Why not Join Amazon Kindle Unlimited 30-Day Free Trial?

Author Topic: KDP Post about All-Stars  (Read 38051 times)  

Offline Amber Rose

  • Status: Jane Austen
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
    • BookSignals
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #175 on: September 17, 2014, 07:31:00 AM »
  I have no bitterness or resentment toward top authors, especially since I intend on becoming one.

Me too!  :D 

(You and I are going to giggle at this thread say six? ten? months from now when *WE* are the ones collecting the big checks :-) )

Offline ElHawk

  • Status: Dostoevsky
  • ******
  • Posts: 3930
  • Gender: Female
  • San Juan Islands, WA
    • View Profile
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #176 on: September 17, 2014, 07:31:28 AM »
Go look at the bestseller lists. More and more of all top 100 spots are getting taken up with these kinds of books. Designated. Dominating. Rewarded.

So. Visibility? It isn't about just writing a great book and offering it for a fair price. They (Amazon) have arrived to the you're either in with us or you're out point of view.

This is exactly my issue with it. The fact that they're paying out huge bonuses to many authors who in fact AREN'T in with them is just a jab in the eye on top of an already frustrating change in the landscape. In short, it's a dick move.


Take Off Your Pants and see what everybody is talking about!
Libbie Hawker | Site + Blog | Mailing List | Twitter

Offline Saul Tanpepper

  • Status: Arthur C Clarke
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Morgan Hill, CA
  • 6 Gamers : 10,000 Undead
    • View Profile
    • tanpepperwrites
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #177 on: September 17, 2014, 07:33:48 AM »
I think I've keyed in on the source of bitterness regarding the All-Star bonuses. It's psychological. Let's say Amazon had announced that the payout would be $1.81 for August (same as it was for July). Then, let's say they announced the All-Star bonuses. My gut response would go something like this: "Phew, my payout didn't go down. Oh, and wow, bonuses for top performers! How cool!" Instead, my gut response is, "Dang, my payout went down. Oh, but they're throwing money at those who are already making bank."

Do I think I deserve to earn what the top performers are earning? Not until I sell as many units. But do I begrudge the bonus earners their windfall? Yeah, reflexively I do, because it comes at a time when I see my own per-book payout going down (the fact that my total income is climbing because of KU is immaterial). Do I believe life should always be fair or that there is anything inherently unethical or wrong about what Amazon's done? No. My point is, Amazon miscalculated how these paired announcements would be perceived by (dare I say) most authors. And I do believe, based on my discussions elsewhere, that most authors feel the same way (How could it not? Most authors aren't the top 100). There are strong personalities on this board and an environment which discourage individuals who don't unfailingly subscribe to some ideological high ground.
Spec-Fic for All Ages    *  AMAZON  *  GooglePlay  *  iTunes  *  Kobo  *  B&N  *  Smashwords  *  Facebook  *  Website  *  Tweets  * 

FREE>

Joliedupre

  • Guest
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #178 on: September 17, 2014, 07:39:53 AM »
Me too!  :D 

(You and I are going to giggle at this thread say six? ten? months from now when *WE* are the ones collecting the big checks :-) )

LOL!  You seem like the type who writes down your goals and who has a 5-year plan.

I'm a Type-A.  So I absolutely do. 

Where will I be in five years when it comes to my fiction writing?  In a very good place.  :)

Offline Amber Rose

  • Status: Jane Austen
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
    • BookSignals
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #179 on: September 17, 2014, 07:40:49 AM »
Amazon miscalculated how these paired announcements would be perceived by (dare I say) most authors.

+10
Surprised that they erred like this. You're absolutely right. If the timing had been different, so would the reaction (because the association of payout to All-Stars would be weaker)

Offline KOwrites

  • Status: Jane Austen
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Gender: Female
  • Seattle
  • Writer | Dark, angsty love stuff
    • View Profile
    • Writer | Dark angsty love stuff - New Adult / Contemporary Romance
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #180 on: September 17, 2014, 07:42:33 AM »
This is exactly my issue with it. The fact that they're paying out huge bonuses to many authors who in fact AREN'T in with them is just a jab in the eye on top of an already frustrating change in the landscape. In short, it's a dick move.

That's right, sister. It is.

As to Dolphin's question...about being made whole. I'm breaking even 3:1 (sales to borrows) on my bestselling book TMIT. Having left direct with Apple, B&N, and Kobo. I'm making what I was before going into Select. HOWEVER, it's upsetting my readers. I have Nook readers looking for the first book in my Truth In Lies series and I have to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. So the whole exclusivity thing just burns me up because it doesn't apply to everyone participating in KU.

They don't have to do it this way. They have chosen to do it this way. And the bonus to the top authors is a dick move to all those Indies that have to abide by the exclusivity rules.

I send all my FB advertising dollars Amazon's way. I'm going to start experimenting with that. I'm done. Oh and I put all my books at 99 cents for the duration (mid-Oct.) so for every borrow I'm making more $$. For some reason, I get more sales when I do this. I think they borrow it on KU and then decide they want to keep it. A silver lining. Albeit small.

Writer  |  Dark, angsty love stuff (I mean, stories)
Katherine Owen | Website | Facebook | Tumblr Blog | Website 2 | Twitter

Offline Amber Rose

  • Status: Jane Austen
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
    • BookSignals
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #181 on: September 17, 2014, 07:45:36 AM »
However, they can fund incentives for the big guys to stay exclusive (not that all the authors who received these payouts were exclusive anyway...) without reducing the incentive for the little guys to play along. Don't tell me they can't afford it; they're AMAZON.

I absolutely agree with this. It doesn't take *that* much money to keep the fund at $2 per borrow, and the rewards that that would reap for AZ would be more than worth it. I am really, really surprised that they are nickel-and-diming authors at this stage, just as KU is trying to take off.

Side question: What was the full size of the August Fund ie. how many borrows were there in August?

Offline Amber Rose

  • Status: Jane Austen
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
    • BookSignals
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #182 on: September 17, 2014, 07:47:42 AM »
You are 100% wrong about that. The authors who are allowed to double-dip have indeed received the bonuses.

What is your source for that conclusion?

Offline thesmallprint

  • Status: Scheherazade
  • *****
  • Posts: 1209
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #183 on: September 17, 2014, 07:52:33 AM »
To those who think it's wrong for the little guys to subsidize the All Stars - if you make it into the All Stars league, will you be refusing your bonus payments and instructing Amazon to share it among the little guys?

Offline MaryMcDonald

  • Status: A A Milne
  • ******
  • Posts: 4341
    • View Profile
    • M.P. McDonald
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #184 on: September 17, 2014, 07:56:01 AM »
 

But in relation to Amazon, what would have been good, instead, is for them to provide ways for KU authors to get their work seen. That would be amazing and positive. This really should have been the first move, ahead of bonus payments. I'm going to take a stab and say that there must be deep problems with the KU program for Amazon to have done this.
I bolded the part I think would have been so amazing. Right now, when I go to KU on my Kindle Fire, I see the SAME books on the page every time. Of course those books are going to get thousands of downloads as every eyeball that goes to KU via the library, can't help but see them. Most are traditionally published (The Giver, The Hunger Games) or an Amazon imprint.

What would be a cool lottery is if every week they rotated the books--give some of the other books a chance--without regard to ranking. There must be thousands of good books that haven't yet found an audience simply because the author doesn't have money for Bookbub.  The more books you have in Select, the greater your chances of having one of them rotate through the front page for a few days.

The Mark Taylor Series-Intense thrillers | CJ Sheridan Thrillers
M.P. McDonald | M.P. McDonald | Facebook | Amazon Author Page

Offline MaryMcDonald

  • Status: A A Milne
  • ******
  • Posts: 4341
    • View Profile
    • M.P. McDonald
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #185 on: September 17, 2014, 08:00:49 AM »
But why SHOULDN'T Amazon reward the top authors? Why can't it simply say...hey, thanks for helping us make Select work, and hey! congrats on your brilliance.

Where is our feeling of entitlement coming from? What gives us the right to say "Whoa! There is MORE money to give out? Gimme!".

The protest that Amazon is rewarding those who are already doing well, is like saying that bookshops shouldn't give grade A space to displaying John Grishams, but should rather give that space to the self published author, because, hey, Grisham is *already* doing well.  Unfortunately, that is not quite how business works.

Amazon is a business, and (like it or not) they are out to dominate the market. If that means that they are going to bribe authors to help them grow their KU program, ummm... ok. Well done, and good luck to them. 

Use the old analogy of a real library. A library that stocks your books does not pay you for each borrow! Are you going to stomp your feet in frustration? Are you going to start a class action suit that forces libraries to give you the option of whether they are going to stock your book or not? What Amazon has done is taken the library model and turned it on its head. Readers can borrow books, for free of for $10pm. Authors can then BE COMPENSATED for those borrows. What? You don't like that? No problem Your book won't be part of the library.

How is this a problem for anyone? You have a choice. Go exercise it.

And if your objection is that Amazon is too big of a market leader, and it's holding you hostage because it has most of the customers/readers, then I ask you to take a minute to think about that. Because that is the business they are in.  And they seem to be good at it. And HENCE! You can be a self-published author and make some money. Or not. Guess whose choice that is? YOURS.

As a reader,  I am thrilled that AZ is rewarding top authors. As a reader, I cannot imagine how that can hurt me. As a writer, I am equally thrilled, because a)it gives me something to strive for and b)makes KU a better place for readers. Happy readers is happy me.

Top 100 titles are going to be rewarded each month, that opens up 1200 slots for YOUR book to be there. Go make that happen. Or, if you crunch the numbers and figure out that it won't be worth your while to sacrifice potential sales for borrows, then don't. It's perfectly okay. What that does is simply open up a slot for an author who does not have your level of sales/dominance/confidence to be compensated (and promoted). Good for him.

It's coming from the fact that the payout for borrows was the lowest it has ever been. It gives the impression that the money going to the top authors came out of the pool of money we were told would be split evenly based on number of borrows. The reward for doing well is that those authors make more money because they had a ton of borrows.

Granted, those authors may have helped make KU a success, but Amazon also needs quantity. People aren't going to pay $10/month for a 5,000 book library--even if they are all bestsellers. People will look over at Scribd with their 400,000 titles and spend their money there.

The Mark Taylor Series-Intense thrillers | CJ Sheridan Thrillers
M.P. McDonald | M.P. McDonald | Facebook | Amazon Author Page

Offline ElHawk

  • Status: Dostoevsky
  • ******
  • Posts: 3930
  • Gender: Female
  • San Juan Islands, WA
    • View Profile
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #186 on: September 17, 2014, 08:15:46 AM »
I think I've keyed in on the source of bitterness regarding the All-Star bonuses. It's psychological. Let's say Amazon had announced that the payout would be $1.81 for August (same as it was for July). Then, let's say they announced the All-Star bonuses. My gut response would go something like this: "Phew, my payout didn't go down. Oh, and wow, bonuses for top performers! How cool!" Instead, my gut response is, "Dang, my payout went down. Oh, but they're throwing money at those who are already making bank."

I think you're on to something there.

Quote
Do I think I deserve to earn what the top performers are earning? Not until I sell as many units. But do I begrudge the bonus earners their windfall? Yeah, reflexively I do, because it comes at a time when I see my own per-book payout going down (the fact that my total income is climbing because of KU is immaterial). Do I believe life should always be fair or that there is anything inherently unethical or wrong about what Amazon's done? No. My point is, Amazon miscalculated how these paired announcements would be perceived by (dare I say) most authors. And I do believe, based on my discussions elsewhere, that most authors feel the same way (How could it not? Most authors aren't the top 100). There are strong personalities on this board and an environment which discourage individuals who don't unfailingly subscribe to some ideological high ground.

Very astute. I agree with all your statements above, too. But throw in the fact that so many of the authors who got the bonuses weren't required to be exclusive, and it adds an extra layer of unfairness (perceived or real) to the whole thing.

It was not very well thought out by Amazon.


Take Off Your Pants and see what everybody is talking about!
Libbie Hawker | Site + Blog | Mailing List | Twitter

Offline ElHawk

  • Status: Dostoevsky
  • ******
  • Posts: 3930
  • Gender: Female
  • San Juan Islands, WA
    • View Profile
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #187 on: September 17, 2014, 08:18:13 AM »
What is your source for that conclusion?

I don't think I'm at liberty to disclose that on this forum, so since I can't point to anything for you to look at with your own eyes, feel free to not believe it. :) But eventually, the truth will out.

To those who think it's wrong for the little guys to subsidize the All Stars - if you make it into the All Stars league, will you be refusing your bonus payments and instructing Amazon to share it among the little guys?

No, probably not. I'm human just like they are. That doesn't make it ethical, though, and I'd know that even as I banked that money!
« Last Edit: September 17, 2014, 08:19:50 AM by ElHawk »


Take Off Your Pants and see what everybody is talking about!
Libbie Hawker | Site + Blog | Mailing List | Twitter

Offline komura 420

  • Status: Lewis Carroll
  • **
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
    • another hole in the fence
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #188 on: September 17, 2014, 08:19:00 AM »
This is beginning to remind me of the infamous 'trickle down' economic argument so prevalent since 1980.  Give the rich folks a tax cut and they will create jobs (they don't...they just get richer because their marginal propensity to save is higher).

Give the best selling authors more royalties than the rest of us and it will bring more readers to all of us. In this case it is the marginal propensity to share readers.

Didn't work with Reagan, Bush, Bush then and it still doesn't work. But ideologues never let the facts get in the way of a chance for a good fleecing.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2014, 08:53:16 AM by komrade komura »
Cowardice is the mortal enemy of self esteem.

Offline LKRigel

  • Status: Arthur C Clarke
  • *****
  • Posts: 2819
  • Gender: Female
  • west coast, north america
    • View Profile
    • Blog of LK Rigel
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #189 on: September 17, 2014, 08:54:00 AM »
This house belongs to Papa  John:


And all the peons working at minimum wage for Papa John's Pizza don't mind because someday they're going to be rich too.

Offline Donald Rump

  • Status: Arthur Conan Doyle
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Gender: Male
  • Where the sun don't shine
    • View Profile
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #190 on: September 17, 2014, 09:02:56 AM »
Quote
The truth is that Amazon have decided that most authors will stay in at the 26% reduction in royalty (compared to its historic best), and then they've used that little saving to help pay a bonus to the best selling (or borrowing I guess) authors. There's nothing wrong with Amazon brains. They'll reduce the amount per borrow until they notice people pulling out, then they'll raise it a little and call it done. It's an experiment, similar to our price experiments. They'll find the sweet spot (for them) and then move on to the next thing. The thing is, the sweet spot for authors who usually sell at $0.90 is anything over $0.30 right? For those selling at $2.99 its $2 or thereabouts, so where will Amazon decide to stop? Only they know.

Not the whole truth, only one data point. You're missing another data point: the multiplier. Many authors who shared their sales data reported an increase in borrows by an order of magnitude of 2 - 10 times what they previously earned. The most common I've heard is 3 times, which also lines up with my experience. So which do you prefer? 500 borrows at June's rate of $2.24 ($1,120) or 1,500 at $1.54 ($2,310)? Or how about 500 new readers of your work vs. 1,500?

Amazon doesn't have to keep the royalty rate at $2+ because they can see that most KDP Select authors are earning a higher volume of borrows than they ever have before. So say goodbye to the $2+ royalty rate of the past. I doubt we'll see it again unless Amazon feels especially generous (and I hope I'm wrong about this).

As for "they've used that little saving to help pay a bonus to the best selling," that's pure speculation. In fact, Amazon added "a bonus of $2.7 million in August on top of the regular base fund amount of $2 million." So they underestimated demand and compensated for it. Authors didn't take a hit for this and made out pretty well.

Could it be better? It always can be better! Should they have added $3 million to the pot instead? Sure, why not? But where does it end? Someone is always going to complain about the royalty rate being too low. I can live with $1.54 for August. I did well, not great, but far better than pre KU.

So Amazon didn't pull money out of the program to pay their Top 100 earners (which is a smart move to hold on to their talent, I might add). They added 2.7 million into the pot and created a new bonus system. Everything else, though logical, is speculation.

If you want to boycott KDP Select, pull your books from the program. If you want to boycott Amazon, pull all of your books, period.

Quote
I prefer to be a smart businesswoman. Accepting a nearly-25% reduction in my pay in order to bribe the top sellers to remain (mostly) exclusive, without any benefit to my own business, and with a very obvious long-term harm to my business (and yours) on the horizon, is not smart.

What about the multiplier? It's a very real thing.

As a smart businessperson, I hope you're not getting caught up on one data point and missing the big picture. H.M. Ward is taking a chance on it and she's one of the smartest business people around.

Quote
This is nothing more than a tax on the little guys to subsidize the guys at the top. It's taking money out of smaller authors' pockets (and altering the algorithms, which is worse) to try to bribe bigger authors into exclusivity (they don't all have to commit to exclusivity yet, but that's precisely where this is headed.)

If Amazon has to top off the pot, how are they taking money out of authors' pockets? And if Amazon loses their Top 100 talents, might that have an adverse effect on authors' pockets and KU in general?

Quote
I am in this business to make money. When I play by the rules (committing to exclusivity in order to use Select/join KU) and then the rules are bent for other authors so that they can make more money, that frustrates me. When Amazon then reduces what it will pay me so that they can further woo those authors, without providing any direct benefit to me, that infuriates me.

I understand your frustration, but it is good for Amazon to retain their top talent to keep the program running.

Quote
Your smartest move would be to diversify to Amazon's competitors now, start building up reach with readers there.

Did this. Tried this. Failed miserably. The most money I've ever made is in Amazon, and that's where my work will stay for the time being.

The money's at Amazon, folks. For now, at least. Do what's best for you.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2014, 09:09:14 AM by Donald Rump »

Offline RachelAukes

  • Status: Jane Austen
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
  • Gender: Female
  • Des Moines IA
    • View Profile
    • official site
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #191 on: September 17, 2014, 09:03:14 AM »
I think I've keyed in on the source of bitterness regarding the All-Star bonuses. It's psychological.
...
Amazon miscalculated how these paired announcements would be perceived by (dare I say) most authors.

I agree with all of Saul's statements. Some may drop out of KDPS, others may join KDPS for the chance at the bonus. To me, this seems no different than the variable compensation structure (e.g., bonuses, stock options) most companies have in place for top performers and senior leadership, as a way to entice the ones who are believed to impact the bottom line the most to stay. While I'd love a bonus, my KDPS sales are nowhere close... yet.

Will I stay in KDPS? Every 90 days I ask myself that, and every 90 days the decision is very, very hard. I loathe the idea of Amazon becoming the only source of ebooks in the future. They are also my largest source of income, and I love them for that. When it comes to the almighty seller of books, I clearly have a split personality.


Rachel Aukes | facebook | twitter | newsletter

Offline Amber Rose

  • Status: Jane Austen
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
    • BookSignals
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #192 on: September 17, 2014, 09:30:54 AM »
I don't think I'm at liberty to disclose that on this forum, so since I can't point to anything for you to look at with your own eyes, feel free to not believe it. :) But eventually, the truth will out.

No problem. I wasn't challenging...I was just curious as to whether it was fact, or an Internet-propagated "truth" that is based on gut feel and not much more. But I will now take it as a given (and haunt you later if you are wrong!)

And, may I say, that despite everything else I have said in this thread, I think it is disgusting that Amazon rewarded authors that are not all-in. I would think that AZ has a one-to-one channel of communication with these authors, and could compensate them "quietly", while keeping the game even for the rest of us.

Offline wtvr

  • Status: Arthur Conan Doyle
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • Gender: Female
  • North Aurora, IL
  • whatev
    • View Profile
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #193 on: September 17, 2014, 09:34:49 AM »
I wonder why they told us about it? Because they're going to promote it on the sales pages? Since they don't tell us all the other perks the golden children get, it seems weird they're even letting us know.

Joliedupre

  • Guest
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #194 on: September 17, 2014, 09:40:23 AM »
To those who think it's wrong for the little guys to subsidize the All Stars - if you make it into the All Stars league, will you be refusing your bonus payments and instructing Amazon to share it among the little guys?

Of course not!  Who do I care about in this publishing game?  ME.  I don't care about the All Stars, and I don't expect any of the All Stars to give a crap about where I'm at. Why would they? Hugh Howey probably does, but Hugh isn't normal. Hugh makes millions, but  still hangs out with the rank and file. (I say that with love and respect.)   

~~~~

This isn't some game.  This isn't about being nice.  This is business.

As long as Select works out for MY business, I'll stay.


Offline SevenDays

  • Status: Arthur C Clarke
  • *****
  • Posts: 2800
  • Gender: Female
  • PNW
  • Imagine something cool and witty here.
    • View Profile
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #195 on: September 17, 2014, 09:44:59 AM »
I would think that AZ has a one-to-one channel of communication with these authors, and could compensate them "quietly", while keeping the game even for the rest of us.

I think it's supposed to be an incentive, an enticement to stay in (or join) Select. So if they compensated quietly, then it wouldn't be an incentive.

That said, the way they've gone about this--and the timing--is problematic.

Alex A. King | Website

Joliedupre

  • Guest
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #196 on: September 17, 2014, 09:45:35 AM »

Amazon doesn't have to keep the royalty rate at $2+ because they can see that most KDP Select authors are earning a higher volume of borrows than they ever have before. So say goodbye to the $2+ royalty rate of the past. I doubt we'll see it again unless Amazon feels especially generous (and I hope I'm wrong about this).


This is a very good point, and something else for me think about.

Offline Usedtoposthere

  • Status: Edgar Allan Poe
  • *******
  • Posts: 5480
    • View Profile
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #197 on: September 17, 2014, 10:01:23 AM »
I think it's supposed to be an incentive, an enticement to stay in (or join) Select. So if they compensated quietly, then it wouldn't be an incentive.

That said, the way they've gone about this--and the timing--is problematic.
People who got All-Star bonuses are businesspeople too, though. They looked at the payout rate on the 15th and went, "well, shoot." Spent the rest of the day thinking, "OK. In or out?" until they heard the next day that they got the bonus. Because these are all people who COULD sell elsewhere, and they know it. (Full disclosure: I got a bonus.)

So KDP really had to tell them right away that they had earned the bonus, or lots of them would have been pulling their books. Whether you think that's a good or bad thing, whether the program would be better with the heavy hitters in it (including those who are non-exclusive) as a way to draw readers in and make them want to plunk down the $9.95/month that is paying for all our borrows ... I guess everyone here gets to decide that for themselves. But that's why the announcement came on the heels of the overall payout number, IMHO.

Offline Hugh Howey

  • Status: Dostoevsky
  • ******
  • Posts: 3439
  • Gender: Male
  • Jupiter, FL
    • View Profile
    • Hugh Howey
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #198 on: September 17, 2014, 10:02:09 AM »
I just read HM Ward's blog, and my thinking is that it's awesome Amazon lured her in. Even if they gave her some lifetime exemption, which I'm not getting, I want her involved whatever it takes. I want the Big 5 to get involved with KU. The more Amazon can do to lure readers in, get people reading more, the better it is for me.

It's hard to voice my opinions about all of this as someone who has outsized success. I prefer to hang back and read everyone else's thoughts. I don't think publishing platforms and retailers should make decisions that cater to the outliers but focus instead on the entire field. I've told the engineers at various outlets this, that they should just keep concentrating on rolling out features for all of us (like pre-orders, better dashboard reporting, and the like).

When KU was announced, a lot of my colleagues who were exempted in order to give KU a try were horrified at the program. (We didn't know what we were opting into, as they had to exempt so many people, that they knew the subscription service wouldn't remain a secret. Ironic that it was outed anyway right here on KB by an observant poster). Anyway, a lot of my colleagues pulled out immediately, worried about the drop in earnings. I stuck with it to collect as much data as I could. Right now, it looks like my income is down, but my readership is way up. More readers and less money. I'll take that any day of the week.

I know that rings hollow for people who need more money. Again, this is why I hesitate to say anything. My outlook on stuff like this has always been a bit outside the norm. So what good is my opinion? I certainly wouldn't ask for anyone to agree with me or adopt my strategies. In fact, I often suggest those who email me asking for advice to do the opposite of what I've done, as I've made a lot of weird decisions that certainly reduce my income.

Back to KU: I've gained more readers through KU than I would lose by pulling my titles down everywhere else. I already don't publish with Google, even though they have offered an exemption to their random discounting. I don't like exemptions. I'm uncomfortable with the one I have to be in KU. But I understand why Amazon did it, that they never could've convinced me or Holly to try the program without a limited-time sample.

Do the bonuses further the divide between the haves and have-nots? Absolutely. Can I say with certainty that I wouldn't be upset if I wasn't already unconcerned with income? I cannot say that for certain. Maybe I would be angry. I don't begrudge anyone who is, nor do I disagree with anyone who pulls out of KU.

My hope is that these bonuses will go to an ever-rotating crop of writers. Seeing Wayne Stinnett's story and that he got a bonus warms my heart. I've been sharing that story everywhere, even sending it along to KDP to see if they can highlight these kinds of hard-working successes more. There will be some top names who publish 12 titles a year who will get tens of thousands added to their millions, and that will cause rancor. But it'll mean their books are in the pool, and I want that. I want readers to come in. I hope they'll find some of my stories as well.

I also hope Amazon will tinker with the structure of this program. Give us some consistency. Do something about the 10% rule for short pieces (if the story is only 10 pages long, pay upon completion. Or if the list price is less than $2.99, only pay upon completion). There's all sorts of things they can do to make this more fair, and I think they'll work on that. But the idea that these bonuses are bad, when they seem to be added money, and people are saying "just keep adding it to the general pool" ignores the fact that KU benefits from luring in the most prolific writers (of which I am most certainly not one). And that there will be monthly surprises for up-and-comers, that it won't be the same people every month, and that at least we have a company throwing money at authors instead of figuring out how to wring it from us. Man, self-publishing has changed. It used to be the other way around.

There's no way everyone will agree on these things. I dig what Dalglish and others are saying. But I come down more on AmberRose's side of this. And I like to think, if I was just getting started in this game, that I would be happy for the bonuses and those who receive them. But it's hard to say. I have to keep in mind that I've been outsized in my good fortune. It sucks that this makes me less likely to add my opinion, where for years I was dispensing perhaps way too much of it.
 
Hugh Howey | author website | facebook | twitter | goodreads

Offline Mike McIntyre

  • Status: Scheherazade
  • *****
  • Posts: 1603
  • Gender: Male
  • San Diego
    • View Profile
    • The Scavenger's Daughter page
Re: KDP Post about All-Stars
« Reply #199 on: September 17, 2014, 10:03:53 AM »
Not the whole truth, only one data point. You're missing another data point: the multiplier. Many authors who shared their sales data reported an increase in borrows by an order of magnitude of 2 - 10 times what they previously earned. The most common I've heard is 3 times, which also lines up with my experience. So which do you prefer? 500 borrows at June's rate of $2.24 ($1,120) or 1,500 at $1.54 ($2,310)? Or how about 500 new readers of your work vs. 1,500?

I understand this point. But can someone please explain how to accurately (semi-accurately?) measure an increase or decrease in borrow income and sales income due to KU? My borrows and sales are all over the map throughout the year. So if I compare my income in June (the last full month before KU) to my income in August (the first full month after KU), the result could be misleading.

The only way I can think of getting a realistic result is to compare my income from August 2013 to my income from August 2014.

But even doing that has problems: I've published another book since last August. So to account for that, I subtract money earned from that title from the August 2014 total. And since KU is available only in the US, I only compare US (.com) income from the two Augusts.

Doing that, I find that this August's borrow income increased 4 X's over that of August 2013, while my total income (borrows and sales) increased more than 2 X's.

My initial thought is that KU is benefitting me. But then I recall that one of my titles had a BookBub ad this past mid-July, and I wonder if my August jump in income might be more attributable to the residual effect of the BB ad rather than the launch of KU.

Seasonal variation, added titles throughout the year, marketing campaigns, etcIt leads me to think that it might take several months before an accurate measure of the KU effect emerges.

Is there a better way to measure this stuff? 

   

Mike McIntyre