G
Guest
·I was trying to change price on a book and saw this on the pricing page:
Rate
35%
50%
70%
50%? Has this been there before? Am I seeing things?
Rate
35%
50%
70%
50%? Has this been there before? Am I seeing things?
I find myself unable to be optimistic.Heather Boyd said:Pricing terms haven't updated since 2015. Will have to wait and hope what happens next is good news.
Ditto. I'm thinking a 50% royalty rate isn't going to be anything good. As you suggested, maybe 50% for KU titles under $2.99 (instead of 35%) or we'll get bumped to 50% and books in KU earn 70% if purchased instead of borrowed.Kyra Halland said:...Or, the doomsayer in me wonders if they're going to make it so you have to be in Select to get 70% anywhere and those of us who refuse to get with the program are going to get dropped to 50%.
The problem with the first guess (50% for titles under $2.99) is that the option shows only for books between $2.99 and $9.99. I don't see any scenario where this is a good thing.Tilly said:Ditto. I'm thinking a 50% royalty rate isn't going to be anything good. As you suggested, maybe 50% for KU titles under $2.99 (instead of 35%) or we'll get bumped to 50% and books in KU earn 70% if purchased instead of borrowed.
But it doesn't show up for 99 cent books, only for $2.99 and higher. Which is what makes me think it isn't anything good.Tilly said:Ditto. I'm thinking a 50% royalty rate isn't going to be anything good. As you suggested, maybe 50% for KU titles under $2.99 (instead of 35%) or we'll get bumped to 50% and books in KU earn 70% if purchased instead of borrowed.
or they're just trying to remain competitive. I get surveys from them all the time, and I'm pretty straightforward about what i dislike about their price restrictions. I'm sure other people are as well.Seneca42 said:With B&N basically dead, they may be looking to take out their remaining competitors and own the ebook market 100%; will also commodifying books further by incentivizing lower pricing.
Ditto.Jim Johnson said:I see it but no explanation for why. I'll keep my eyes open, but in the meantime, writing away on the current WIP.
Yep. Basically had the same thought at about the same time.Amanda M. Lee said:Just to add to the speculation, maybe 50% for those in KU who do not want to be exclusive. That's a total wish-fulfillment guess, by the way.
Oooh, I like that one!Amanda M. Lee said:Just to add to the speculation, maybe 50% for those in KU who do not want to be exclusive. That's a total wish-fulfillment guess, by the way.
Me too!MelanieCellier said:Oooh, I like that one!![]()
Ummm. Why not? Do you honestly think a significant number of writers would pull their books out of Amazon if they lowered the royalty rate for non-KU books? Amazon is the biggest ebook market by far. A few would in protest, sure. But as we've seen over and over with all the KU nonsense they've pulled, the vast majority of writers are simply going to suck it up and accept the lower payout rate. And all those people going wide through the aggregators are already accepting quite a bit less than 70% there, so it isn't like they don't know that we'll take less. If the authors aren't in KU their books are already wide so they don't even have the option to make up the sales elsewhere. What other choice would they have but to leave their books right there and take whatever Amazon offers them? Or else it will be that extra push necessary to pull a lot of authors into KU because they can't afford the loss of a third of their Amazon money.Seneca42 said:Zon's not going to mess with the 70% while kobo and itunes are paying it.