Amazon's lending library

[Kumabjorn]

If you have chosen to publish on Amazon, have you also opted in for the Prime Members Lending Library?

Is this essentially correct?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

If you have chosen to publish on Amazon, have you also opted in for the Prime Members Lending Library?

Is this essentially correct?

I don't know how non-KDP books get opted in or out of the Kindle Owner's Lending Library. If you choose for your book to be in enrolled in KDP SELECT, however, then you have opted in to the KOLL.

But just publishing on Amazon, via KDP anyway, does not opt you in for the KOLL.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

If you have chosen to publish on Amazon, have you also opted in for the Prime Members Lending Library?

Is this essentially correct?

I have published on Amazon, and choose NOT to be part of the Lending Library. It is completely up to the author (or author's agent), and I have not been pressured at all to take part in it. So, its impact to be... has been zero. I saw no dip in sales due to it, nor any indication that the Lending Library has had any impact on me at all.

But I agree with the article's point that the Lending Library is bad for authors.

[kennyc]

My few published works - short stories and a poetry volume have and are part of Kindle Select and thus part of the Kindle Owners Lending Library.

[Kumabjorn]

Has that resulted in any income?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

But I agree with the article's point that the Lending Library is bad for authors.

Participating authors around here have commented that they have done well under the program. As getting into the KOLL via KDP Select is optional and short term, it seems that it would easy for any individual author to judge accurately for themselves.
So I disagree that " the Lending Library is bad for authors" is true in any general sense.
An author is free to not participate if they think it's bad for them, and if they do try it and it proves to be bad after 90 days, then they can choose to stop.
Seems like win-win in many cases, and little risk in others.

ApK

[jgaiser]

Not a writer, but in the case of an MR writer (kennyc), the opportunity to try the book out in the lending library led to a purchase of the book. I don't see it being anymore bad for an author than my local library.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by ApK

Participating authors around here have commented that they have done well under the program. As getting into the KOLL via KDP Select is optional and short term, it seems that it would easy for any individual author to judge accurately for themselves.
So I disagree that " the Lending Library is bad for authors" is true in any general sense.
An author is free to not participate if they think it's bad for them, and if they do try it and it proves to be bad after 90 days, then they can choose to stop.
Seems like win-win in many cases, and little risk in others.

ApK

Sure the author is free to choose, and that is a good thing. Yay for good things!

The ability to choose something does not make it a good thing to do. Over all it reduces the size of the market, and is bad for competition because it pulls book out of B&N and etc. Anything that is bad for competition is bad for authors and readers alike.

Plus you need to add all the points the article that was linked talks about.

So yeah, its bad for authors in general.

But you and I have never seen eye to eye on this, and never will. So no surprise here.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

The ability to choose something does not make it a good thing to do. Over all it reduces the size of the market, and is bad for competition because it pulls book out of B&N and etc. Anything that is bad for competition is bad for authors and readers alike.

If it makes authors more money (which many say it does) it's good for authors.
If it gives authors more exposure (which it seems to) it's good for authors.

'Competition' does not mean 'make stupid business decision so that no one has an advantage.' The point of competition is that someone wants to do better in order to WIN.
If Amazon offers a better deal and attracts authors away from the competition, that is not 'bad for competition.' It is the REASON we WANT competition.
It is 'bad for Amazon's competitors.' That's a very different thing.

By your logic, everything needs to be state-controlled and forced to be equally bad to be 'good for competition.'

But you and I have never seen eye to eye on this,

Have we ever discussed this before?

and never will. So no surprise here.

I believe there is always a chance to turn you back to the light side of the Force. There is still good in you, I can sense it.

ApK

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by ApK

It is 'bad for Amazon's competitors.' That's a very different thing.

Is it? I do not blame amazon for trying to win, I would do the same, but if competition goes away, that is bad for everyone... except Amazon. For capitalism to work you have to have healthy competition.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

Is it? I do not blame amazon for trying to win, I would do the same, but if competition goes away, that is bad for everyone... except Amazon. For capitalism to work you have to have healthy competition.

You seem to be defining 'competition' as 'each player taking no action that might make another player lose.'

Competition is about trying to make the other players lose. All that capitalism requires is a playing field that allows others to play and try to make YOU lose, if they want to, and if they can.
Doing well and attracting a huge amount of customers is not anti-competitive.
Let B&N try to do better and earn those customers back. THAT'S competition.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by ApK

You seem to be defining 'competition' as 'each player taking no action that might make another player lose.'

Competition is about trying to make the other players lose. All that capitalism requires is a playing field that allows others to play and try to make YOU lose, if they want to, and if they can.

No... you missed my point. I said:

I do not blame amazon for trying to win, I would do the same

It makes sense FOR AMAZON to do what they do, but authors, who stand to loose if Amazon wins, should see it as bad for them long term. Authors will win if there are people competing for their business.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

No... you missed my point. I said:

It makes sense FOR AMAZON to do what they do, but authors, who stand to loose if Amazon wins, should see it as bad for them long term. Authors will win if there are people competing for their business.

There are. They're losing. They should step up their game. They should try to do better. It's good for authors. And consumers.
It would be bad (and stupid) for authors to intentionally make decisions against their own interests just to keep a failing competitor in the game.
Have to say it: That's not capitalistic competition, that's communism, and it's never worked as an economic system on a large scale.

[VydorScope]

Sorry, not seeing how you keep turning this into communism, nor do I see how Amazon is loosing at all right now, they are still king by a very long stretch. Most authors will tell you, and it is true in my case, that Amazon reps about 75-90% of their sales. Hard to call that loosing.

Authors should very well be concerned about their future and the future of the market place.

But... we won't see eye to eye on this, so I think its time to just let this die off

[ApK]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

Sorry, not seeing how you keep turning this into communism,

I think you have me confused with somebody else.

I'm fairly certain that was my first mention of 'communism' on MR, and I don't recall ever discussing this with you.

And in any event, even in this one case, I am not "turning" anything. I'm identifying what you are describing.