Amazon.com to Acquire Goodreads

[alanHd]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Now would be an excellent time for someone to set up an alternative to Goodreads and invite the disenchanted usership over to it. Oh, and this time, make it legally-binding that the site or at least users' contributions will not be sold in the future.

+1

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Now would be an excellent time for someone to set up an alternative to Goodreads and invite the disenchanted usership over to it. Oh, and this time, make it legally-binding that the site or at least users' contributions will not be sold in the future.

Great idea but you have to think about funding. Either you make it ad-supported - which is a hard model to make pay at the GR level of usage, or you introduce subscription fees which necessarily limits your userbase (most people won't pay).

And my guess would be the numbers leaving at the moment aren't that huge, certainly there are only a few hundred distinct usernames on the feedback threads. Most people will take a wait-and-see approach.

[jamadams]

On the condition that the owner never sells the business? C'mon. I have been a goodreads member for many years. I have contributed to site in the interests of the community - not the owner. This does not change at all with the sale. The people that use the site will still be the same. I will continue to contribute because I do so for the benefit of the community.

It was always the intention that Goodreads would be sold. Thats what venture capital is for. It's what all startups hope for.

Most commenters do not think that Goodreads was profitable and whilst there could be an argument that it could be run on a not-for-profit basis - it is enormously expensive to run a site on that scale. There is almost no chance of a similar site springing up to take its place that will not do so in the hope of a future aquision. To be fair, out of all the big corporations that could have bought it - i'm pleased that it is Amazon.

[jamadams]

Originally Posted by gmw

But I don't think it's good news for readers, whether you use GR or not. Anything that increases Amazon's influence and reduces competition in the market is not going to be good for readers, and that would appear to be the most likely result of this change.

I'm intrigued to know why you think that Amazon is bad for readers. My view would be completely the opposite.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Now would be an excellent time for someone to set up an alternative to Goodreads and invite the disenchanted usership over to it. Oh, and this time, make it legally-binding that the site or at least users' contributions will not be sold in the future.

The chief of Library Thing estimates it costs over $3M a year to *run* Goodreads. They had received millions in Venture Capital funds over the last few years. Those folks expect returns on their investment either through IPO or selling out. With a business model that likely never was in the black there were few choices to find a sugar daddy. And Amazon is the one that stepped up.

So what "somebody" do you expect to step up to such a big task as replicating Goodreads solely out of altruism?

Google, perchance? (They're cutting back on everything that doesn't generate cash or ad-views or both.)
Random Penguin? (They have Bookish.)
The Gates Foundation?

Oh, I know! Kim DotCom!

I fully expect to see more than a few "we're not Amazon" alternatives to Goodreads--Library Thing is already volunteering. But I doubt we'll see much of a decline; for every noisy defection there will be at least one new addition from the 30-40 million Kindle user base. Those folks are Legion!
And quite comfy in the Amazon community.
(shrug)

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by gmw

It's good for Amazon, and for the owners of GoodReads - but that much was obvious, it didn't really need Mark Coker to confirm it, but hey, got to get his brand inserted into this "positive" news somewhere. It's just possible that it may turn out to be good for authors too. But I don't think it's good news for readers, whether you use GR or not. Anything that increases Amazon's influence and reduces competition in the market is not going to be good for readers, and that would appear to be the most likely result of this change. This is not intended as an anti-Amazon stance, I just think that the whole industry loses out.

If it isn't good for readers, it is definitely not good for authors. I don't care who sells what, authors are in the same bucket as the readers. There may be distributors, artists, publishers, marketers, webpages, and retailers in-between those two, but in the end, you need two actual things to read: an author and a reader.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

If it isn't good for readers, it is definitely not good for authors. I don't care who sells what, authors are in the same bucket as the readers. There may be distributors, artists, publishers, marketers, webpages, and retailers in-between those two, but in the end, you need two actual things to read: an author and a reader.

And if it's not good for authors, sooner or later it will be bad for readers.
Readers need authors to be happy and productive and following their visions--authors need an audience willing and able to appreciate their efforts.
There's more to the relationship than the commercial transaction.
(Though, of course, paying the bills to keep body and soul together is part of "happy". )

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

So the general consensus seems to be; "I don't blame GR at all for selling out (and making millions on its members' purely altruistic contributions of time and effort--and their love of books). I just don't like it that Amazon was the buyer." That about right?

I can't speak for others, but my take was this:

I'm annoyed with (but not surprised by) GR's selling to Amazon because I prefer a greater number of sources of info and also find Amazon's approach to reviews disappointing. I'd also hate to say goodbye to the idea of the librarians and users themselves creating the structure of the site (if that should happen).

I'm also annoyed but not surprised at Amazon's acquisition of GR, since I prefer multiple sources of info and acquisitions rarely help. It isn't simply a matter of the information itself. It's also a matter of the criteria by which it's sorted, edited, filtered and promoted, and added legacy content that can overshadow it. All of that can color the usefulness of reviews as well.

Someone grumbled a few pages back about the "Web 2.0 business model" often followed by user-driven content sites and I quite liked that post.

I wouldn't take negative statements about Amazon and GR personally. Some of us are simply skeptical about "embracing the future" when that means not getting to make decisions about it ourselves. I'm not thrilled whenever I create an account with a smaller bank which gets swallowed by conglomerates either.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by jamadams

I'm intrigued to know why you think that Amazon is bad for readers. My view would be completely the opposite.

You need to read my post again. I didn't say Amazon was bad for readers, I said that less competition was bad for readers. Amazon's purchase of GR effects how GR can/will be used by competitors like Sony and Kobo, quite likely to their detriment. How much detriment remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

If it isn't good for readers, it is definitely not good for authors. I don't care who sells what, authors are in the same bucket as the readers. There may be distributors, artists, publishers, marketers, webpages, and retailers in-between those two, but in the end, you need two actual things to read: an author and a reader.

The book industry is a little strange. It is difficult to determine exactly what the market will bear, especially at this point in time. With less competition it is possible that prices could rise - costing readers but possibly paying more to authors. It is unclear how much of a price rise could occur before sales dropped in relation - so the trade-off effects of volume vs per-unit revenue are difficult to predict. Hence my comment that it was possible it would be good for authors. Possible is not certain, it could go the other way, but the equation isn't simple.

[Canuck_in_Japan]

I'm disappointed to hear about this news but can't quite put my finger on why. I suppose I have very little faith in the "paid for" reviews over on Amazon and I'm a little worried that that will spread to Goodreads. If Amazon wants to get data on what people are reading then that's fine with me. I just hope it doesn't get any worse than that.

[barutanseijin]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

"If you're not the customer, you're the product."
You'd think that after Google, Facebook, et al, the message would've gotten through.

TINSTAAFL!

No such thing as a free lunch? Tell that to Amazon, Google, Facebook, et al.

And what do want people to do? Lie down and think of England?

You're right that this turn of events shouldn't have surprised anyone, but there's no reason they should be happy with it, either. Internet communications were posed as an alternative to Big Ol' Media, where big corporations had final say and where information was & is subordinated to the market. As it turns out the internet is pretty much the same -- only instead of paid professionals putting on the show, you are -- and paying for the privilege!

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Canuck_in_Japan

I'm disappointed to hear about this news but can't quite put my finger on why. I suppose I have very little faith in the "paid for" reviews over on Amazon and I'm a little worried that that will spread to Goodreads. If Amazon wants to get data on what people are reading then that's fine with me. I just hope it doesn't get any worse than that.

It took me a couple of days to sort out my own unease, but in my case it comes down to this:

I actually don't mind people being funneled from GR to Amazon, provided that users can continue to specify additional store searches. (For those that don't know, the search links available on a GR book page are selected by the user,, with the exception of the first button, which was designated by the current sponsor for the user's region.)

What I don't want is Amazon funneling their own site traffic to GR. Many people discover GR after running from the chaos that is the Amazon forums.

Another thing that concerns me is "Goodreads as marketing venue". I hope the authors reading will read all of it before getting mad at me, because it's probably not you that I'm talking about.

Some time ago, the powers that be at GR decided to make the site more friendly to authors, and market the site to authors. All well and good, except a lot of bad advice got passed around that resulted in some authors going kind of crazy in a spammy manner. Here's the thing - I don't blame (most of) those authors because GR was initially very wishy-washy in their statements to authors. (I.e, "you might want to think about not doing that because people may not like it" as opposed to "that behavior is considered SPAM on GR and is not to be done".) People need consistent rules in place in any venue. There is also a lot of really bad marketing advice that flows around the internet in general, and sometimes new authors don't see why it's bad advice.

Many of the worst offenders are also KDP Select participants. I really fear that Kindle services integration will be a big green light with a billboard saying, "Goodreads is here to help you sell your Kindle ebooks!" and it will turn into the Amazon forums.

Note that I'm only worried about a specific type of author behavior, not authors in general. These are the people that send out 300 friend requests a day with a note "buy my book!", who constantly get posts moved or deleted for violating group SPAM rules, then go whine about how they should be able to promote any way they like.

We don't yet know what level of increased commercialization will take place on GR. We can assume there will be some, simply due to the integration of Kindle services. That may be the extent of it, which would be lovely provided that it's user selectable so that the non-Kindlers don't have it in their face 24-7.

But I don't know what we will end up with. I'm certainly not going to delete my account and negate my personal investment in GR based on conjecture. I will wait and see, and if the direction it takes comes into conflict with my use of the site, then I'll decide what to do.

[soulfuldog]

I'm hoping Amazon will pretty much leave it be (apart from more Kindle integration IF that's what individual users want), and the only real change will be at their end. I.e. that they have a huge pool of data to work with to improve their sales, recommendations etc.

As for the web 2.0 comment, the thing is you have to accept that everyone has to get something out of these ideas. Yes GR wouldn't be in the position it is without the content provided by us, the end users. But then we've used it for our benefit too, and wouldn't have been able to do so without someone coming up with GR and implementing it in the first place. And if someone comes along and offers you a ton of money for your idea, but wants you to keep working on it - who in their right mind wouldn't agree?

Yes it may all come down to money in the end, but while it can be the case that money talks and to heck with principles, who is to say that the people behind GR are not only happy about the money, but also the prospect of securing the future of their baby and continuing to run it the same way?

In saying that, I do appreciate the sentiment about losing an independent source. There is no getting away from the fact that's a blow.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by barutanseijin

No such thing as a free lunch? Tell that to Amazon, Google, Facebook, et al.

And what do want people to do? Lie down and think of England?

Amazon, Google, facebook, et al are running a business where they provide a service to users in return for the user's content/personal info/eyeballs.

It is *always* a two-way transaction.
Those services cost big money to provide and they are no more free than anything else. They are not charities and they are generally upfront that you are paying in non-currency ways. (Remember the regular "scandals" when there are changes to the TOS?)

What should people do?
They should do what any savvy consumer brought up in a consumerist society does when confronted with something ostensibly "free": Ask, "What is in it for *them*?" and "Am *I* comfortable with that?" (No whinging would also be a good idea, but that's optional. )
And if the Terms of Service offend them, I'd expect them to go elsewhere.
(I did: I may be the last person on Earth that pays for their primary email service but there is no way I am letting Google or anybody else manage and *keep* copies of my correspondence and documents.)

We are now twenty years into the wide-open internet age and the rules of the game should be pretty clear to anybody who isn't a North Korean refugee.
__________________________________________________ _
Oh, in case any North Koreans do run into this in the future:
Rule#1 is that if you're not the consumer, you are the product.
Rule#2 is that there is no privacy on the internet. Don't say or do anything you don't want attributed to you personally. Because one way or another, sooner or later, it will be.
Rule#3 is there is no undo on the internet; once it's out there it will be public forever.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

So the general consensus seems to be; "I don't blame GR at all for selling out (and making millions on its members' purely altruistic contributions of time and effort--and their love of books). I just don't like it that Amazon was the buyer." That about right?

Seems to me the angst and anger are a bit misplaced. The community you thought you were building and contributing to ... sold you.

That pretty much sums it up