As many of you already know, my Publetariat site was offline entirely for close to two months in the early part of this year, and then it was back online but laying more or less fallow for several more months while my work continued behind the scenes to ensure the site was secure and functioning properly.
Now that I've got it up and running again, with new material being posted there five days a week, I've discovered that many of the sites and blogs I used to visit when searching for possible content to share on Publetariat have disappeared.
I suspect many of those missing site and blog owners eventually threw in the towel because they felt they didn't have the time or energy to keep adding new material on a daily, weekly, or even monthly basis, and having been repeatedly admonished to do so, felt there was little point in keeping the site or blog going if they couldn't live up to that requirement.
Giving up was a mistake.
As you may have noticed, I don't post here daily, weekly, nor even necessarily monthly. I post when I have something to say that I think is worth sharing, and frankly, it just doesn't happen all that often.
Don't get me wrong: I am most certainly NOT saying that people who DO post daily, weekly, et cetera are just flapping their gums for no good reason. Plenty of bloggers have a lot of interesting, valuable, educational, or even just amusing stuff to post on a regular basis, and I applaud them for being so prolific.
But even if you're like me, only posting as time allows and when inspiration strikes, it's still worth keeping your blog up because longevity has intrinsic value on the internet. Here's how the cycle works:
The longer your blog is up, the more legitimate and "trustworthy" it looks to Google and other search engines. The more search engines "like" and "trust" your blog, the higher (closer to the top) its posts come up in search results.
The higher your blog's posts come up in search results, the more exposure you get. The more exposure you get, the more traffic you get. The more traffic you get, the more people you get sharing links to your blog. The more traffic and links you get, the more legitimate and trustworthy you look to search engines.
And the cycle repeats, ad infinitum.
What all of this means is, even if you're NOT posting fresh content on a frequent basis, the mere fact that your blog exists---and continues to exist, year in and year out---is helping to cement and build your author platform by improving your search rankings.
Even when I'm not posting new stuff here, people keep coming every single day from web searches and by following direct links to stuff I've posted here previously.
Of course, posting fresh content regularly will always help to drive more traffic and get your books more exposure. So if your goal is maximum sales, the laidback, infrequent posting approach won't work for you.
But if you're considering shutting down your site or blog merely because you don't currently have the time or energy to update it regularly, DON'T. Someday you may again have the necessary time and energy, and until then, your "resting" blog is still building traffic and credibility for you. Given that it can take years to build a following and reach respectable web traffic numbers, why on Earth would you want to throw away the equity you've already built?
Let your blog lie fallow if that's what you need to do right now, but don't shut it down if there's even the tiniest possibility you'll want to blog again in the future.
Monday, December 9, 2013
Friday, September 27, 2013
Goodreads Review Policy Changes
As part of a recent policy update, Goodreads implemented the following change:
Apparently, lots of Goodreads members are very angry about this and many are going so far as to cancel their Goodreads accounts.
Pick A Side, Any Side
On the one side are the authors, who feel reviews focused primarily on the author rather than the book, or which include allegations of plagiarism, are inherently unfair. Admittedly, some authors try to retaliate against those who post negative reviews even when the review is solely focused on the book's content, and because of this many Goodreads members are afraid to post negative reviews at all.
On the other side are the reviewers, who feel they have a right to know when authors behave badly, when authors retaliate against reviewers, or when there are allegations of plagiarism in connection with a given book.
Some authors say they are under personal attack from reader-reviewers who misuse the Goodreads platform, and that false claims being posted about them are causing real damage to their sales and careers. Some reader-reviewers say they are just as much, if not more, under attack from authors. There have been reports of reader-reviewers being harassed on sites outside of Goodreads, having their personal contact information exposed online, or even being hacked as "punishment" for a negative review.
Before I get into my lengthy analysis---sorry, but it's a quagmire and there's a lot to look at---, let me state first of all that since I am an author myself some people will undoubtedly think I have an agenda here and I'm automatically going to take the authors' side, but that's not true. I think the majority of reviewers, just like the majority of authors, aren't guilty of any wrongdoing here. Rather, it seems to me the bad behavior of a vocal minority on both sides is spoiling things for everyone.
I don't doubt the reports of extremely inappropriate, even literally criminal in some cases, behavior on the part of some authors. However, I also know there are a few bad-egg reader-reviewers out there who are more interested in power-tripping than in providing fair and informative reviews, and some who even take pride in destroying a new book's, or an author's, prospects.
Peeling Back The Layers
When it comes to complex issues like this, where there is no obvious "right" answer, nor a solution that will satisfy all sides, I try to go back to basics by removing the specifics that people seem to think makes a given situation fraught with uniqueness when really, it's not. Once all of the emotionally-charged "specialness" is gone, it's easier to simply apply logic. Here are my considerations, and conclusions.
First, what if we were talking about professional, mainstream reviewers instead of Goodreads reader-reviewers? Professional, mainstream book reviewers never (to my knowledge) base their reviews of books on author behavior, and if author behavior is ever mentioned in a mainstream book review at all, I think it's a pretty rare occurrence. This would seem to support Goodreads' choice to eliminate all review and shelf content that hinges on author behavior, merely on the grounds that such statements aren't a proper use of a book review platform in the first place.
Second, if we already draw a clear, legal delineation between opinion/free speech and libel why can't we just apply that same, pre-existing paradigm here? We already have a legal definition of what constitutes libel, and since libel is illegal, site owners should always have the right (maybe even the responsibility) to remove libelous content, regardless of who posted it.
As the administrator of numerous websites myself, I know all too well the necessity of erring on the side of caution when it comes to deleting potentially libelous member posts. If the target of such posts makes a libel claim, that claim can name site owners and administrators as liable parties in a lawsuit. So here again, I'd be in agreement with Goodreads' decision to unilaterally delete all such questionable content.
Third, I've been witness to plenty of false allegations that quickly gathered steam and spread like wildfire all over the 'net, so it doesn't seem right to just let reader-reviewers post their various claims as facts with zero oversight. Not everyone can be trusted to verify whatever allegations they've heard, it seems most people will just pass the allegations on; this is how internet urban myths are born. Another point in favor of disallowing the 'author behavior' reviews and shelves.
Again, I'm not saying attacks against reader-reviewers are ever justified, but I think it's important to acknowledge that placing limits and controls on abusive or irresponsible reader-reviewer behavior is just as important as placing limits and controls on abusive or criminal author behavior.
Fourth, what if we were talking about consumer reviews of a product other than a book? Here again, I don't recall seeing many mentions of inventor, CEO, company or spokesman behavior in product reviews as any kind of justification for a bad review. The closest I can think of is negative app reviews where the reviewer accuses the developer of posting sock puppet reviews or collecting excessive personal information through the app.
Personally, I've always found those reviews to be abusive of the review system since they usually make little or no comment on the app itself. Why shouldn't the same standard apply to book reviews? The reader is supposed to be reviewing the book, not the author. Once more, I think Goodreads has a leg to stand on in choosing to bar 'author behavior' reviews, statements and labels based on its 'proper use' policy.
Finally, while I agree it's fair for reader-reviewers to share their personal opinions about matters other than a book's specific content, due to the libel and false allegation issues, I think all such sharing should be handled more privately or entirely off-site from sites like Goodreads and Amazon. Some reader-reviewers have said they really want to know if there's a suspicion of plagiarism or criminal author behavior, because such information truly can guide purchase decisions. However, given the enormous and somewhat anonymous nature of the internet, it's unreasonable to expect site owners and administrators to fact-check every allegation made in any of the tens of thousands, or even millions, of posts on their sites. Yet if they do no fact-checking and let potentially libelous allegations remain in place on their sites, they can be held liable in a legal proceeding.
My final conclusion is that the Goodreads policy change is both fair and appropriate, given the risks Goodreads faces if it allows the 'author behavior' content to remain.
Reader-reviewers who feel unreasonably constrained by the changes at Goodreads do have another option: they can always start their own blogs for posting 'author behavior' information, and shoulder the potential for legal liability themselves. I suspect that after a couple of cease-and-desist orders from attorneys, they might feel quite differently about this matter.
**Delete content focused on author behavior. We have had a policy of removing reviews that were created primarily to talk about author behavior from the community book page. Once removed, these reviews would remain on the member’s profile. Starting today, we will now delete these entirely from the site. We will also delete shelves and lists of books on Goodreads that are focused on author behavior.
Apparently, lots of Goodreads members are very angry about this and many are going so far as to cancel their Goodreads accounts.
Pick A Side, Any Side
On the one side are the authors, who feel reviews focused primarily on the author rather than the book, or which include allegations of plagiarism, are inherently unfair. Admittedly, some authors try to retaliate against those who post negative reviews even when the review is solely focused on the book's content, and because of this many Goodreads members are afraid to post negative reviews at all.
On the other side are the reviewers, who feel they have a right to know when authors behave badly, when authors retaliate against reviewers, or when there are allegations of plagiarism in connection with a given book.
Some authors say they are under personal attack from reader-reviewers who misuse the Goodreads platform, and that false claims being posted about them are causing real damage to their sales and careers. Some reader-reviewers say they are just as much, if not more, under attack from authors. There have been reports of reader-reviewers being harassed on sites outside of Goodreads, having their personal contact information exposed online, or even being hacked as "punishment" for a negative review.
Before I get into my lengthy analysis---sorry, but it's a quagmire and there's a lot to look at---, let me state first of all that since I am an author myself some people will undoubtedly think I have an agenda here and I'm automatically going to take the authors' side, but that's not true. I think the majority of reviewers, just like the majority of authors, aren't guilty of any wrongdoing here. Rather, it seems to me the bad behavior of a vocal minority on both sides is spoiling things for everyone.
I don't doubt the reports of extremely inappropriate, even literally criminal in some cases, behavior on the part of some authors. However, I also know there are a few bad-egg reader-reviewers out there who are more interested in power-tripping than in providing fair and informative reviews, and some who even take pride in destroying a new book's, or an author's, prospects.
Peeling Back The Layers
When it comes to complex issues like this, where there is no obvious "right" answer, nor a solution that will satisfy all sides, I try to go back to basics by removing the specifics that people seem to think makes a given situation fraught with uniqueness when really, it's not. Once all of the emotionally-charged "specialness" is gone, it's easier to simply apply logic. Here are my considerations, and conclusions.
First, what if we were talking about professional, mainstream reviewers instead of Goodreads reader-reviewers? Professional, mainstream book reviewers never (to my knowledge) base their reviews of books on author behavior, and if author behavior is ever mentioned in a mainstream book review at all, I think it's a pretty rare occurrence. This would seem to support Goodreads' choice to eliminate all review and shelf content that hinges on author behavior, merely on the grounds that such statements aren't a proper use of a book review platform in the first place.
Second, if we already draw a clear, legal delineation between opinion/free speech and libel why can't we just apply that same, pre-existing paradigm here? We already have a legal definition of what constitutes libel, and since libel is illegal, site owners should always have the right (maybe even the responsibility) to remove libelous content, regardless of who posted it.
As the administrator of numerous websites myself, I know all too well the necessity of erring on the side of caution when it comes to deleting potentially libelous member posts. If the target of such posts makes a libel claim, that claim can name site owners and administrators as liable parties in a lawsuit. So here again, I'd be in agreement with Goodreads' decision to unilaterally delete all such questionable content.
Third, I've been witness to plenty of false allegations that quickly gathered steam and spread like wildfire all over the 'net, so it doesn't seem right to just let reader-reviewers post their various claims as facts with zero oversight. Not everyone can be trusted to verify whatever allegations they've heard, it seems most people will just pass the allegations on; this is how internet urban myths are born. Another point in favor of disallowing the 'author behavior' reviews and shelves.
Again, I'm not saying attacks against reader-reviewers are ever justified, but I think it's important to acknowledge that placing limits and controls on abusive or irresponsible reader-reviewer behavior is just as important as placing limits and controls on abusive or criminal author behavior.
Fourth, what if we were talking about consumer reviews of a product other than a book? Here again, I don't recall seeing many mentions of inventor, CEO, company or spokesman behavior in product reviews as any kind of justification for a bad review. The closest I can think of is negative app reviews where the reviewer accuses the developer of posting sock puppet reviews or collecting excessive personal information through the app.
Personally, I've always found those reviews to be abusive of the review system since they usually make little or no comment on the app itself. Why shouldn't the same standard apply to book reviews? The reader is supposed to be reviewing the book, not the author. Once more, I think Goodreads has a leg to stand on in choosing to bar 'author behavior' reviews, statements and labels based on its 'proper use' policy.
Finally, while I agree it's fair for reader-reviewers to share their personal opinions about matters other than a book's specific content, due to the libel and false allegation issues, I think all such sharing should be handled more privately or entirely off-site from sites like Goodreads and Amazon. Some reader-reviewers have said they really want to know if there's a suspicion of plagiarism or criminal author behavior, because such information truly can guide purchase decisions. However, given the enormous and somewhat anonymous nature of the internet, it's unreasonable to expect site owners and administrators to fact-check every allegation made in any of the tens of thousands, or even millions, of posts on their sites. Yet if they do no fact-checking and let potentially libelous allegations remain in place on their sites, they can be held liable in a legal proceeding.
My final conclusion is that the Goodreads policy change is both fair and appropriate, given the risks Goodreads faces if it allows the 'author behavior' content to remain.
Reader-reviewers who feel unreasonably constrained by the changes at Goodreads do have another option: they can always start their own blogs for posting 'author behavior' information, and shoulder the potential for legal liability themselves. I suspect that after a couple of cease-and-desist orders from attorneys, they might feel quite differently about this matter.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
My New Memoir
As many regular readers of this blog and visitors to my Publetariat site already know, in 2010 my life more or less imploded. I blogged about it at the time, and based on the encouragement of family, friends and readers, I decided that eventually, when the dust settled, I'd write and publish a memoir about that horrible time and my recovery. Here it is, at last:
Here's the book's brief description:
In early 2010 I learned I had a "suspicious" mass in my right breast. Two days later my husband of 18+ years announced he was leaving me. This meant I'd also soon be unemployed since my job at the time was as Office Manager for a business my then-husband and I ran together, and that lengthy period of unemployment also led to the eventual loss of my home. To Hell And (Hopefully) Back is my memoir of learning first to survive, and then to thrive.
In first section of this memoir I reprint every post from my To Hell & (Hopefully) Back blog, where I chronicled my experiences during the first year after being hit with all of these major life traumas simultaneously. In the second section I share what I've learned along the road to recovery, and how I've found my way through to a 'new normal'. In the last section, The Crash Cart, I provide the survival tips I used to tie a knot and hang on at those times when I was sure I'd reached the end of my rope.
This is a book for anyone who's trying to cope with a loss or tragedy that seems too big to endure. What I share in this book is my experience in living the old proverb from Lao Tzu: "Sometimes new beginnings are disguised as painful endings."
- - - -
It's been a long time coming, and a tough slog. But the point of the book is that I survived. Little 'ol me, who was a creature of habit, a perfectionist and control freak, survived having everything I'd always taken for granted forcibly, suddenly ripped out of my life. I can tell you this much: I'm not a perfectionist anymore and while I still prefer structure to disorganization, and knowing to not knowing, I've definitely learned how to loosen my grip on things that are, or should remain, outside my control.
I used to say, only half-jokingly, that I should just join the Navy SEALS because after all I've been through, it's obvious that nothing can kill me. This is the book that tells that story.
To Hell And (Hopefully) Back is now available exclusively in Kindle format, for the Kindle, Kindle Fire, or any of the free Kindle reader apps for PCs, Macs, and Android and Apple mobile devices.
I've left the first several entries from the original To Hell & Hopefully Back blog up, as a free preview.
Anyone who'd like to review the book can write me at indieauthor@gmail.com to request a free copy.
Here's the book's brief description:
In early 2010 I learned I had a "suspicious" mass in my right breast. Two days later my husband of 18+ years announced he was leaving me. This meant I'd also soon be unemployed since my job at the time was as Office Manager for a business my then-husband and I ran together, and that lengthy period of unemployment also led to the eventual loss of my home. To Hell And (Hopefully) Back is my memoir of learning first to survive, and then to thrive.
In first section of this memoir I reprint every post from my To Hell & (Hopefully) Back blog, where I chronicled my experiences during the first year after being hit with all of these major life traumas simultaneously. In the second section I share what I've learned along the road to recovery, and how I've found my way through to a 'new normal'. In the last section, The Crash Cart, I provide the survival tips I used to tie a knot and hang on at those times when I was sure I'd reached the end of my rope.
This is a book for anyone who's trying to cope with a loss or tragedy that seems too big to endure. What I share in this book is my experience in living the old proverb from Lao Tzu: "Sometimes new beginnings are disguised as painful endings."
- - - -
It's been a long time coming, and a tough slog. But the point of the book is that I survived. Little 'ol me, who was a creature of habit, a perfectionist and control freak, survived having everything I'd always taken for granted forcibly, suddenly ripped out of my life. I can tell you this much: I'm not a perfectionist anymore and while I still prefer structure to disorganization, and knowing to not knowing, I've definitely learned how to loosen my grip on things that are, or should remain, outside my control.
I used to say, only half-jokingly, that I should just join the Navy SEALS because after all I've been through, it's obvious that nothing can kill me. This is the book that tells that story.
To Hell And (Hopefully) Back is now available exclusively in Kindle format, for the Kindle, Kindle Fire, or any of the free Kindle reader apps for PCs, Macs, and Android and Apple mobile devices.
I've left the first several entries from the original To Hell & Hopefully Back blog up, as a free preview.
Anyone who'd like to review the book can write me at indieauthor@gmail.com to request a free copy.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Why You Should Be Paying More Than $50 For Ebook Formatting & Conversion
I just posted this in response to a service provider who commented on my earlier post, Ebook Madness: Don't Confuse Ebook Conversion With Ebook Formatting! In his comment on that post, this gentleman said he only charges $40-50 for the typical formatting AND conversion job, and asked if he's not charging enough.
My answer was an emphatic YES, and I'm reprinting the full response here because I think both service providers and those who seek their services need to get a better understanding of the economics involved. Here's my response, in full:
------------------------------------------------
Yes, you are most definitely not charging enough to either do a thorough job or earn a living wage, though I'm sure you don't realize it.
Let's assume you begin with an MS Word file containing 300pp, which is the typical length of a typical novel. Let's say you charge your higher end estimate of $50 to do the formatting and conversion.
You can take $22.50 right off the top for self-employment taxes**, leaving you with $27.50. But you still have to pay income tax on that income, and even if we assume you're in a very low bracket, say 25%, you're losing an additional $6.88 in income tax, which means you're really only earning $20.62 for the job---and that's before taking out your expenses, as you should be doing before figuring your net income.
**UPDATE - several have questioned my math on the taxes, and since I know math is not my strong suit I'm willing to defer to their judgment. But even if the taxes are only $10 per $50 you get paid as a freelancer (and I'm pretty sure they're quite a lot more than that), you're still only earning slave wages by the time you take all the expenses, weekly hours you don't have booked with paying work, and weekly hours you spend on non-paying but necessary stuff like billing and promotion into account.
Your electricity, internet access and software aren't free. Neither is the cell phone you probably use sometimes for communicating with clients. But I'm fairly certain you're not taking these items, or the taxes, into account because if you were you'd realize you're barely earning minimum wage on each job.
Getting back to those 300 pp...let's assume you spend two hours reviewing the MS Word file and making your formatting changes. Even if you use a bunch of scripts or other automated processes to do the formatting changes, you MUST at least LOOK at every single page to be sure you haven't missed anything that needs to be reformatted to be ebook -compliant. Two hours only allows your 120 minutes total for the job, or 24 seconds per page to review each page AND make any additional formatting changes as necessary. If the MS Word file you've been given is filled with lots of funky and inconsistent Styles and/or formatting, the job will take even longer but again, you have to at least look at EVERY SINGLE PAGE to know if this is the case.
At this point you haven't even done the actual conversion step, or the (absolutely necessary) step of reviewing the converted file---again, if you're doing the job right this means looking at EVERY SINGLE PAGE---yet. Let's allow another 15 minutes for the conversion, since most of that work is done with automated tools, and another 5 seconds per page to review the converted file, which comes out to 25 minutes more: a total of 40 additional minutes, or 67% of an hour.
If you find any irregularities in the converted file you'll have to go back and revisit the formatting work and then repeat the conversion and review steps, but I'm sure your $50 price point doesn't take that possibility into account, either.
So in reality, if you're doing as thorough a job as you should be (by which I mean you're looking at EVERY page both before and after the conversion), it should take you a minimum of 2 hours and 40 minutes to complete a formatting + conversion job on a 300pp manuscript of a novel. It takes considerably longer for a nonfiction book with many images, tables, figures, charts and the like.
Since I've already calculated you're only making $20.62 total for the job after taxes, and at the minimum you should be spending 2.67 hours on the job, that works out to an hourly rate of $7.72 per hour---and again, that's AFTER taxes but BEFORE expenses.
If, on the other hand, you're NOT reviewing every single page both before and after the conversion, then I'd say your work isn't thorough enough.
-----------------------------------------
So if a freelance service provider says they're willing to do your ebook formatting and conversion job for $50 or so, there are only three possibilities: either that person isn't paying him- or herself a living wage, or that person is not paying his or her taxes, or that person is not doing a thorough job on your book.
(No disrespect to the commenter, I am not familiar with his work so I can't comment on it, but most of the time what's going on with these lowball estimates is BOTH that the person isn't paying taxes AND that he or she isn't doing a thorough job. Most service providers who offer such ridiculously low prices are only using automated formatting and conversion tools, and if they bother to look at individual pages at all it's only to do some minor spot-checking.)
My answer was an emphatic YES, and I'm reprinting the full response here because I think both service providers and those who seek their services need to get a better understanding of the economics involved. Here's my response, in full:
------------------------------------------------
Yes, you are most definitely not charging enough to either do a thorough job or earn a living wage, though I'm sure you don't realize it.
Let's assume you begin with an MS Word file containing 300pp, which is the typical length of a typical novel. Let's say you charge your higher end estimate of $50 to do the formatting and conversion.
You can take $22.50 right off the top for self-employment taxes**, leaving you with $27.50. But you still have to pay income tax on that income, and even if we assume you're in a very low bracket, say 25%, you're losing an additional $6.88 in income tax, which means you're really only earning $20.62 for the job---and that's before taking out your expenses, as you should be doing before figuring your net income.
**UPDATE - several have questioned my math on the taxes, and since I know math is not my strong suit I'm willing to defer to their judgment. But even if the taxes are only $10 per $50 you get paid as a freelancer (and I'm pretty sure they're quite a lot more than that), you're still only earning slave wages by the time you take all the expenses, weekly hours you don't have booked with paying work, and weekly hours you spend on non-paying but necessary stuff like billing and promotion into account.
Your electricity, internet access and software aren't free. Neither is the cell phone you probably use sometimes for communicating with clients. But I'm fairly certain you're not taking these items, or the taxes, into account because if you were you'd realize you're barely earning minimum wage on each job.
Getting back to those 300 pp...let's assume you spend two hours reviewing the MS Word file and making your formatting changes. Even if you use a bunch of scripts or other automated processes to do the formatting changes, you MUST at least LOOK at every single page to be sure you haven't missed anything that needs to be reformatted to be ebook -compliant. Two hours only allows your 120 minutes total for the job, or 24 seconds per page to review each page AND make any additional formatting changes as necessary. If the MS Word file you've been given is filled with lots of funky and inconsistent Styles and/or formatting, the job will take even longer but again, you have to at least look at EVERY SINGLE PAGE to know if this is the case.
At this point you haven't even done the actual conversion step, or the (absolutely necessary) step of reviewing the converted file---again, if you're doing the job right this means looking at EVERY SINGLE PAGE---yet. Let's allow another 15 minutes for the conversion, since most of that work is done with automated tools, and another 5 seconds per page to review the converted file, which comes out to 25 minutes more: a total of 40 additional minutes, or 67% of an hour.
If you find any irregularities in the converted file you'll have to go back and revisit the formatting work and then repeat the conversion and review steps, but I'm sure your $50 price point doesn't take that possibility into account, either.
So in reality, if you're doing as thorough a job as you should be (by which I mean you're looking at EVERY page both before and after the conversion), it should take you a minimum of 2 hours and 40 minutes to complete a formatting + conversion job on a 300pp manuscript of a novel. It takes considerably longer for a nonfiction book with many images, tables, figures, charts and the like.
Since I've already calculated you're only making $20.62 total for the job after taxes, and at the minimum you should be spending 2.67 hours on the job, that works out to an hourly rate of $7.72 per hour---and again, that's AFTER taxes but BEFORE expenses.
If, on the other hand, you're NOT reviewing every single page both before and after the conversion, then I'd say your work isn't thorough enough.
-----------------------------------------
So if a freelance service provider says they're willing to do your ebook formatting and conversion job for $50 or so, there are only three possibilities: either that person isn't paying him- or herself a living wage, or that person is not paying his or her taxes, or that person is not doing a thorough job on your book.
(No disrespect to the commenter, I am not familiar with his work so I can't comment on it, but most of the time what's going on with these lowball estimates is BOTH that the person isn't paying taxes AND that he or she isn't doing a thorough job. Most service providers who offer such ridiculously low prices are only using automated formatting and conversion tools, and if they bother to look at individual pages at all it's only to do some minor spot-checking.)
Monday, April 22, 2013
Amazon's Ebook Returns Policy Is A GOOD Thing. Here's Why.
Recently some indie author friends have become so outraged by ebook returns that they're trying to organize and bring pressure to bear against Amazon to eliminate its 7-day return policy on Kindle books. There are other vendors who allow returns as well, and I'm sure this same group will be targeting those vendors in due time.
The main reason why this group of authors is so upset is that they're watching their online, real-time royalty reports very closely, and making financial decisions for themselves and their households based on the "sales" they see reported there.
However, as any mainstream-published author already knows all too well, until net royalties for book sales are actually paid they are subject to change, and a large quantity of returns can easily bring your royalty statement for a given 6-month period into the red. The same is true of returnable self-published books, but these authors don't seem to get that, or if they do get it, seem to think it's unfair.
And so they've taken to social media to try and raise the visibility of this issue, to nudge their fellow authors into taking action intended to eliminate legitimate, vendor-sanctioned ebook returns. In my opinion, what they're doing is a big mistake and if they succeed in getting vendors to eliminate ebook returns, it will be bad for all authors who have ebooks on the market.
Amazon's 7-day return policy seems to be the biggest target here, so I'll address my remarks to that specific vendor. But I think the points I'm about to make here are equally applicable to any ebook return policy.
I am *in favor* of Amazon's 7-day return policy on Kindle books. Here's why:
1. Hard copy books can generally be returned up to 30 days after purchase---longer, if you bought them someplace like Target. Therefore, as a consumer and reader, I don't see why ebooks shouldn't be returnable as well. Why aren't all of these same authors up in arms about return policies on hard copy books? I'm all for removing barriers to ebook adoption, and one major barrier is consumers' perception of value, that an ebook is somehow inherently inferior to, and less valuable than, a hard copy book. Elimination of ebook return policies makes ebooks economically inferior to hard copy books, from the consumer perspective.
2. Returnability removes the risk for buyers who might not otherwise take a chance on a new author.
3. People who want to game the system will always find a way, and it doesn't make sense to take these first two benefits away from readers (and authors) for the sake of trying to do battle with the scammers. Take returns away, and the scammers who are abusing the returns system will just go back to outright piracy. Meanwhile, you've given paying customers some good reasons not to take a chance on your ebook.
4. I don't believe most people DO read a book within 7 days of purchase, nor do I think most readers WANT to be put under that kind of time pressure. Those who are willing to read EVERY Kindle book they buy within 7 days are already paying a significantly higher cost than the price of the book in terms of convenience.
Classic case of penny-wise, pound-foolish. True, the dishonest buyers' inconvenience does not put money into authors' pockets. But this just underscores my point about people who are looking to game the system. People who are willing to put themselves out like that to save three bucks or less are not a desirable target demo. I don't want them to be my fans because they're not truly invested in my work in any sense of the term, and never will be.
5. Regarding the "missing" or "stolen" royalties issue, I know this will sound harsh, but authors shouldn't be counting their chickens before they hatch, anyway. Until I actually get a royalty transfer into my bank account, I know those figures I see in the KDP reports are fluid and subject to change. KDP authors still have it better than mainstream-pubbed authors, who must wait a year or longer for the first royalty check and only get them every six months thereafter.
My Indie Author Guide STILL hasn't 'earned out' (the collapse of Borders meant thousands of returns), and it was published in November of 2010.
6. Contrary to what these agitating authors seem to think, those ebook returns do NOT represent lost sales. The people who are motivated to steal books or anything else never intended to pay for those things, and never would have paid for them. This argument from the authors is like a bank manager thinking that if only the bank robbers could've been talked out of their heist, they would've opened accounts at the bank and become customers.
Pirates and thieves are pirates and thieves, period. It's just a question of how they get the books for free: illegal download, or return policy abuse.
7. Some of the authors who are speaking out about this are suspicious that there are actual, organized groups promoting the practice of return abuse as a means to get free ebooks. But even if there ARE groups of people who've organized to promote theft, well...so are pretty much all piracy groups. There's no way to stop all piracy, and if people are abusing Amazon's returns policy, it's just another form of piracy.
8. Again, I know I'm about to sound really harsh, but the realities of business ARE sometimes harsh and that doesn't make them any less real: Ignorance is not a defense here. Anyone who's self-publishing for profit has a duty to read, and ensure they not only understand but agree with, any contracts they're signing, and that includes KDP terms of use and Amazon's ebook listing and sales policies.
If you don't like Amazon's ebook returns policy, you shouldn't publish there or list your ebooks for sale there.
- - - -
Personally, I share Neil Gaiman's view on piracy: I don't care how people initially discover me, because once they're fans and are able to pay, they will. And in the meantime, they'll be spreading the word about me and my books. You may disagree with this stance, or even feel it's naïve. But the bottom line is the same, regardless of anyone's opinion about it: thieves will ALWAYS find a way. Hassling your paying customers and fans in an effort to discourage thieves will NEVER stop the thieves, but it is LIKELY to annoy customers and fans, resulting in TRUE losses in sales and new fans.
Has consumer hatred of DRM taught us nothing?
The main reason why this group of authors is so upset is that they're watching their online, real-time royalty reports very closely, and making financial decisions for themselves and their households based on the "sales" they see reported there.
However, as any mainstream-published author already knows all too well, until net royalties for book sales are actually paid they are subject to change, and a large quantity of returns can easily bring your royalty statement for a given 6-month period into the red. The same is true of returnable self-published books, but these authors don't seem to get that, or if they do get it, seem to think it's unfair.
And so they've taken to social media to try and raise the visibility of this issue, to nudge their fellow authors into taking action intended to eliminate legitimate, vendor-sanctioned ebook returns. In my opinion, what they're doing is a big mistake and if they succeed in getting vendors to eliminate ebook returns, it will be bad for all authors who have ebooks on the market.
Amazon's 7-day return policy seems to be the biggest target here, so I'll address my remarks to that specific vendor. But I think the points I'm about to make here are equally applicable to any ebook return policy.
I am *in favor* of Amazon's 7-day return policy on Kindle books. Here's why:
1. Hard copy books can generally be returned up to 30 days after purchase---longer, if you bought them someplace like Target. Therefore, as a consumer and reader, I don't see why ebooks shouldn't be returnable as well. Why aren't all of these same authors up in arms about return policies on hard copy books? I'm all for removing barriers to ebook adoption, and one major barrier is consumers' perception of value, that an ebook is somehow inherently inferior to, and less valuable than, a hard copy book. Elimination of ebook return policies makes ebooks economically inferior to hard copy books, from the consumer perspective.
2. Returnability removes the risk for buyers who might not otherwise take a chance on a new author.
3. People who want to game the system will always find a way, and it doesn't make sense to take these first two benefits away from readers (and authors) for the sake of trying to do battle with the scammers. Take returns away, and the scammers who are abusing the returns system will just go back to outright piracy. Meanwhile, you've given paying customers some good reasons not to take a chance on your ebook.
4. I don't believe most people DO read a book within 7 days of purchase, nor do I think most readers WANT to be put under that kind of time pressure. Those who are willing to read EVERY Kindle book they buy within 7 days are already paying a significantly higher cost than the price of the book in terms of convenience.
Classic case of penny-wise, pound-foolish. True, the dishonest buyers' inconvenience does not put money into authors' pockets. But this just underscores my point about people who are looking to game the system. People who are willing to put themselves out like that to save three bucks or less are not a desirable target demo. I don't want them to be my fans because they're not truly invested in my work in any sense of the term, and never will be.
5. Regarding the "missing" or "stolen" royalties issue, I know this will sound harsh, but authors shouldn't be counting their chickens before they hatch, anyway. Until I actually get a royalty transfer into my bank account, I know those figures I see in the KDP reports are fluid and subject to change. KDP authors still have it better than mainstream-pubbed authors, who must wait a year or longer for the first royalty check and only get them every six months thereafter.
My Indie Author Guide STILL hasn't 'earned out' (the collapse of Borders meant thousands of returns), and it was published in November of 2010.
6. Contrary to what these agitating authors seem to think, those ebook returns do NOT represent lost sales. The people who are motivated to steal books or anything else never intended to pay for those things, and never would have paid for them. This argument from the authors is like a bank manager thinking that if only the bank robbers could've been talked out of their heist, they would've opened accounts at the bank and become customers.
Pirates and thieves are pirates and thieves, period. It's just a question of how they get the books for free: illegal download, or return policy abuse.
7. Some of the authors who are speaking out about this are suspicious that there are actual, organized groups promoting the practice of return abuse as a means to get free ebooks. But even if there ARE groups of people who've organized to promote theft, well...so are pretty much all piracy groups. There's no way to stop all piracy, and if people are abusing Amazon's returns policy, it's just another form of piracy.
8. Again, I know I'm about to sound really harsh, but the realities of business ARE sometimes harsh and that doesn't make them any less real: Ignorance is not a defense here. Anyone who's self-publishing for profit has a duty to read, and ensure they not only understand but agree with, any contracts they're signing, and that includes KDP terms of use and Amazon's ebook listing and sales policies.
If you don't like Amazon's ebook returns policy, you shouldn't publish there or list your ebooks for sale there.
- - - -
Personally, I share Neil Gaiman's view on piracy: I don't care how people initially discover me, because once they're fans and are able to pay, they will. And in the meantime, they'll be spreading the word about me and my books. You may disagree with this stance, or even feel it's naïve. But the bottom line is the same, regardless of anyone's opinion about it: thieves will ALWAYS find a way. Hassling your paying customers and fans in an effort to discourage thieves will NEVER stop the thieves, but it is LIKELY to annoy customers and fans, resulting in TRUE losses in sales and new fans.
Has consumer hatred of DRM taught us nothing?
Friday, April 19, 2013
Publetariat Update
I still have a blog post in me about this incident, but I'm not quite ready to write it yet. In the meantime, here's the update:
Writer and web developer Shawn E. Bell has very generously volunteered his time to resurrect Publetariat for all of us.
Shawn also offers author services for indie authors and small imprints; please consider him if you need help with your books.
I also wish to thank the many others who came forward to offer help. This has been a devastating experience, but I'm amazed and humbled by the way the indie community can pull together.
With Shawn's help I hope to have the essential site back online soon, though it may be many more weeks or even months before all desired functionality is restored.
Please be patient, and watch for a re-launch announcement from me on Twitter and Facebook.
Writer and web developer Shawn E. Bell has very generously volunteered his time to resurrect Publetariat for all of us.
Shawn also offers author services for indie authors and small imprints; please consider him if you need help with your books.
I also wish to thank the many others who came forward to offer help. This has been a devastating experience, but I'm amazed and humbled by the way the indie community can pull together.
With Shawn's help I hope to have the essential site back online soon, though it may be many more weeks or even months before all desired functionality is restored.
Please be patient, and watch for a re-launch announcement from me on Twitter and Facebook.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Hackers - 1; Publetariat - 0. We All Lose.
I will write a more in-depth follow-up as soon as I can calm down enough to do so, but for now, I'll just reprint what's supposed to be displaying for anyone who visits Publetariat.com right now. It isn't displaying as I write this, because the site is so trashed that nothing works there anymore.
-------------------------
As regular site visitors already know, Publetariat has been repeatedly targeted by hackers over the past few months. The most recent of these attacks occurred on 4/16/13, and has broken the site in numerous ways.
As a totally non-profit, volunteer-staffed site, Publetariat lacks the resources and staffing to keep recovering from these malicious attacks. The site is currently not accessible or properly functional, though its content is still contained in the site's database. But even if I can rebuild the site, it seems likely that another malicious attack will bring it down in a matter of weeks. For that reason, I'm trying to decide if it's even worth the effort to try. I hate to let the hackers win, but I also can't make a career out of fighting them.
It's devastating to see something I've poured my heart and soul into being destroyed like this. Still, I'm glad Publetariat played its part in the indie author revolution, and has helped so many of you.
Anyone who's very knowledgeable in Drupal and can volunteer to work on fixing the site, or migrating it from Drupal to Wordpress: please email me at indieauthor@gmail.com.
Sincerely, And Sadly,
April L. Hamilton
Publetariat Founder / Editor in Chief
-------------------------
As regular site visitors already know, Publetariat has been repeatedly targeted by hackers over the past few months. The most recent of these attacks occurred on 4/16/13, and has broken the site in numerous ways.
As a totally non-profit, volunteer-staffed site, Publetariat lacks the resources and staffing to keep recovering from these malicious attacks. The site is currently not accessible or properly functional, though its content is still contained in the site's database. But even if I can rebuild the site, it seems likely that another malicious attack will bring it down in a matter of weeks. For that reason, I'm trying to decide if it's even worth the effort to try. I hate to let the hackers win, but I also can't make a career out of fighting them.
It's devastating to see something I've poured my heart and soul into being destroyed like this. Still, I'm glad Publetariat played its part in the indie author revolution, and has helped so many of you.
Anyone who's very knowledgeable in Drupal and can volunteer to work on fixing the site, or migrating it from Drupal to Wordpress: please email me at indieauthor@gmail.com.
Sincerely, And Sadly,
April L. Hamilton
Publetariat Founder / Editor in Chief
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
