my last name was King or Rowling) if I complained about them withholding eBook versions.


Hi David, as I have the same user name on the mobilereads forum, you might know that I posted similar comments on the basis that my husband is a published author (not on the kindle) and was promptly told to toughen up. I also used the word 'devastated' about receiving 1star reviews. I agree with everything you say!


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

Comparitively civil, except for the occasional "you're immature if you do this" type comment. For the record, I have not done this, but that said, I'm not opposed to it. If you put a product out in the market, you should be prepared for the comments that follow. Simply "voting with your wallet" may or may not get the point across, as the publishers have no way to know how many people are not purchasing a title due to the delay. The tags might be a good alternative, but do they really have any effect? I kind of look at the 1-star review as a bit of "civil disobedience" for the new millenium. =)


----------

