Authors unhappy with Kindle Unlimited

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

No, actually Amazon would probably like ALL publishers in the program but most have opted for SCRIBD if they opted for a subscription model at all. I think one or two might be in Oyster.

There are a few small publishers in the program as well.

BUT for self-published authors they MUST be exclusive to Amazon in order to "qualify" to be in the program. That's the kicker for me. I don't want to be exclusive so no deal. I'm in SCRIBD and on other retailer sites and I'm not willing to give that up.

I doubt Amazon would try to negotiate exclusivity with a major publisher, but major publishers are not interested in driving yet more traffic to Amazon. They are feeling the pinch of Amazon's control already and would like to diversify as much as possible--thus they are on SCRIBD, a competitor and are starting to sell books from their own sites.

There is a certain irony that when Amazon online music started up, the music companies allowed Amazon to sell non DRM mp3's while only allowing DRM on Apple because they thought that Amazon would be a good counter balance to Apple's iTune store. Off the top of my head, it took Apple about a year to negotiate non DRM music (Apple had been pushing for non DRM for a long time).

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I'm surprised to Mrs Rowling on KU. Obviously her publisher must think it's in their financial interest. How much does she and her publisher receive per borrow? It will be interesting to see if her work remains on KU.

The last of the Harry Potter novels was published about 7.5 years ago, in July 2007. They weren't available in ebook format (legally) until 2011. I suspect that she has a somewhat different deal than most authors.

My guess is that KU is attractive to parents with kids who read a lot, assuming that some of the big kids series are available there.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Their initial "incentive" to go exclusive was the ability to offer a book free and a few higher payouts in some foreign markets. Free was not much of an incentive for me. I do have enough in my backlist that one free book MAY lead to other sales, but it did not appeal to me.

They also offered additional visibility (more shows) for going exclusive. THAT was some incentive. Back in those days, my sales there were VERY much on Amazon with much smaller sales on other retailers. When I didn't go exclusive, my visibility dropped, and therefor so did my sales. At that point, it was probably a mistake from a sales point of view. Philosophically, it was the right move for me. I want to control my destiny, not have to go free, not have to end up on only one retailer who, once that retailer has most of the sales, can cut my commission. Similar to what is happening now, a lot of authors feel they MUST be exclusive and must participate--but they are still seeing income drops and there is little they can do about it. What happens if Amazon decides they can start paying 35 percent across the board instead of 70 percent?

I did go from making my living writing to back to work at another job when sales dropped over a two to three year period. Right now, I sell more on Kobobooks than Amazon--that happened slowly over this past year partly because Amazon sales continued to drop for me and partly because sales continued to rise for me on Kobo. I've been building a presence on Kobo for the last two years and it began paying off this year--whereas I used to sell hundreds of books per month on Amazon, I now hit the "hundred(s)" number on kobo most months.

It's a balancing act. From a strictly income POV, I should have gone exclusive with a book or two back when it was first offered because of the visibility. Today? Authors are really struggling because Amazon simply isn't offering visibility or much other incentives. It's up to the author to hope/try to build their own audience (similar to trad published authors).

I have a very decent audience that I've built over the years. I love my readers and I want to make sure they can buy my books multiple places. I'd also like to make more. That didn't work out. Will it in the future? Who the heck knows?

I think it likely that author share of income is going to drop on some venues. Amazon doesn't need indies as much as early days--we did a HUGE amount of advertising of the kindle for them, essentially for free. We did word of mouth, we bought huge amounts of products, we did giveaways. But Amazon has saturated the market for the most part and knows that. They are moving on to different models.

I try to remain aware of typical business practices. When margins get tight, companies cut payouts. KU is one sign of that. KU is still being used to draw readers into a "keep paying" model. How many people forget they have an auto pay going out every month? How many get busy and let it go for a couple of months without reading? That's all money for Amazon. Subscription models are highly lucrative to a lot of business models. They aren't particularly helpful to authors UNLESS the books are read and/or bought.

So those are just some of my thoughts on the matter. Running a business is difficult--it doesn't matter a lot whether I make and sell soap or write books and try to sell them. There's a lot of things that play into creating a brand and a loyal audience. And the biggest builder of an audience is writing good books, books that are good enough readers talk about them. But that's also the most difficult path because it takes a looooong time and a lot of effort to write a book!!!

To a great extent hasn't that been Amazon's model since the beginning? They push a lot of the work of an ebook store (maintaining the catalog and publicity) back onto the publishers and authors. One of the reasons that the search function is so bad on Amazon is that many authors try to game the system. Of course, to a great extent, the publicity and finding an audience is what a good publisher brings to the table.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

To a great extent hasn't that been Amazon's model since the beginning? They push a lot of the work of an ebook store (maintaining the catalog and publicity) back onto the publishers and authors. One of the reasons that the search function is so bad on Amazon is that many authors try to game the system. Of course, to a great extent, the publicity and finding an audience is what a good publisher brings to the table.

I can't speak for the trads, but no. For quite a while in the early years, they actively helped indie authors--putting their titles on sale and taking the sale amount from THEIR cut. For many years they allowed blatant self-promoting on their forums unless authors were extremely rude. Even after they curtailed the blatant stuff they allowed links to author books in sig lines. When I first published Sage, many eons ago, I had it at 99 cents--Amazon marked it down to 75 or 79 cents and added it to a sale list. Other books of mine that I had at various prices, they'd put on sale and on lists. They don't do that anymore. They do put some authors in lists, but those are usually side deals now where yes, the author is doing some promo and/or agreeing to a certain price (and the discount comes from the author).

When the audio stuff first started, Amazon offered certain authors stipends to turn their book into audio. The payout was larger for the author/actors as well. Those terms have changed.

Just recently, before Christmas (end of Oct/early Nov), several of my PRINT books had been marked down by as much as a dollar by Amazon. They had been that way since I published them via Createspace over the years. About half of my titles no longer have that discount. This was, again, an Amazon discount, but it obviously made my print books look more attractive with a list of 9.99 marked down to 8.99, etc.

They do different things. Lately, those things have not favored indies.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

The previews are extremely limited. Table of contents, preface, acknowledgements and a handful of pages from chapter 1. There is no reader who would check out a book from the library based on that amount of perusal. They're useful for checking out the formatting, not so much for the content IMO.

Because of how much content is before you get to the actual text, there's sometimes not enough text to decide if a book is to your liking or not. The preview should be 10% of the actual text. That should be enough of a preview.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Because of how much content is before you get to the actual text, there's sometimes not enough text to decide if a book is to your liking or not. The preview should be 10% of the actual text. That should be enough of a preview.

Exactly.

[murg]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

To a great extent hasn't that been Amazon's model since the beginning? They push a lot of the work of an ebook store (maintaining the catalog and publicity) back onto the publishers and authors.

Ah, no. Publicity is the publisher's job. And maintaining the catalog? What's that? At least in relation to an ebook store? ebook stores maintain their sales lists, but all of the information should be coming from the publisher.

And interesting that you contradict this two sentences later...

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Of course, to a great extent, the publicity and finding an audience is what a good publisher brings to the table.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

The thing is that all these programs--free books, borrows and the like tend to eat into "buying habits" so even if authors exit the program they may find that purchasing is actually down. It remains to be seen how the whole thing works out. The first few months haven't gone particularly well for authors, but as someone said, 1.35 per read could look good a year or two from now if buying habits stay down.

Isn't this the most worrisome thing about the Amazon program? How can it be good for authors long-term if Amazon manages to turn readers away from buying?

What I find interesting is that even with book purchasing declining, Amazon sees more "profit" for it in pushing Prime membership than in encouraging book purchases. Although this may bode well for Amazon's business plan, how long will it take for the majority of authors to recognize that Amazon's business plan is not proauthor and take steps to protect themselves?

If down the road the $1.35 looks like the golden egg to authors, then Amazon has decidedly won. First, it will have made authors dependent on it and its largesse (after all, there is nothing that requires Amazon to maintain the size of the pot that results in $1.35 payouts). Second, it will have conditioned authors to be satisfied with its largesse and not turn to other possible avenues.

I also find it interesting that authors who complain about KU still push readers to buy from Amazon. If I were such an author, I think I would be pushing purchases elsewhere.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

They do different things. Lately, those things have not favored indies.

I wouldn't be surprised if part of the settlement they came to with the big corporation publishers didn't include sweeping the DIY writers under the carpet. Publishers will definitely see them as a problem, both in terms of competition and also in the declining number of writers submitting new work to them.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Rizla

The 10% rule has little to do with readers. It is about Amazon maximizing revenue from KU. It enables Amazon to pay less to authors from the pot, at least as far as I understand it.

The other ebook subscription services also have a requirement for some of the book to be read before they pay out. The only one that doesn't is the Amazon Prime 1 ebook per month deal. But Scribd and Oyster pay out as a percentage of list price, not some random figure they decide to make up a month later. That's the main gripe about Amazon's subscription. I'm not sure how it could be fixed though, if they paid a percentage people would just bump up their list price. But I do think something that takes word count into consideration is needed, just to stop the pamphleteers.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Because of how much content is before you get to the actual text, there's sometimes not enough text to decide if a book is to your liking or not. The preview should be 10% of the actual text. That should be enough of a preview.

On the paperback versions you can also sample random pages from further into the book.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by murg

Ah, no. Publicity is the publisher's job. And maintaining the catalog? What's that? At least in relation to an ebook store? ebook stores maintain their sales lists, but all of the information should be coming from the publisher.

And interesting that you contradict this two sentences later...

It's no contradiction. In the case of indies, Amazon _is_ the publisher. They just aren't a full service publisher.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by hildea

I should perhaps have said more clearly that I was talking generally about the view that "the behaviour of the businesses I give my money to isn't my problem" (paraphrased, not quoting any poster), not specifically about KU.

The only thing I know about the business side of KU is Scalzi's blog post. Based on that, "unethical" may be too strong a word. But it looks like it's bad for many authors because of the "sharing a fixed pool of money" model, and bad for readers because it encourages authors to split up books into lots of small parts, which makes for more annoying reading.

I avoid Amazon as much as possible because I don't think it's in my interest that any single actor in the book market is as powerful as Amazon is, and also because I've read some horrifying stuff about working conditions for Amazon's employees.


"too strong a word" looks clumsy. Is "a too strong word" better? Any suggestions for saying that in a better way?

I have problems with the way they treat some of their employees too.
I have zero problem with their market dominance because the legacy publishers pretty much put the retailers I used to buy epubs from out of business during their collusion fiasco.

They have become one of the easier places to search through indie authors and I personally prefer to buy the bulk of my fiction from people who retain their own distribution rights. Call that one a crusade.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

But I do think something that takes word count into consideration is needed, just to stop the pamphleteers.

Really? Higher payout for more words in a book? That is a crazy way to fix it - wait until we see copy and pasted full descriptions of each character when they could have been mentioned by name.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's no contradiction. In the case of indies, Amazon _is_ the publisher. They just aren't a full service publisher.

No, they are a distributor. Smashwords is a distributor as well. Neither does any of the other parts of publishing. All of that is up to authors and publishers.