# K Unlimited for all? maybe if we all ask nice?



## CEMartin2 (May 26, 2012)

I'm wondering if every KDP author asked nicely if we could get Amazon to let us sign books up for KU without being select, if they would.

It's a win for Amazon--they need selection for unlimited to work. Imagine if Netflix only offered 1980s network TV shows--subscribers would abandon them quickly.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Kindle Unlimited will work as it is or it won't and Amazon will either revisit exclusivity or it won't. Amazon won't likely respond to authors requesting it be opened up. We're not their customer. We're a supplier. And as we all know, Amazon is all about its customers -- in this case, subscribers.

Amazon will open it up or not based on results. If authors pull out in significant numbers, then there will be less for subscribers to read. If subscribers drop out of KU in significant numbers because they can't find anything they want to read, Amazon will respond. As long as it works for Amazon and achieves its goal of competing with Scribd and Oyster, and getting new customer $, they won't change it. The way I see it, we authors have to make our own decisions based on whether Kindle Unlimited works for us. Amazon will as well.


----------



## Steve Vernon (Feb 18, 2011)

A petition, maybe?



The problem with that idea is that I believe a great deal of the idea behind KU is to increase the percentage of e-book releases that are STRICTLY available through Kindle.

Basically - the more e-books that are ONLY available through Kindle - the sexier Kindle becomes to the average consumer (whom we will call Smedley) who is standing there with their wallet in their hand trying to decide which e-book reader to purchase. If Jeff Bezos can say something along the lines of "Hey, Kindle has ONE FREAKING BILLION more e-books that you CANNOT GET ANYWHERE ELSE!", the more likely that Smedley is going to open that wallet up and hand the contents to Jeff Bezos.

SO - (and this is strictly my own personal theory) - the goal of KU is not necessarily to make money for Kindle so much as it is to continually deny the other guys (Kobo, Nook, Googleplay, Apple, etc.) access to all of those e-books that are ONLY available through Kindle Select.

Anyone else have any thoughts while I go to the grocery store?


----------



## JR. (Dec 10, 2014)

Yep, as Sela said, the decision will be based on the findings of their accountants, not any 'request'.


----------



## HAGrant (Jul 17, 2011)

Steve Vernon said:


> A petition, maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes to the above. Plus an incentive to get Smedley to buy a Kindle.


----------



## CEMartin2 (May 26, 2012)

Netflix succeeded not because of exclusivity, but because of the service they offered--which included variety. And even Netflix responds to requests.

Good grief, will it really kill us to all ask nicely?


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

Why would Amazon want to open KU to everyone? They want exclusive content. That's the big "draw" to KU. As an author, you have to make the decision if KU is worth going exclusive. As a business, Amazon has already decided that exclusivity is what they want. Unfortunately, you can't have everything. You have to pick and choose in this business. There are lucrative ways to build KU into your brand - but there's no way Amazon is going to give up their business plan - and give up what they believe is best for them - because people ask "nicely."


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

CEMartin2 said:


> Netflix succeeded not because of exclusivity, but because of the service they offered--which included variety. And even Netflix responds to requests.
> 
> Good grief, will it really kill us to all ask nicely?


Asking Amazon nicely to do anything they feel is not in their best interests will get you about as far as offering a major airline a dollar for a plane ticket to a far off destination. And if they feel it is in their best interests, you won't even have to ask because they'd already be doing it.

Amazon became the powerhouse retailer it is today through innovation, variety, and service. Now Amazon has changed its tactics to: copying what others have done, and placing their own strong-arm spin on it to maintain and increase dominance in the retail arena. I believe it will ultimately fail. Strong arming your suppliers eventually convinces them to stop supplying. The only ones who don't leave are the ones who have come to rely on the buyer so heavily for most of their income that they can't afford to leave, even though that income is steadily decreasing because the buyer knows they have the leverage to force the supplier to keep lowering prices. If you put all your eggs in one basket, you hasten the day that happens. Exclusivity is the weapon of choice for Amazon these days. They won't change unless they are forced to change through mass desertion of the Select program. Why do they think they keep throwing millions of additional dollars at it each month? They know that money talks.

It will take a mass rebellion against the Select program to achieve any change. And that won't happen as long as so many authors, especially those at the top where most of the borrows occur, are so willing to sell their souls.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

why don't you add a survey to find out how many people care about the issue enough to sign a petition?


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

If Amazon views KU as a way to keep publishers out of markets that are currently eating Amazon's market share, then I'm not sure dropping exclusivity would be a win for them at all.


----------



## JR. (Dec 10, 2014)

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that KU and Netflix are comparable. If you want Amazon to change tactics you're better off convincing everyone you know to buy from Scribd.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Removing exclusivity would only make KU worse.

While the Global Fund is a hilarious lie, Amazon is still only going to pay so much money in total on borrows, so more books and more people borrowing those books means even lower borrow payments.


----------



## CEMartin2 (May 26, 2012)

I wasn't talking petition. That's many people asking for the same thing. I'm talking individual emails. That's multiple requests. If a hundred people asked a store o carry a product, the store would in all likelihood do so. A petition signed by a hundred people would likely be tossed out. 

Unlimited anything for a monthly fee is EXACTLY like Netflx... and Hulu. They're very similar. 

5 minutes of your time to just ask via the HELP option on Author Central. Yes, we might get a No. But at least we asked.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Why would I want my 100,000 word plus novel in KU making $1.20 or $1.30 or less for a borrow when I can sell it for $4.99 and make approx. $3.50 a sale?


----------



## HAGrant (Jul 17, 2011)

CEMartin2 said:


> I wasn't talking petition. That's many people asking for the same thing. I'm talking individual emails. That's multiple requests. If a hundred people asked a store o carry a product, the store would in all likelihood do so. A petition signed by a hundred people would likely be tossed out.
> 
> Unlimited anything for a monthly fee is EXACTLY like Netflx... and Hulu. They're very similar.
> 
> 5 minutes of your time to just ask via the HELP option on Author Central. Yes, we might get a No. But at least we asked.


I dunno.... I nicely wrote to Amazon and told them they should stop selling resin paperweights with real fish and real little bats (if somebody orders one, it's obvious the seller puts the fish/bat in resin and kills it). They never answered me.


----------



## HAGrant (Jul 17, 2011)

Caddy said:


> Why would I want my 100,000 word plus novel in KU making $1.20 or $1.30 or less for a borrow when I can sell it for $4.99 and make approx. $3.50 a sale?


Yes, this too.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Be very careful what you ask for OP.  I almost put this in the 2015 predictions thread, but decided it was tempting fate to even utter the words.  What happens if Amazon decides to REQUIRE all indie-published books to be part of KU?  As in, if you want to publish on Amazon, you're in KU.  Oh, and we're going to pay you $1.25 a borrow.  Take it or leave it.

Could happen.  And they'd likely get away with it.  At least now people have a choice to participate or not...


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

Cassie Leigh said:


> Be very careful what you ask for OP. I almost put this in the 2015 predictions thread, but decided it was tempting fate to even utter the words. What happens if Amazon decides to REQUIRE all indie-published books to be part of KU? As in, if you want to publish on Amazon, you're in KU. Oh, and we're going to pay you $1.25 a borrow. Take it or leave it.
> 
> Could happen. And they'd likely get away with it. At least now people have a choice to participate or not...


Why would Amazon possibly want that? That makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

YodaRead said:


> Why would Amazon possibly want that? That makes absolutely no sense.


It COULD make sense. Amazon has lost a lot of money over the years undercutting competition in an attempt to have sole control of the book market so that they can implement whatever it is they wish. In the blink of an eye, Amazon lost the device war and is now bleeding market share. They have to do something. They can't undercut Google because Google has shown a willingness to undercut Amazon at every turn. Demanding exclusivity is one thing they could do. KU could be the vehicle they use to do it.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

Briteka said:


> It COULD make sense. Amazon has lost a lot of money over the years undercutting competition in an attempt to have sole control of the book market so that they can implement whatever it is they wish. In the blink of an eye, Amazon lost the device war and is now bleeding market share. They have to do something. They can't undercut Google because Google has shown a willingness to undercut Amazon at every turn. Demanding exclusivity is one thing they could do. KU could be the vehicle they use to do it.


It doesn't make sense. That poster was saying that Amazon would make everyone who tried to put their books on Amazon put them in KU. That is not what Amazon wants. Amazon wants exclusivity. They don't want everyone in KU -- because that defeats the purpose. Amazon is not trying to make money on KU. Sure, making money is nice, but they want to use it as a funnel. That's all KU is to them.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Amazon wants customers and the most books over all.
Someone double check my math but isn't KU only about 25% of all e-books in the Kindle store.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

CEMartin2 said:


> Good grief, will it really kill us to all ask nicely?


I wouldn't appreciate it if they started asking us nicely to be exclusive. You know, just because we think it'd be good for everybody involved, not because of any incentives or anything. It's not particularly businesslike.

And as others have observed, it's not at all clear to me that putting every books in KU _would_ be good for authors-forget about Amazon itself.


----------



## Deborahsmith author (Jul 23, 2013)

My prediction for 2015 is that Amazon will make KU mandatory for all KDP titles. I've seen a blogger lay out the rationale for that change, and it makes sense to me. At the very least, Amazon will move in that direction. https://ebookbargainsuk.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/as-the-ku-exodus-grows-how-much-longer-before-amazon-puts-all-kdp-titles-in-kindle-unlimited/


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

YodaRead said:


> It doesn't make sense. That poster was saying that Amazon would make everyone who tried to put their books on Amazon put them in KU. That is not what Amazon wants. Amazon wants exclusivity. They don't want everyone in KU -- because that defeats the purpose. Amazon is not trying to make money on KU. Sure, making money is nice, but they want to use it as a funnel. That's all KU is to them.


Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that they'd demand exclusivity. I was saying that they'd split KU from Select and force anyone unable to negotiate their way out of it (indies and maybe even some small presses) to participate in KU. The more titles in KU, the more of a funnel it becomes for them to all their other services and products.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Cassie Leigh said:


> Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that they'd demand exclusivity. I was saying that they'd split KU from Select and force anyone unable to negotiate their way out of it (indies and maybe even some small presses) to participate in KU. The more titles in KU, the more of a funnel it becomes for them to all their other services and products.


Except it's no longer funneling people into buying work that's in KU, because...it's in KU. It's not obvious to me that they'd make more money that way. The more important question is probably whether it serves their customers better, but we know there are limits. They don't give everything away-in fact, we have to contort our way around the price matching policy to set up permafrees-so we know there's a point where the business does come before delighting everybody.

Funnels only work as long as there's a good paid option at the narrow end. They certainly _could_ sweep everybody into KU, but I don't think it's at all clear that they'd benefit from it.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

YodaRead said:


> They don't want everyone in KU -- because that defeats the purpose. Amazon is not trying to make money on KU. Sure, making money is nice, but they want to use it as a funnel. That's all KU is to them.


I'm not sure where this truism came from, but I very much disagree. I don't know what KU is. I have my theories, but none of them involve a funnel. 

KU could be many things. It could be Amazon seeing the future of digital distribution, getting ahead of it and setting up their apparatus for the future so that they can kill the competition now.

KU could even be Amazon's way of removing themselves as a player in the ebook market. Their smartphone flopped. Their tablet flopped. They're now in head-to-head competition with two giants in Apple and Google, two companies that entered the device market and absolutely murdered Amazon. Perhaps KU is just a set-it and forget-it way of leaving the ebook market while they focus on the rest of their business.

KU might not be anything more than an easy-to-implement extension of Prime that was just there, and they thought, hey, why the heck not?

I don't know what it is, but it's clear that exclusivity is important to them for whatever reason.


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

Sela said:


> Kindle Unlimited will work as it is or it won't and Amazon will either revisit exclusivity or it won't. Amazon won't likely respond to authors requesting it be opened up. We're not their customer. We're a supplier. And as we all know, Amazon is all about its customers -- in this case, subscribers.
> 
> Amazon will open it up or not based on results. If authors pull out in significant numbers, then there will be less for subscribers to read. If subscribers drop out of KU in significant numbers because they can't find anything they want to read, Amazon will respond. As long as it works for Amazon and achieves its goal of competing with Scribd and Oyster, and getting new customer $, they won't change it. The way I see it, we authors have to make our own decisions based on whether Kindle Unlimited works for us. Amazon will as well.


In the Amazon space, vendors and suppliers are still viewed as customers.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

KU is a subscription program.  Like Oyster and Scribd. 
How is their tablet a fail?  
Where are you getting your information?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

I'd be afraid Amazon would say, "Oh, you want to be in KU but not Select? Great. Select will remain optional, but every book published through KDP is now in KU."

In other words, be careful what you ask for. They could really slip us the green wiener on this one.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Dolphin said:


> Except it's no longer funneling people into buying work that's in KU, because...it's in KU. It's not obvious to me that they'd make more money that way. The more important question is probably whether it serves their customers better, but we know there are limits. They don't give everything away--in fact, we have to contort our way around the price matching policy to set up permafrees--so we know there's a point where the business does come before delighting everybody.
> 
> Funnels only work as long as there's a good paid option at the narrow end. They certainly _could_ sweep everybody into KU, but I don't think it's at all clear that they'd benefit from it.


Well, there is a good paid option. With all the money readers save by not having to buy genre books by indies, they can buy more books by their favorite authors. Who can then raise their prices.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Well, there is a good paid option. With all the money readers save by not having to buy genre books by indies, they can buy more books by their favorite authors. Who can then raise their prices.


Indies earn more profits than tradpub authors in ebook sales. I'm not sure what Amazon's cut is of each of those sales offhand, but I know it means we're a huge part of their profits from ebooks. Perhaps the majority of their profits from ebooks? Give yourself and the rest of us some credit. We make a pretty rad narrow end of the funnel ourselves, thank you very much, and we've got every possible incentive to optimize our funneling action so long as KU participation is voluntary.



Briteka said:


> KU could even be Amazon's way of removing themselves as a player in the ebook market. Their smartphone flopped. Their tablet flopped. They're now in head-to-head competition with two giants in Apple and Google, two companies that entered the device market and absolutely murdered Amazon. Perhaps KU is just a set-it and forget-it way of leaving the ebook market while they focus on the rest of their business.


Oh, right...like that time Microsoft decided to mothball Windows because the iPod beat out the Zune. YOU WIN THIS ROUND, STEVE JOBS! <shakes fist and eviscerates self>

Amazon dominates the ebook market. We might speculate as to their plans for continued domination, but _rest assured_ that their plan _is_ continued domination. The only way KU replaces book sales altogether is if it's better for Amazon and for Amazon's customers.

It's not.


----------



## Vidya (Feb 14, 2012)

An author in another writing group recently posted this and gave me permission to share here; she said:

"Amazon's recent changes to their TOS are an indicator that they are contemplating including all indie books in the Kindle Unlimited program.

This is the link to KDP's updated TOS:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2F1wyLDPQ&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH2u0Uq-II8o8jbx7hTVnLywjxg7w

Under the KDP terms (NOT Kindle Select) The following clause is buried at the very END of the new TOS:

5. Additional 70% Royalty Option Terms and Conditions

iii. New Features: Any new feature incorporated into the Program will apply to all Digital Books distributed under the 70% Option even if we make the feature optional for other Digital Books.

My husband does multi-million dollar contracts for a living, and he reviews all contracts I make with any publisher. When I asked him about the above terminology in relation to Kindle Unlimited, he said that this clause in Amazon's TOS gives them the right to include any book I price high enough to receive the 70% royalty in whatever program they want, e.g., Kindle Unlimited without notice. It also states that they can make this program optional for other publishers, i.e., NY publishers and/or a select group of indie publishers (authors). They don't list the criteria for how that selection is made.

***

That's what she said. I'm just quoting her. what do you guys think?


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> Removing exclusivity would only make KU worse.
> 
> While the Global Fund is a hilarious lie, Amazon is still only going to pay so much money in total on borrows, so more books and more people borrowing those books means even lower borrow payments.


Wait. Is the global fund a lie or not? You're saying the amount they'll pay is limited. That's a global fund. And for months you've been saying that they control their payout to the rate they choose.

You can't have it both ways.

Unless you're just interested in bashing Amazon and KU without thinking about what you're saying, in which case, carry on.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

CEMartin2 said:


> Netflix succeeded not because of exclusivity, but because of the service they offered--which included variety.


Not to derail the thread...but Amazon is in a pitched battle with Netflix in the streaming video market. And exclusivity plays heavily into both their models. _House of Cards_ and _Orange is the New Black_, along with other movies and series that are only on Netflix, are the reasons I still have a Netflix subscription in addition to my Prime membership. Amazon markets to its customers about videos available only on Prime including several original series.

Betsy


----------



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

Vidya said:


> An author in another writing group recently posted this and gave me permission to share here; she said:
> 
> "Amazon's recent changes to their TOS are an indicator that they are contemplating including all indie books in the Kindle Unlimited program.
> 
> ...


This is one of my paranoid fears, I have to admit. I thought to myself back in November, what is the worst that can happen to me at Amazon? The answer (for me, due to 50% drop in sales at that time) was to lose the other half. I fear that select could remain the exclusive that it is now, and to get OUT of KU you have to go into Select. In other words, KDP become KU.

Of course it is only paranoia right? 

Anyway, KU is a VERY good reason to continue with promos on my other channels. I need to beef them up for the dark times. Winter "might" be coming! hehehe, had to get that in there.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Not to derail the thread...but Amazon is in a pitched battle with Netflix in the streaming video market. And exclusivity plays heavily into both their models. _House of Cards_ and _Orange is the New Black_, along with other movies and series that are only on Netflix, are the reasons I still have a Netflix subscription in addition to my Prime membership. Amazon markets to its customers about videos available only on Prime including several original series.
> 
> Betsy


This is a great point. I wonder what kind of response a big-name author would get (traditional or indie) if they approached a digital retailer (any of them) and asked for some kind of direct payment above royalties (or special merchandising opportunities) to go exclusive.

Think of the designer lines at some retailers, like Target. Basically, the retailer would advertise Mark Cooper (since he's right there above this comment) as being "Only Available on iBooks." Or: "Only Available on Amazon." Could they win enough readers over with big enough exclusive names to make the acquisition costs make sense?

In fact, is this what Amazon is doing with the All-Star bonuses, in a way? The only thing they're leaving out, if so, is the actual announcement. Having exclusive works isn't enough if you aren't advertising the fact. But maybe the lack of any announcement is simply due to the inability to land a big enough name. Maybe indies won't be enough with readers to pull this off. And here is where the cultural war against Amazon is paying dividends for the traditional publishers. Without that war, demonizing Amazon as evil, a traditional author might take up Amazon on an offer to provide exclusive content. In fact, this worked back in the day with authors like Stephen King. But it's far less likely now due to the shaming and peer pressure that would be felt.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Dolphin said:


> Indies earn more profits than tradpub authors in ebook sales. <snip> Give yourself and the rest of us some credit. We make a pretty rad narrow end of the funnel ourselves, thank you very much, and we've got every possible incentive to optimize our funneling action so long as KU participation is voluntary.


Maybe you should give yourself some more credit. You seem to equate favorite authors with traditionally published authors. I didn't even remotely suggest that. On the contrary, I'm sure almost all of us are on some readers' favorite list. 



Dolphin said:


> I know it means we're a huge part of their profits from ebooks


First of all, the whole of the profits from ebooks is peanuts. Second, have you any idea how many indies there are? How many join our ranks on a monthly basis? Do you really think they are afraid a few of us will leave Amazon? Some of us _can't_ even leave Amazon because it provides them with 80-100% of their income.

For Amazon we're a gateway drug. The customer who has a pleasant, easy, low risk transaction buying a book will be inclined to shop for other stuff at their Everything Store. That's our function in Amazon's great scheme.



Dolphin said:


> Amazon dominates the ebook market. We might speculate as to their plans for continued domination, but _rest assured_ that their plan _is_ continued domination. The only way KU replaces book sales altogether is if it's better for Amazon and for Amazon's customers.


Amazon's share has declined, but I agree they will try to dominate the ebook market.

KU will never replace all book sales. Much in the same way as ebooks will never replace paper books completely. But KU might replace a lot of sales of genre books, unless you happen to be or _become_ a favorite author of a reader. Then they might want to own your book and buy it.

I guess KU is just a way of imposing a lower payout per read, and I fear that by the end of the year 50 cents per borrow will be the norm.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> First of all, the whole of the profits from ebooks is peanuts.


Huh? Peanuts?

I think you need to study up on modern retailing. Amazon is earning up to 65% gross profit on products it doesn't have to buy, stock, maintain, pull, ship, or handle returns for (in a manual way such as for a returned DVD.) I was in retailing for twenty years. We would have LOVED to have that kind profit on such a large share of our merchandise offerings.

You seem to be deluding yourself, possibly through ignorance of real world facts. It's the hard goods where Amazon makes peanuts. Why do you think they're trying so hard to get exclusivity over books. It's because it's where their REAL profit comes from. People outside retail think that because an item is low cost, it isn't profitable. ***Spoiler Alert *** Low cost items are where retailers make all their money. They may make five dollars on a five hundred dollar item, and two dollars on ten dollar item. And sell a hundred of those ten dollar items for every one of the five hundred dollar items. Don't confuse big ticket prices with high margins and profits. Car dealerships make quite a bit on every car sale, despite the games they play with sticker prices and invoices, but it's the service area where the real money is made. I recently had a heater hose break in my Chevy Suburban. A length of high pressure heater hose normally costs about five bucks. The heater hose I needed for my vehicle was a hundred bucks, because the fitting on one end is unique. Think that was designed that way by accident? And there is NO generic substitute. You MUST buy the GM part. Amazon is making a TON of money on ebook sales. And anyone who thinks different just doesn't understand retailing.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Hey peanuts work only if you think Jimmy Carter was just a simple peanut farmer.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

scribblr said:


> Huh? Peanuts?


I meant compared to the whole Amazon Empire. Even so it stands to reason they want as many peanuts as they can possibly get.

Doesn't change the rest of my argument much either way. Only going wide, trying to get traction with other vendors, trying to get a direct connection with your readership and adopting higher production values than "good enough" can partly shield us from Amazon's grip on this business.

ETA

Your car analogy reinforces my argument. The ebooks lure the customer into the shop. Profits are made, but far higher profits are made on other items. Of course, that's only part of the strategy in my for once humble opinion. The more money they can make from the gateway drug the better.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Profits are made, but far higher profits are made on other items.


Absolutely. I used to get advertisements from shoe manufacturers in China offering product for two dollars that would sell for twenty bucks or more in discount shoe stores in the US. The markup on shoes in staggering, and even more so on designer product. That's why Jeff Bezos added a shoe company to the Amazon holdings a few years back. A second major profit center is clothing. Dress stores in malls can have a sixty percent off sale, and STILL be making three hundred percent profit on every item they sell. That's why there're always so many shoe stores and dress stores in malls. And that's why Jeff Bezos got into ladies dresses last year. (snicker) I haven't figured out the newspaper angle yet. (I'm referring to the newspaper Bezos bought last year with private funds.)

Still, I know people who buy many dozens of books every year, but who may only buy a couple of pairs of shoes. I'm excluding one of my sisters from that last statement because I think she's trying to beat Imelda Marcos' record at Guinness.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

scribblr said:


> Still, I know people who buy many dozens of books every year, but who may only buy a couple of pairs of shoes. I'm excluding one of my sisters from that last statement because I think she's trying to beat Imelda Marcos' record at Guinness.


Maybe Bezos knows a few more people who buy shoes than you do. Maybe he knows Imelda Marcos, your sister, and many like them. And maybe many of those you know who buy many dozens of books a year will start _borrowing_ the majority of them and become far more picky in which ones they actually _buy_. Which could make a hell of a lot of a difference in writer earnings. All the more so if what I fear becomes true: a payout of 50 cents a borrow.

Anyway, just how important the ebook part of Amazon's business is isn't important. Far more important is that KU could be a game changer, and not a good one for writers.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

If all indies are forced into KU for all published books on Amazon, we will have to get creative and find a way to make our long novels serials. I don't want to do that to my novels, but would I if all of a sudden I was being paid .50 for 148,000 words? You better believe I would. I'm not doing this for charity. Nor am I greedy, but I do want a fair royalty.

Plus, I thank God I'm building a readership on other retail sites. The full novels would remain intact at those. Readers could get up in arms about it, but how would they like to go to work and find out their hourly wage had been reduced from, say, $15 an hour to $3? Not very well, I'm betting. 

If enough forced into KU started doing that, either readers would change reading habits and get used to serials or they'd go to other retailers for the full novels and Amazon would lose market share. I'm betting they would read the serials, since it only costs them $9.95 a month to read as many as they want.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Maybe he knows Imelda Marcos, your sister, and many like them.


I can say with all certainty that he doesn't know my sister.



Andrew Ashling said:


> Anyway, just how important the ebook part of Amazon's business is isn't important.


That's true. But it was you who made such a big deal about it in your post above. Quote "First of all, the whole of the profits from ebooks is peanuts."


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

scribblr said:


> I can say with all certainty that he doesn't know my sister.
> 
> That's true. But it was you who made such a big deal about it in your post above. Quote "First of all, the whole of the profits from ebooks is peanuts."


That's not a big deal. It's at the very most an opening shot. You missed the big deal.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

Caddy said:


> If all indies are forced into KU for all published books on Amazon, we will have to get creative and find a way to make our long novels serials.


I don't believe that Amazon would force all Indies into the KU, but I feel certain they would like to force all Indies into exclusivity if the Indie wishes to publish on Amazon. I wonder how many Indies will immediately bow down to the great Zon and sign an exclusivity agreement.

Perhaps I feel stronger about the issue than many because I've seen more of Amazon's inner processes than many. Last year I refused to sign a confidentially agreement with Amazon because it would legally prevent my open expression of non-confidential information. But a lot of other authors have signed that agreement and are legally barred from talking. They may believe that the agreement only prevents them from speaking about NEW programs, which is the way the NDA agreement was sold, but the language is so broad that it can apply to anything you say about Amazon.

Long before Amazon announced the Select Program, I discussed exclusivity with an Amazon exec. He wanted to know what I would require to become exclusive to Amazon. I told him that for an additional ten percent on the royalty, I would give Amazon an exclusive on all my new books for a period of ninety days, but that I would never give them a permanent exclusive. Later, they offered to re-master all my self-published books if I would grant them a license on all my books through the end of copyright (which is 70 years after the death of the copyright holder.) When Amazon initiated the Select program, I saw the beginning of the end for non-exclusivity at Amazon, and everything they've done since then carries their exclusivity aspirations forward. They opened four stores and required Indies to be exclusive in ALL stores for each book where they wished to get the 70% they had already earned by agreeing to sell their books between $2.99 and $9.99. If you don't agree to the exclusivity, you are fined 35% on sales of that book in those four stores.

The newest move towards exclusivity is requiring every book in the KU program to be exclusive. Amazon has gotten Indies to pull their books from other resellers and destroy the small inroads those Indies had begun to make in a wider distribution effort. Amazon is patient, and is content to take one step at a time in their effort to corral all Indies into their private herd.

I am no longer publishing my new ebooks on Amazon in protest against exclusivity. Only one other author, as far as I know, has decided to do this with their next book. What we need is a tsunami of authors to do this in order to get Amazon to pull back from the shoreline. I still have my older books on Amazon, but if they decide to go with full exclusivity, I will pull all of them as well. Right now, I'm making a living with B&N, Kobo, Apple, my own website, and a few smaller resellers. I've been building a following elsewhere since 2012. The start of the Select Program in Dec. 2011 was enough to show me what Amazon intended for the future, and I wanted to develop my distribution channels before it became a necessity to have them in place. They gave me the ability to tell Amazon they can't control me through fear of losing my livelihood at the whim of the Seattle executive suite.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> You missed the big deal.


Only in your mind.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Well, I'll be one of them leaving if they demand exclusivity in order to be there. I've built a slow readership other places and I'd just have to keep building that. Plus, then I'd get on google, which I haven't because I don't want to risk them making a book free or discounted and screwing up my prices on other retailers. Without AMazon to worry about it wouldn't be a problem. And I still think Apple/I-tunes is eventually going to give Amazon a major headache. My sales are increasing there every month.

ANother thing some authors may do if AMazon will allow us to publish, but only pay 35% if not exclusive is double their price to make up for the difference. Some who have a solid following could probably do that...especially if they aren't pricing their books high enough already. 

There are a lot of ways to protect ourselves from having our incomes ravished by Amazon. We'll just have to think outside the box. Something indies should be good at doing anyway.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

Caddy said:


> Well, I'll be one of them leaving if they demand exclusivity in order to be there. I've built a slow readership other places and I'd just have to keep building that. Plus, then I'd get on google, which I haven't because I don't want to risk them making a book free or discounted and screwing up my prices on other retailers. Without AMazon to worry about it wouldn't be a problem. And I still think Apple/I-tunes is eventually going to give Amazon a major headache. My sales are increasing there every month.
> 
> ANother thing some authors may do if AMazon will allow us to publish, but only pay 35% if not exclusive is double their price to make up for the difference. Some who have a solid following could probably do that...especially if they aren't pricing their books high enough already.
> 
> There are a lot of ways to protect ourselves from having our incomes ravished by Amazon. We'll just have to think outside the box. Something indies should be good at doing anyway.


I've avoided Google as well for the undependable nature of their pricing. I also decided against them because they only pay 52% if I read the terms correctly. Lastly, in 2007 I agreed to let Google make a 'sample' of two of my books available to the public. They are currently allowing people to read as much as 95% of the those books for free. That's a hell of a sample, but there was no limit stated originally so I'm stuck.

I agree that Apple could be a much bigger deal if they want to increase their market share. It was Steve Jobs announcement that forced Amazon to treat Indies better. The problem seems to be that Apple isn't wholeheartedly pursuing a premier place in the book market. Perhaps it was the Eric Holder Department's lawsuit which cooled their ardor.

We really shouldn't have to think outside the box, and wouldn't if Amazon wasn't constantly trying to roll back the clock to where they only paid Indies 35% on all sales. It's enough work just trying to write books that win the minds and hearts of readers without working to game the system in order to make a living.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

I heard about a year ago from someone who's father-in-law is high up at Apple that they DO want to get serious about the book market and are slowly working their way. He said like with all huge companies it gets tied up in meetings, etc...but if I was smart I'd make sure my books were there because when they do they plan on taking on Amazon head on. Who knows if it's going to happen, but when I hear it from someone who has a relative on the inside, I listen. I don't care if it's this year or 3 years or more...I think it will happen. 

Apple bought Booklamp last July. Booklamp.org is a system for matching readers to books through an analysis of writing styles. The technology BookLamp allows you to find books that are written with a similar tone, tense, perspective, action level, description level and dialogue level. 

WHat that means for indies is Booklamp could care less if you are indie, traditional, or new. All it does is match up books, which means an equal playing field.  

I think this was their first big step. But, then, I'm just a writer and artist. I could be high on paint fumes.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

That all sounds promising. I'm tired of Amazon being the big dog and stomping on everybody constantly.


----------



## Deborahsmith author (Jul 23, 2013)

Dolphin said:


> Indies earn more profits than tradpub authors in ebook sales.


Hi. Are you basing that on Authors Earnings reports? If so, not really. A small percentage of indie authors earn more, based on high volume of sales at low prices, individually, than their counterparts in traditional publishing. Overall, most indie authors don't come anywhere close to the ebook income achieved by tradpub authors. Amazon's revenue from indie authors may be substantial, but not on a par with the massive revenue earned in wholesale contracts with Big 5 houses and all the related merchandise attached to big-tent book projects. Indie authors have no bargaining power. I don't say that to be gleeful, because I'm an indie author in KDP and a small press publisher who works with Amazon's wholesale division, and there's no power there, either.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Deborahsmith author said:


> Hi. Are you basing that on Authors Earnings reports? If so, not really. A small percentage of indie authors earn more, based on high volume of sales at low prices, individually, than their counterparts in traditional publishing. Overall, most indie authors don't come anywhere close to the ebook income achieved by tradpub authors. Amazon's revenue from indie authors may be substantial, but not on a par with the massive revenue earned in wholesale contracts with Big 5 houses and all the related merchandise attached to big-tent book projects. Indie authors have no bargaining power. I don't say that to be gleeful, because I'm an indie author in KDP and a small press publisher who works with Amazon's wholesale division, and there's no power there, either.


Are you factoring in those who decide to submit their manuscripts to agents and publishers, never get signed, and never earn a penny?

Probably not. People take the top 1% of those who choose the trad-pub route and compare them to the 100% of those who choose to self-pub. A convenient comparison if you're trying to argue a point, but not good if you are trying to help authors make good decisions.

You don't "choose" to be trad-pubbed. You choose to query or you choose to self-publish. Those who do the former earn less than those who do the latter. 99% of those who do the former never earn a penny.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Caddy said:


> If all indies are forced into KU for all published books on Amazon, we will have to get creative and find a way to make our long novels serials. I don't want to do that to my novels, but would I if all of a sudden I was being paid .50 for 148,000 words? You better believe I would. I'm not doing this for charity. Nor am I greedy, but I do want a fair royalty.
> 
> Plus, I thank God I'm building a readership on other retail sites. *The full novels would remain intact at those.*


Sorry, but I think if Amazon were to demand exclusivity that would be based on content and not on titles. I had to delist my collection of short stories at other vendors to be able to put them separately in KU. The collection is still available at Amazon though.

I think this step of demanding exclusivity is not for the immediate future. To me it seems that belongs in the endgame. For the moment we're in the acquisition phase. Amazon wants to convince as many authors _and_ readers to join the program. A clause of exclusivity would make a lot of authors consider their options very carefully indeed, and that would be contrary to Amazon's interests.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Sorry, but I think if Amazon were to demand exclusivity that would be based on content and not on titles. I had to delist my collection of short stories at other vendors to be able to put them separately in KU. The collection is still available at Amazon though.
> 
> I think this step of demanding exclusivity is not for the immediate future. To me it seems that belongs in the endgame. For the moment we're in the acquisition phase. Amazon wants to convince as many authors _and_ readers to join the program. A clause of exclusivity would make a lot of authors consider their options very carefully indeed, and that would be contrary to Amazon's interests.


I was replying to the post(see below) that said they weren't talking about demanding exclusivity but of only allowed you to publish on KDP if you were also in KU. SO, if they weren't demanding exclusvity that is what I might do.  I posted later on what I would do if they only allowed me to publish if I agreed to be exclusive.



> Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that they'd demand exclusivity. I was saying that they'd split KU from Select and force anyone unable to negotiate their way out of it (indies and maybe even some small presses) to participate in KU. The more titles in KU, the more of a funnel it becomes for them to all their other services and products.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Caddy said:


> I was replying to the post(see below) that said they weren't talking about demanding exclusivity but of only allowed you to publish on KDP if you were also in KU. SO, if they weren't demanding exclusvity that is what I might do.  I posted later on what I would do if they only allowed me to publish if I agreed to be exclusive.


Oh dear, another scenario I hadn't even considered. My bad. 

Frankly, I think (most of) this year they're going to try the carrot, not the stick.


----------



## tessblunt (Jan 29, 2014)

scribblr said:


> I am no longer publishing my new ebooks on Amazon in protest against exclusivity.


This is just...wow. You may have just surpassed Vaalingrad in my top 10 users to ignore on this board.

For all the authors who allege that Amazon accounts for less than 80% of their income, I'd like to know what genres you publish in and how much you make per month. Because I think you're doing it wrong.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Oh dear, another scenario I hadn't even considered. My bad.
> 
> Frankly, I think (most of) this year they're going to try the carrot, not the stick.


Yeah, I think (and hope) you're right. Just thinking about what I "would" do with different scenarios.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> Are you factoring in those who decide to submit their manuscripts to agents and publishers, never get signed, and never earn a penny?
> 
> Probably not. People take the top 1% of those who choose the trad-pub route and compare them to the 100% of those who choose to self-pub. A convenient comparison if you're trying to argue a point, but not good if you are trying to help authors make good decisions.
> 
> You don't "choose" to be trad-pubbed. You choose to query or you choose to self-publish. Those who do the former earn less than those who do the latter. 99% of those who do the former never earn a penny.


Excellent point, Hugh.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

tessblunt said:


> This is just...wow. You may have just surpassed Vaalingrad in my top 10 users to ignore on this board.
> 
> For all the authors who allege that Amazon accounts for less than 80% of their income, I'd like to know what genres you publish in and how much you make per month. Because I think you're doing it wrong.


Oh, like an arrow through my heart. You're going to ignore my posts? LOL

You probably would like to know how much I make each month, but I'm not going to tell you. All I'll say is that from the second month I began self-publishing in 2010, I've never earned less than four figures every single month from self-publishing. Even without Amazon I earn far more than that.

Now please feel free to ignore my posts.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> Wait. Is the global fund a lie or not? You're saying the amount they'll pay is limited. That's a global fund. And for months you've been saying that they control their payout to the rate they choose.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Unless you're just interested in bashing Amazon and KU without thinking about what you're saying, in which case, carry on.


Cute but no.

Every month, they announce a global fund amount and every month, they add to it at the last minute to make the payout what they want it to be. Thus, the Global Fund is a lie, plain and simple.

However, they are not going to pay fifteen or twenty million dollars to cover all the books on KDP. There's no hard limit on what they're going to pay, but seriously, they're not going to pay a whole lot to the talent on a sub service. The whole point of a sub service is to screw the talent and take all the money yourself.

So yeah, the global fund is a lie, but payouts actually will start to fall in accordance with the number of borrows if they stuffed everyone in there.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> The whole point of a sub service is to screw the talent and take all the money yourself.


Except in Amazon's case it's to screw the talent in order to bring in traffic to buy goods and services other than ebooks. The end goal is the same.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

tessblunt said:


> This is just...wow. You may have just surpassed Vaalingrad in my top 10 users to ignore on this board.
> 
> For all the authors who allege that Amazon accounts for less than 80% of their income, I'd like to know what genres you publish in and how much you make per month. Because I think you're doing it wrong.


We can't all be as smart as you I guess.  Sorry, but your statement is pretty rude. Are you saying the only way to make money in doing this is through Amazon? That there is absolutely no one doing it differently? Because I'm one of them where Amazon is less than 80% of my income and it has been for about 7 months now. And I don't see why you need to let me know how superior you feel to any of us who actually make money other places. Although from your askin what I make, I guess unless someone is making five or six figures a month what they have to say wouldn't matter, anyway. Never mind not everyone's goal is the same. I want to make a living. Period. I make a good amount of my royalties from Amazon, but it isn't 80%. I also doubt you have some secret success formula I haven't read about or tried. But if you do, congrats. I myself don't mind having my income coming from more than one venue. That way if one bites me in the ass I can still count on the others. If you want to know my genres, well, I'm not hiding my books so feel free to check which genres they're under. I don't mind.


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

I'm with Scribblr here.

The one thing I can think of that might kill off KU is Trevor Clinger. Go visit his author's page. At least I think he's a real person.  Frankly I think the robots are going to blow up this whole self-publishing thing.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

CEMartin2 said:


> I'm wondering if every KDP author asked nicely if we could get Amazon to let us sign books up for KU without being select, if they would.
> 
> It's a win for Amazon--they need selection for unlimited to work. Imagine if Netflix only offered 1980s network TV shows--subscribers would abandon them quickly.


While I would like for it to happen, I really doubt it ever would, and I don't think emails would do anything to change their mind. It would require a massive action, like a very large majority of indie authors pulling out of Select en masse. I don't see that happening any time soon. I believe Amazon has two goals--1) be the everything store and KU is one way to get more customers into their shop and 2) eradicate the competition. I think Bezos couldn't care less if KU works or not, he's just using it as another tool to get people onto Amazon. If it doesn't work, he'll throw it out and find another shiny new tool to use.



CEMartin2 said:


> Netflix succeeded not because of exclusivity, but because of the service they offered--which included variety. And even Netflix responds to requests.
> 
> Good grief, will it really kill us to all ask nicely?


Netflix isn't Amazon. Netflix's entire business is subscription-based movies and TV shows. Subscription-based books is only a very, very, very small part of Amazon's business. It won't kill us to ask, but again, I don't think those questions will go anywhere. They'll be read by some customer service rep who will give you a canned response about how KU is part of KDP Select and then probably tout some of the benefits of it.



scribblr said:


> I don't believe that Amazon would force all Indies into the KU, but I feel certain they would like to force all Indies into exclusivity if the Indie wishes to publish on Amazon. I wonder how many Indies will immediately bow down to the great Zon and sign an exclusivity agreement.


This is something I fear is far more likely. Maybe not forcing every indie on Amazon to be exclusive, but at the very least require that your books be enrolled in Select in order to get the 70% royalty option. Every time there's a new territory available in KDP, it seems to be 35% unless you're in Select.



Caddy said:


> I heard about a year ago from someone who's father-in-law is high up at Apple that they DO want to get serious about the book market and are slowly working their way. He said like with all huge companies it gets tied up in meetings, etc...but if I was smart I'd make sure my books were there because when they do they plan on taking on Amazon head on. Who knows if it's going to happen, but when I hear it from someone who has a relative on the inside, I listen. I don't care if it's this year or 3 years or more...I think it will happen.
> 
> Apple bought Booklamp last July. Booklamp.org is a system for matching readers to books through an analysis of writing styles. The technology BookLamp allows you to find books that are written with a similar tone, tense, perspective, action level, description level and dialogue level.
> 
> ...


Could not agree more. My biggest prediction for 2015 is that Apple will do something with Booklamp that will really help them compete with Amazon in the ebook market. I bet it'll be ready in time for the new iPads and iPhones in the fall.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

555aaa said:


> I'm with Scribblr here.
> 
> The one thing I can think of that might kill off KU is Trevor Clinger. Go visit his author's page. At least I think he's a real person. Frankly I think the robots are going to blow up this whole self-publishing thing.


----------



## Deborahsmith author (Jul 23, 2013)

scribblr said:


> Excellent point, Hugh.


I'm trying to understand why anyone would factor in the money made by authors who never get published and thus never make any money. That's a stretch of logic beyond even the usual leaps. Regardless, Amazon could not care less what indie authors think or do or earn. There is no comparison between the power of the indie marketplace and the power of the big houses with their tentacles of multi-media and merchandising tie-ins, all of which make money for the Zon.

A handful of tent-pole powerhouses like the Hunger Games and Harry Potter franchises dwarf the revenues produced by all the indie authors in KDP. KDP's main value is that it produces customers (authors) and draws customers (readers) who go on to purchase lots of much pricier stuff. Feeding free and cheap entertainment to customers gets them to stick around, and KDP is just one of the many content streams Amazon has brilliantly concocted to do that. In fact, KDP is probably the smallest investment Amazon makes in "exclusive" programming, unlike its original content for the new TV and film division. The authors pay all production costs, give up a sizable chunk of the profit, and all Amazon invests is hosting and delivery costs. What a bargain.

Send a petition to the Zon about your complaints? Waste of time. Pull your books? Go right ahead. All the major KDP players could take a hike tomorrow and it wouldn't matter. Mr. Howey included. That's pocket change to Jeff Bezos. In 2015 it's likely that the new TOS terms referenced elsewhere in this thread will lead to further encroachment on KDP authors' autonomy. If not all titles being placed into KU, then the addition of new programs that won't be optional: putting KDP titles into foreign translations, or bundling them, or cherry picking some to go into KU for short periods of time, etc. It's highly unlikely Apple or Google will challenge Amazon's hold on the ebook marketplace -- because Amazon drove ebook prices down so much over the years that the other big players walked away from the market in any major competitive way, and that hasn't changed.

So authors will gnash their teeth, as usual, but they'll put up with Amazon's tactics. If they leave, they'll be easy to replace. Just look at all the authors on these boards who are desperate to get a chance at some attention.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

Deborahsmith author said:


> I'm trying to understand why anyone would factor in the money made by authors who never get published and thus never make any money. That's a stretch of logic beyond even the usual leaps. Regardless, Amazon could not care less what indie authors think or do or earn. There is no comparison between the power of the indie marketplace and the power of the big houses with their tentacles of multi-media and merchandising tie-ins, all of which make money for the Zon.
> 
> A handful of tent-pole powerhouses like the Hunger Games and Harry Potter franchises dwarf the revenues produced by all the indie authors in KDP. KDP's main value is that it produces customers (authors) and draws customers (readers) who go on to purchase lots of much pricier stuff. Feeding free and cheap entertainment to customers gets them to stick around, and KDP is just one of the many content streams Amazon has brilliantly concocted to do that. In fact, KDP is probably the smallest investment Amazon makes in "exclusive" programming, unlike its original content for the new TV and film division. The authors pay all production costs, give up a sizable chunk of the profit, and all Amazon invests is hosting and delivery costs. What a bargain.
> 
> ...


The point was that you were comparing apples to oranges. And you continue to do that with this post. Here you're comparing the bargaining power of an individual to the bargaining power of billion dollar multinational corporations. It's true that no indie has the bargaining power of Random House, or even Simon and Schuster. So why are you persisting in pushing that accepted fact?

Yes, I believe that sending a petition to the Zon about anything is a waste of time. Big corporations don't listen unless you have clout. But I dispute your allegation that Amazon isn't making a ton of money every year from Indie sales. I'm a nobody, but in my four years here, Amazon's share of the revenue pot from sales of JUST MY books, has been well over half a million dollars. And I'm just one Indie. It's true that I've done better than many Indies, but there are tens of thousands of Indies making sales every day, and a lot of them are making significant sales. Will Amazon sweat over losing the revenue that would have been theirs if I was still publishing on Amazon? Hell no. Will they sweat over having those sales go to B&N, Apple, Kobo, and others? Hell no. But since they're putting so much effort into driving their competitors out of business, perhaps they'll rethink their plans if they see numerous Indies going over to B&N, Apple, Kobo, and others. Why do they think they're pushing for exclusivity? They like being able to say that most any book you want can be found at Amazon. The more authors who leave, the less that's true. That WILL will bother them. Will it run them out of business? Hell no. But it might make them rethink their position. Think there's no clout here? What if Hugh Howey, H.M. Ward and other top Indies ALL started publishing their new books everywhere EXCEPT Amazon? Amazon is in business to make money, and anything that affects their bottom line gets their attention.

As far as your statement that 'If they leave, they'll be easy to replace' goes, let me say this: Replace them with what? Scammers looking to make a fast buck by gaming the KU to earn $1.39 on books that aren't worth the 35 cents they should be earning. The decent authors, the ones serious about the craft and trying to produce a good product, are the ones that Amazon needs, and they are the ones that are looking to expand their distribution channels because of the current treatment from Amazon. And they will sell books wherever they go. So let Amazon have the scammers and get-rich-quick crowd. And if Amazon decides to end their Indie publishing operation (NO, that's not going to happen) there will be that much more business for their competitors.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> Cute but no.
> 
> Every month, they announce a global fund amount and every month, they add to it at the last minute to make the payout what they want it to be. Thus, the Global Fund is a lie, plain and simple.
> 
> ...


So whatever Amazon can do that's worse for writers, that's what they'll choose to do?

Or you'll rewrite their internal rules depending on the situation as long as it causes the payout to be as low as possible?

The goal here is to maximize fear, uncertainty, and doubt, isn't it?


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

I know this is off-topic, but it's not often that we get the perspective of a small traditional publisher in here, so I feel obligated to take advantage of the super-rare exchange. I bet we can learn a lot from how you see the publishing landscape.



Deborahsmith author said:


> I'm trying to understand why anyone would factor in the money made by authors who never get published and thus never make any money. That's a stretch of logic beyond even the usual leaps.


Because they "chose" to go the traditional publishing route, and the result was they made no money. The vast majority of those who choose the trad-pub route never get published, never see their work available, and often give up writing as a result. I don't understand how those who make the comparison between the two choices on how to publish get away with ignoring the embarrassing and cruel 99% and trot out the exceptions to go up against the other side's entirety.



Deborahsmith author said:


> Regardless, Amazon could not care less what indie authors think or do or earn. There is no comparison between the power of the indie marketplace and the power of the big houses with their tentacles of multi-media and merchandising tie-ins, all of which make money for the Zon.


Weird. Of the 40+ publishers I've worked with, which range from small presses like yours, to Random House, to everything in-between, Amazon was the only one that called me out of the blue one day (and this was before I'd started making a lot of money for them) to ask me how I was doing and if there was anything they could do better. I've heard from dozens of authors with similar experiences. I also got nice holiday cards from my Amazon imprint and ACX this year. I also got a card from my former editor at one of the Big 5, but no card from any of my publishers. I hear this is normal, so I didn't take offense.



Deborahsmith author said:


> A handful of tent-pole powerhouses like the Hunger Games and Harry Potter franchises dwarf the revenues produced by all the indie authors in KDP. KDP's main value is that it produces customers (authors) and draws customers (readers) who go on to purchase lots of much pricier stuff. Feeding free and cheap entertainment to customers gets them to stick around, and KDP is just one of the many content streams Amazon has brilliantly concocted to do that. In fact, KDP is probably the smallest investment Amazon makes in "exclusive" programming, unlike its original content for the new TV and film division. The authors pay all production costs, give up a sizable chunk of the profit, and all Amazon invests is hosting and delivery costs. What a bargain.


Hunger Games and Harry Potter dwarf the revenues of all the rest of the traditionally published authors. That's not a strength of that publishing route; it's a weakness. We're seeing the Hollywood Blockbuster mentality among editors at publishing houses. I speak with agents all the time who lament this. The mid-list author is now a self-published author, and agents are even advising their talented authors to just self-publish instead.

You say KDP authors are giving up a sizable chunk of their profits. You mean the 30% I pay to get in the largest bookstore in the world? When I worked at a brick and mortar bookstore, we charged the publisher 40% to 50% to stock their works.

Also: You leave out Amazon's cost to develop hardware and backend systems, provide my readers with customer support, advertise their products (and my works), and maintain the best online bookstore in the world, where I get equal treatment from their algorithms.

More importantly, what percentage of profits does your publishing house take?



Deborahsmith author said:


> Send a petition to the Zon about your complaints? Waste of time. Pull your books? Go right ahead. All the major KDP players could take a hike tomorrow and it wouldn't matter. Mr. Howey included. That's pocket change to Jeff Bezos. In 2015 it's likely that the new TOS terms referenced elsewhere in this thread will lead to further encroachment on KDP authors' autonomy. If not all titles being placed into KU, then the addition of new programs that won't be optional: putting KDP titles into foreign translations, or bundling them, or cherry picking some to go into KU for short periods of time, etc. It's highly unlikely Apple or Google will challenge Amazon's hold on the ebook marketplace -- because Amazon drove ebook prices down so much over the years that the other big players walked away from the market in any major competitive way, and that hasn't changed.


Pocket change? KDP titles generate more revenue for Amazon than all traditionally published ebook sales taken as a whole. The profit margin on many trad-pub ebooks is practically zilch, because Amazon has to discount from unreasonable MSRPs to something the reader won't balk at. That discount comes from Amazon's cut, not the publishers' or authors'.



Deborahsmith author said:


> So authors will gnash their teeth, as usual, but they'll put up with Amazon's tactics. If they leave, they'll be easy to replace. Just look at all the authors on these boards who are desperate to get a chance at some attention.


I note a bit of hostility here toward self-published authors. I have a question for you about where this comes from. I imagine you've worked in publishing a long time. Do you think the stigma behind self-publishing is too deeply ingrained in you to see how the publishing landscape has changed for the better for the vast majority of writers? I ask this because I've only been writing since 2009. I didn't carry those same stigmas into this game. I'd love to get the perspective from someone who's been at this longer.

Another possibility is that the hostility I see from agents and small publishers is a result of constant rejections. Is that true? I've heard from quite a few agents and publishers this past year that the quality and quantity of submissions are down. I've also heard from hundreds of authors who are leaving their publishers to strike out on their own (or who turned down offers because they know they can make more money self-publishing). I wonder what effect that has, being rejected over and over. Does it build up resentment?

We hear that it does from the other side. We hear that self-published authors are just the angry rejects from the query machine. But that's not what I see in the trenches or on these boards. I have a lot of friends who write full-time, and I can't think of one who fits this description. They either left a traditional publisher like I did, or they never even queried and skipped right to self-publishing. But maybe anger and resentment can be explained by rejection, just not the way we've been hearing about it. Would love your thoughts.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2015)

CEMartin2 said:


> Good grief, will it really kill us to all ask nicely?


I'm confused why this has suddenly boiled down to "will it really kill us all to ask nicely" when the real issue is that people don't agree with your position. You seem to believe it is a forgone conclusion that everyone should see this as a benefit. But it wouldn't be for a great many people.

Besides, if you want your books available on a subscription model, you have both Scribd and Oyster available to you. In both cases, you don't even have to worry about some Byzantine matrix to determine what you will get paid. You get paid the same for a read as you would for a sale, thanks to the terms Mark negotiated through Smashwords.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> The goal here is to maximize fear, uncertainty, and doubt, isn't it?


I think it's simply a matter of expressing frustration and helplessness in a difficult situation, Hugh. There's already an overabundance of uncertainty and doubt. And those are the result of Amazon's actions, not Vaalingrade's post.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> So yeah, the global fund is a lie, but payouts actually will start to fall in accordance with the number of borrows if they stuffed everyone in there.


Payouts will fall according to a timetable that has already been decided, and there is no hard limit. They will go as low as they can. Although, just to keep hope alive, there may be months they will rise slightly.

Judging by the percentage of writers that keep submitting to traditional publishers, authors are the living example of the triumph of hope over statistics. I don't think Amazon is worried that KU will ever want for cheap content.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2015)

Hugh Howey said:


> Pocket change? KDP titles generate more revenue for Amazon than all traditionally published ebook sales taken as a whole.


Books are actually a very small part of Amazon's overall revenue, however. Despite the fact that we all know it as the world's biggest bookstore, the bookstore portion of the business is a drop in the bucket compared to everything else. Whether or not KDP makes more money than trade I can't say. Amazon doesn't show me their sales logs. I would be interested to know where you got this information and if we are talking about gross receipts or actual profits.



> The profit margin on many trad-pub ebooks is practically zilch, because Amazon has to discount from unreasonable MSRPs to something the reader won't balk at. That discount comes from Amazon's cut, not the publishers' or authors'.


No, Amazon CHOSE to use books as a loss leader to increase their market share and to sell devices. No publisher "made" them do anything. Or have we forgotten that the entire point of agency pricing was publishers worrying about Amazon selling ebooks for below cost and driving competitors out of the marketplace? Before Kindle, people were routinely spending $10 on an ebook and not batting an eyelash over it. Amazon made a decision to enter the marketplace and deliberately uncut the competition in order to increase their market share, and in the process trained consumers into thinking ebooks were too expensive. Ten years ago, I priced my ebooks at $4.99 (in PDF form no less) and people bought them and thought they were a bargain. Today, people claim $4.99 is too expensive for a full length novel because Amazon has conditioned them to think ebooks should be priced the same as apps. Amazon is not the victim here.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Today, people claim $4.99 is too expensive for a full length novel because Amazon has conditioned them to think ebooks should be priced the same as apps. Amazon is not the victim here.


I think Amazon is regretting that readers/consumers have taken their hint to heart. Hence KU. For $9.99 readers can borrow as many books they like. For voracious readers who spent that amount, or more, in a single week this is a delicious all-you-can-read buffet. Except the authors they really love won't be in KU. When one of them has a new release they will gladly pay $6.99 and upwards. They will be able to afford it too. When that book is finished, it's back to the buffet.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Books are actually a very small part of Amazon's overall revenue, however.


The difference between revenue and profit can be wider than the Pacific Ocean. If you count on making 5 percent on hard goods, then run sales where loss leaders lose twenty percent, you can have a tremendous amount of revenue, but little profit. The 35% to 65% that Amazon has been making on ebooks is astronomical compared to what they make on hard goods. Then they keep the money for two to three months before paying authors, and invest it in their business. You never have to borrow money from a bank when you can simply use other people's money to support your company. The print books that Amazon sells probably generate at least 25% after shipping and handling costs are factored in. These are TREMENDOUS profit centers, even if the overall revenue appears small when compared to hard goods. Amazon doesn't release sales statistics, but I believe their book sales are helping to keep the company afloat. We know that Amazon has not exactly been profitable in recent years, and Bezos has warned stockholders that future quarters will be dismal. They do have to file quarterly and annual reports because the company is publicly traded.

http://business-news24.com/2014/10/24/amazons-spending-leads-to-biggest-quarterly-loss-in-14-years/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/amazons-spending-leads-to-another-loss-1414095239


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> So whatever Amazon can do that's worse for writers, that's what they'll choose to do?


No, they want to maximize _their_ profits, which necessarily means giving us as little as they can get away with.

They don't give even the faintest element of a damn whether it's bad or good for us, but as per the profit motive, when it comes to how much they pay us, it's in their best interests to bend us over and commense to rogering.



> Or you'll rewrite their internal rules depending on the situation as long as it causes the payout to be as low as possible?


I don't even know what the hell you're talking about here.



> The goal here is to maximize fear, uncertainty, and doubt, isn't it?


Edit: You know what? Think I'll keep the high ground here.

After all, 'public forum' ^__^

I don't have any rep to protect and meanwhile 'I'm detecting some hostility'.


----------



## CEMartin2 (May 26, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I'm confused why this has suddenly boiled down to "will it really kill us all to ask nicely" when the real issue is that people don't agree with your position.


No, early responders were saying there was no point in asking. That then evolved into other reasons not to ask or not to participate.

The Kentucky lottery has a great slogan: "You gotta play to win."

My thread addresses all those folks here that griped about having to be select to participate. You risk nothing by asking for a change in that policy. Worst that can happen is they say no. If you don't want to participate in KU fine. But for those of us that would like to have our books in the same virtual shelves others blame a drop in sales on, the choices are:

A. Go select
B. Ask for a policy change. Not asking WILL NOT change policy.
C. Do nothing


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

CEMartin2 said:


> Worst that can happen is they say no.


No, some people are definitely arguing-and sensibly-that the worst that can happen is they say _yes_. I'm not at all convinced that it would be good for us or for Amazon if every book in KDP was added to KU. Few people besides yourself are.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Dolphin said:


> No, some people are definitely arguing--and sensibly--that the worst that can happen is they say _yes_. I'm not at all convinced that it would be good for us or for Amazon if every book in KDP was added to KU. Few people besides yourself are.


Right on.


----------



## &#039; (May 24, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Books are actually a very small part of Amazon's overall revenue, however. Despite the fact that we all know it as the world's biggest bookstore, the bookstore portion of the business is a drop in the bucket compared to everything else.


Yes book sales account for a small part of Amazon's overall revenue, but the book buying public also buy the more expensive items that generate the greater part of Amazon's revenue. KDP pulls in hundreds of thousands of authors who work their butts off persuading friends and family to go onto Amazon to check out their books. What better way to get free advertising? These visitors don't always buy their friends' books, but they do browse the site and buy something else! Amazon wants long-tail, self-published authors to be exclusive so that the authors' families and friends don't visit any other site to check out their books!


----------

