[Sophrosyne]

Here's the latest update from D2D. Bolding is mine:

***

Late yesterday we received some initial communication concerning the titles Kobo removed from distribution.

Kobo confirmed that the bulk removal was conducted in reaction to a spate of recent negative media attention. Their initial solution was to immediately remove from sale books from self-published authors and small presses as well as from digital aggregators like Draft2Digital until they pass an additional review by Kobo.

To our knowledge, Kobo has not yet begun the review process to reinstate any books. This matter could take some time. However, they insist that they have a strong commitment to free expression and to the self-publishing community as well. They have assured us that all titles that comply with their content guidelines will be fully reinstated.

We will continue to do everything we can to bring this matter to a timely and satisfying conclusion. In the meantime you have our sincerest sympathy for the interruption of your business and our gratitude for your continuing patience. We'll keep you posted as we learn more.

Sincerely,
Kris Austin
President and CEO
Draft2Digital, LLC
https://www.draft2digital.com

 

[Lisa Grace]

My Smashwords/Kobo books are still up.

 

[Amanda Brice]

I go direct to Kobo with KWL for all but one of my books. Those books are still on Kobo.

The one that I use D2D for is a 3-author bundle. Each of the underlying books contained in the bundle are also on Kobo through KWL. Those underlying single title books are still up on Kobo, but the bundle containing them went through D2D and that one is gone.

Interesting that readers need to be "protected" from this really sweet YA bundle, yet the "offending" books are all fine.

 

[Claudia King]

Fingers crossed they'll get most books back up after the media buzz dies down and they get them through their review process. I searched Kobo the other evening and couldn't find a single title of mine on there.

Majorly unimpressed with Kobo and how they've handled this whole thing.

 

[JRTomlin]

The email is from Mark Lefebvre, who is responding on Canadian Thanksgiving (Mark is Canadian) and either the day of, or the day immediately after his wedding anniversary, and he's moving house this week to boot.

None of which matters. This is business not a hobby. When things go this badly wrong you take care of it.

ETA: I have refused to do business with Kobo for a couple of years. About six months ago, I decided to give them another chance, tried out their dashboard to list a novel and found it SO dire, I decided I had been right to ignore them. They have never, unfortunately, managed an efficient or well-run operation. This pretty much shows how incompetent they are.

 

[roy le coeur]

According to the BBC teletext news service this afternoon, Kobo said, "Titles that do not violate it's policies will go back on sale in a weeks time."

No mention of what WH Smith whatsoever.

 

[Lummox JR]

Their response is pretty weak sauce, and I'm now convinced I'll never publish on Kobo. I don't even write anything close to erotica, or anything that could be confused for it; but the way they handled this smacks of incompetence at an institutional level and nothing short of completely churning their upper management will fix it. Temporarily delisting a very large swath of titles to deal with only a potential few is absolutely the wrong approach, and it is not forgivable in a distributor. It's not like we're dealing with contaminated peanut butter or a defective baby stroller, where someone's going to get hurt if they get their hands on one of these supposedly evil books. There are many perfectly harmless books, whose authors have been harmed financially as a result of the temporary removal.

I'm less concerned with their decision to delist erotica. They have that right, as does Amazon, although gads I wish they'd come up with a clear policy already. The fact that this didn't become a problem until some loudmouth troll (already known for being a loudmouth troll) made a big deal of it says there really wasn't a problem to begin with, and I have very little respect for those who kowtow to the Jack Thompsons of the world. But it is what it is, and if they were going to delist erotica there's a right way and a wrong way. The right way is to go after those titles selectively. Amazon has reportedly been over-aggressive in this, but at least they've had a lot fewer false positives. Kobo just flipped out and pulled the plug on anything with the faintest connection and promised to fix it later, which is a lot like the cable company disconnecting your entire block every time someone on your street is late on their bill. Unacceptable. And everyone who was caught in their extra-extra-wide net has to wait a full week for their titles to go back up?

Bottom line: The professionalism isn't there. Kobo can't be trusted.

 

[Terrence OBrien]

This would make a great business school case.

The rules would be simple. Given the situation WHSmith faced last Thursday(?) Friday(?), what should they have done? How should they have reacted? What steps should they have taken?

Under the rules, we can't simply sit back and say what they could have done in the past that would have avoided the situation. Reciting that in their headquarters last week would not have solved their problem, and tells us nothing about what they should have done in the specific situation they faced.

So, what should they have done? If you were CEO, what would you have done?

(We can also apply the same case to Kobo. We can apply it to Amazon by asking, "Given the situation in the UK, how should Amazon react?")

The first thing that comes to mind is the Chicago Tylenol case in 1982. Johnson & Johnson's management of that crisis has become the gold standard in the US. At first look, it seems WHSmith is following their lead.

 

[CoraBuhlert]

The poisoned Tylenol (I assume that's what you're referring to) was actively dangerous and killing people. So far, no one died from reading a pseudo-incest or tentacle sex book. So that's not comparable at all. Porn is not killing people, even if some people act as if it does.

And personally, I believe that W.H. Smith should have pulled the flagged titles, issued a statement saying "We're looking into it" and otherwise told the Daily Mail, the Kernel and Jeremy Duns to stuff it where the sun doesn't shine (in more polite terms of course).

 

[Terrence OBrien]

The poisoned Tylenol (I assume that's what you're referring to) was actively dangerous and killing people. So far, no one died from reading a pseudo-incest or tentacle sex book. So that's not comparable at all. Porn is not killing people, even if some people act as if it does.

And personally, I believe that W.H. Smith should have pulled the flagged titles, issued a statement saying "We're looking into it" and otherwise told the Daily Mail, the Kernel and Jeremy Duns to stuff it where the sun doesn't shine (in more polite terms of course).

Of course it is comparable. Both deal with a set of offerings they want to get off the market. They can't identify the exact instances, but they can identify a larger set in which they reside.

Johnson & Johnson didn't know the exact bottles or batches to target, so they took a larger set off the market immediately.

WHSmith didn't know the exact books to target, so they took a larger set off the market immediately.

The cases are similar since they both involve removing products while not having specific knowledge off exactly which instances are the problem.

They do differ in the danger posed. Both posed a danger to the company. Tylenol also posed a universally recognized danger to the public. Opinions differ on the danger to the public from the Daddy books.

And personally, I believe that W.H. Smith should have pulled the flagged titles, issued a statement saying "We're looking into it" and otherwise told the Daily Mail, the Kernel and Jeremy Duns to stuff it where the sun doesn't shine (in more polite terms of course).

That would be like Johnson & Johnson taking tylenol off the shelves of only the stores where the victims shopped, and telling critics to stuff it.

It wouldn't solve the WHSmith problem. It would have left them open to the exact same attack as the original. The problem isn't limited to the specific flagged books. One could easily find another Daddy book. That would lead to an iterative process where the media identifies ten Daddy books, WHS removes ten books, then tells the media to stuff it. It would never end.

Telling the critics to stuff it would simply say the company chooses to sell more Daddy books.

We could have similar cases anytime a company identifies a defective product among many other products, and can't target the specific one causing the problem.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The Tylenol case also didn't result in every painkiller from every company ever being pulled. Even in a blind, simian panic, people reacted more intelligently to actual poison than Smith or Kobo reacted to naughty words.

 

[Terrence OBrien]

The Tylenol case also didn't result in every painkiller from every company ever being pulled. Even in a blind, simian panic, people reacted more intelligently to actual poison than Smith or Kobo reacted to naughty words.

I agree. In each case a subset of products was pulled that was sufficient to contain the targets.

What would you have done?

I'll confess I don't have a better solution. But I'm sure not the sharpest knife in the drawer here, so maybe someone else has some good ideas.

This isn't going to be the only time we encounter this stuff.

We also can't tell if WHSmith is following the full Tylenol model. Johnson & Johnson removed all the product, changed the pill form, packaging, and manufacturing processes, then reintroduced it. It will be interesting to see what WHSmith does.

 

[B. Justin Shier]

I agree. In each case a subset of products was pulled that was sufficient to contain the targets.

What would you have done?

I'll confess I don't have a better solution. But I'm sure not the sharpest knife in the drawer here, so maybe someone else has some good ideas.

This isn't going to be the only time we encounter this stuff.

Amazon's response to the moral panic in the UK has been pretty decent, IMO.

"Amazon has not responded to the BBC's request for comment on the issue, except to confirm that the specific books listed by The Kernel had been removed." - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24519179

That's a simple, clean, and relatively measured response to what may or may not develop into a PR nightmare. It shows that Amazon is listening to customer concerns while simultaneously reassuring their suppliers that their interests are being considered. I don't think it is enough. I think they should have had parental protections up on their website five years ago, but when the alternative is the

, Amazon comes out looking pretty good.

But to be fair to Smiths, an interesting point was brought up in Phillip Jones's Futurebook article:

...prior to the Mail report almost all the tweets about this subject from the journalist Jeremy Duns have been directed at Amazon. News website the Kernel's first piece focussed solely on Amazon, while its second piece referenced "Barnes & Noble, W H Smith, Waterstones and Foyles". In terms of market impact, Amazon is the driver of self-published material, not WHS.

But WHS holds a special place in the mind of middle-Britain: it's a family retailer with a high street presence. When it gets it wrong, it pays a bigger price. That explains what some might see as a massive over-reaction.

My sense is that when WHS says it wasn't aware these titles were for sale on its site, never mind how the authors were gaming WHS' search system, it really means it. New chief executive Stephen Clarke has done the right thing in swiftly moving to ensure that the WHS website never shows any of these "inappropriate" titles again. In reality, he had little choice. WHS' share price has barely blinked this week, and its website scarcely gets a mention in its financial reports. Sticking his head in the sand would only have risked escalating the hysteria way beyond its commercial worth. The deal with Kobo will be tested by this, that relationship between the two parties may strengthen as a result of the fallout, just as Clarke intimated had happened during its initial launch.

http://www.futurebook.net/content/shock-and-awe-w-h-smith#sthash.WeByYaxv.nDHzSYA4.dpuf

I don't think that justifies Smiths clumsy actions, but it would appear that they have distinct moralistic concerns.

B.

 

[Terrence OBrien]

Amazon's response to the moral panic in the UK has been pretty decent, IMO:

"Amazon has not responded to the BBC's request for comment on the issue, except to confirm that the specific books listed by The Kernel had been removed."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24519179

B.

That is a pretty good public response. But reports on these threads about books being pulled indicate there is lot's more going on in the background.

So, it would appear that Smiths would have distinct concerns.

That was a good article. I'm not familiar with the image WHSmith cultivates in the UK.

 

[Andrew Ashling]

This would make a great business school case.

The rules would be simple. Given the situation WHSmith faced last Thursday(?) Friday(?), what should they have done? How should they have reacted? What steps should they have taken?

They should have taken down their site, indefinitely, stating:

"We're sorry to have been found out. We would have liked to further profit from selling porn, but we're obviously too incompetent to run simple filters on our site that the 15-year old nephew of our cleaning lady could have installed in 24 minutes flat. It's not so much that we care about the law, but we're moral cowards and hereby wish to shift the blame for our incompetence and lack of foresight to Kobo, independent authors, Barrack Obama and the Taliban."

What they should do is go out of business, and Kobo should seriously consider doing the same.

ETA:

The Johnson & Johnson case only applies superficially.

* This was the act of one madman
* Nobody could foresee that someone would do this, nor foresee which bottles would be affected. In contrast, WHSmith, if they had taken just a few more precautions, could have prevented this.

J&J acted responsibly in a crisis that couldn't have been prevented. WHSmith was careless and uncaring in a non-crisis (no lives at stake) that could easily have been prevented.

 

[Terrence OBrien]

* This was the act of one madman
* Nobody could foresee that someone would do this, nor foresee which "bottles" would be affected. In contrast WHSmith, if they had taken just a few more precautions could have prevented this.

J&J acted responsibly in a crisis that couldn't have been prevented. WHSmith was careless and uncaring in a non-crisis (no lives at stake) that could easily have been prevented.

Johnson & Johnson didn't know anything about why the Tylenol was bad. They didn't know if it was a madman, manufacturing process, distribution problem. All they knew is they had a product they wanted off the shelves and they had to act.

The fact that WHSmith could have done something differently in the past doesn't matter when the crisis hit. Hindsight and finger pointing wouldn't have done any good.

The managers of these companies have to accept the reality on the ground when it hits.

For anyone interested, there is a great book about the Tylenol case. I forget the title.

 

[B. Justin Shier]

Mark Coker's handling of last year's erotic payment processing mess should also be considered. Say what you will about Smashwords' retro-styling, his crisis management skillz did impress.

B.

 

[Andrew Ashling]

Johnson & Johnson didn't know anything about why the Tylenol was bad. They didn't know if it was a madman, manufacturing process, distribution problem. All they knew is they had a product they wanted off the shelves.

The fact that WHSmith could have done something differently in the past doesn't matter when the crisis hit. Hindsight and finger pointing wouldn't have done any good.

The managers of these companies have to accept the reality on the ground when it hits.

For anyone interested, there is a great book about the Tylenol case. i forget the title.

You're right that once this ridiculous heap of crap hit the fan "what could have been done" didn't matter at that moment in time. I does matter for the future, though. WHSmith could have prevented this. They didn't. They shouldn't be allowed to operate a book selling site anymore, since they have proven to be incompetent and irresponsible.

I'm not very much concerned with what they "could" have done once they were found out. I'm more concerned with the fact that they didn't take sensible precautions.
J&J couldn't have taken precautions. WHSmith could have, but didn't.

 

[Debbie Bennett]

Mark Coker's handling of last year's erotic payment processing mess should also be considered. Say what you will about Smashwords' retro-styling, his crisis management skillz did impress.

B.

But where *is* Mr Coker? Not even anything on the smashwords blog, let alone an email to sw authors (as D2D has done). I emailed smashwords yesterday as I wanted to hear what their official line was - but no reply.

 

[Terrence OBrien]

You're right that once this ridiculous heap of crap hit the fan "what could have been done" didn't matter at that moment in time. I does matter for the future, though. WHSmith could have prevented this. They didn't. They shouldn't be allowed to operate a book selling site anymore, since they have proven to be incompetent and irresponsible.

I'm not very much concerned with what they "could" have done once they were found out. I'm more concerned with the fact that they didn't take sensible precautions.
J&J couldn't have taken precautions. WHSmith could have, but didn't.

The history leading up to the problem should never be forgotten. There are great lessons there. I suspect we are all going to feel the effects of those lessons in the future as the companies adapt.

But I have no problem with them operating an online bookstore. I wish them the best.