comments 2011





http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/12/death-spiral.html

joe said:
>   This death spiral 
>   may not happen for a while. 
>   It might not happen at all.

oh, it's gonna happen.  for sure.

but borders has been in trouble
for a long time, so the fact that
it's gonna go down is no surprise.

but that, all by itself, will not
make that much of a difference.

it just means barnes&noble gets
a reprieve period of a few years.

people who wanna buy p-books
will go to barnes&noble instead
of going to borders. no big deal.

actually, one _healthy_ chain is
better than two unhealthy ones.

barnes&noble won't stay healthy
long, however, at least not as
a bricks&mortar physical entity,
and as it gradually closes stores,
_that_ will be the _true_ death.

once there are few bookstores,
there's no reason for publishers,
particularly big unwieldy ones...

print-on-demand will then rule.

nonetheless, your suggestions
that authors get very cautious
about becoming entangled with
the soon-to-go-extinct business
of corporate publishing houses
are extremely sound advice...

happy new year!        :+)

-bowerbird









i see that here in the new year
people still believe what they
want to believe, and "discover"
evidence which supports that...

oh well...  i guess that i never
really expected that to change.

even if i'd _like_ it to do so...

***

evilphilip said:
>   That means that 
>   they can weather 
>   a lot more hardship 
>   than you think they can.

that depends on how much
you think they can weather.

i think they can weather a lot.

but there are likewise _many_
things that they can't weather.


>   They can certainly weather 
>   the loss of both the Borders
>   & Barnes & Noble 
>   physical stores.

wrong.  that's one of the things
which they _cannot_ weather...

they'll tell you that themselves.


>   An increase in the sales of 
>   books at big box stores 
>   and an increase in 
>   the sales of ebooks 
>   benefits them as much as 
>   it does the indie author.

oh please.  big-box stores are
the _dumping_grounds_ for the
excess capacity generated by
huge press-runs on the books
at the very top of the charts,
where publishers will print
a few extra million p-books
"just in case" demand warrants.

and e-books?  are you serious?

like all their corporate brothers,
the major publishing houses are
geared especially to handling the
main problems of scarce goods.

they lower production costs with
their huge economies of scale,
and they lower distribution costs
via existing solid infrastructure.

they simply have no experience
dealing with products that have
production and distribution costs
which are zero, such as e-books.

they've no leverage to exploit.

***

having said all that, i do _not_
think publishing companies will
"go bankrupt" or anything like it,
precisely because they _are_ 
entities which are tucked into
their "safe" corporate parents.

they are also owners of very
valuable intellectual property,
and will continue in the capacity
of administering that property.

but as far as printing new books,
they'll be _done_ with all that.

why would you make something
you can't sell?  it makes no sense.

***

as for the music business?

it doesn't really compare...

bands never made money off
recorded product...  really...
(record companies robbed 'em.)

they made money off touring,
as well as lucrative cross-deals,
with tv, commercials, films, and
sheet music (believe it or not!).

the touring infrastructure is still
controlled by the corporations,
and of course so are all of the
cross-licensing possibilities, so
it still helps a band to be linked
to a corporation, to grease that.

authors have fewer possibilities
generated along those lines...

but there are some, of course...

if you want your book to be seen
for a possible film deal, or t.v.,
or you'll need t.v. to promote it,
(or need it to promote yourself),
then you still might be better off
chasing a corporate publisher...

but if all you do is write a book,
you're better off self-publishing.

-bowerbird



















jtplayer said:
>   Let me repeat that 
>   for the hard of hearing...
>   they DO NOT WANT ONE

there's no need for yelling.

i understand.

you like your paper-books,
and so do lots and lots and 
lots and lots of other people.

that's cool.

i hope you like p-books a lot.

because within 5 years, you'll be
paying a pretty penny for them.

and yes, you will have a choice,
don't believe those who say you 
won't.  (thanks largely to pod!)

the choice will be whether you
will pay $60 for the paperback,
or $6 for the e-book.  (that'll be 
for books from big6 publishers.)

you will also have other books to 
choose from, from indie authors.
they'll cost about $1 as e-books,
or roughly $5 for a printed copy.

the choice is yours...

-bowerbird








folks, here's _my_ "opinion"...

as long as any retailer out there
offers authors the 70% "royalty",
amazon will _match_or_beat_ it.

and if someone gives more, and
does well, amazon will match it.

amazon is ruthless in matching
the _very_best_ terms available.

why?

because amazon is in it for the
_long_run_.  and it knows that
authors can/will disintermediate
amazon right out of the picture
if amazon gets too greedy about
taking too big a cut of the price.

so l predict amazon changes to
a smaller cut, not a bigger one.

now, amazon takes $1 out of $3.

downstream, once it gets its
costs down further, look for it
to take $.40 out of a $2 book.

unlike "opinions", a _prediction_
can be wrong.  so let us see who
gives us the correct prediction...

-bowerbird











http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-lj-sellers.html

paul said:
>   L.J., like Joe, is 
>   an experienced, 
>   professional author 
>   with a reputation 
>   and a backlist. 
>   For those who aren't,
>   it would be 
>   unrealistic to expect 
>   similar commercial success.

it is unrealistic for _anyone_ --
regardless of track record -- to 
expect such commercial success.

there are lots and lots of writers
who are not selling tons and tons
of kindle-books.  they just aren't
comin' here to talk about it, dig?

you can even have a good story
and a well-written book and a 
brilliant cover and nice blurbs
and great reviews and all that,
and _still_ not make big sales...

success is _never_ guaranteed...
all of the cream does _not_ rise.

the message here is _to_try_.
even if you have no record...

and if you believe in yourself,
then you must  _keep_trying_...

-bowerbird









joe said:
>   I'd give up 5% to 
>   a publisher if they 
>   took care of all the 
>   marketing, promotion, 
>   editing, cover art, 
>   formatting, and uploading. 

nice trick.

you get someone else to
cover all the fixed costs,
the ones that are up-front.

and then you expect them to
wait for pay on the back-end?

you let us know if you find
such an idiotic company...

better yet, start one up!     ;+)

of course, it won't last long,
which means they won't be
around to demand any pay
once the money does flow!

even better!

-bowerbird






joe said:
>   Forever is a long time, and
>   the chances of rising improve 
>   with every passing day.

that's great, if you live forever.

van gogh, for instance, would be
quite rich if he had never died...

-bowerbird












joe said:
>   That's what a publisher does. 

well, yes, but they also take 100%
of the cash that comes in, at least
until they are in the black, before
they'll share _any_ of it with you.

plus _they_ do all the accounting!

(make of that what you will.)    ;+)


>   And those costs aren't 
>   worth the 52.5% they take.

i agree. wholeheartedly.

(unless they double the sales...
but i think we agree they don't.)


>   They're worth 5%.

well...  you know...  it's like this...

those services are "worth" what
someone will pay for 'em, i'd say.

so if you'll pay 5%, and no more,
that's what they're worth. to you.
and i have no argument with that.

to me, it depends on lotsa stuff.

but, for either you or me, an easy
way for us to assess their worth is
whether we'd be willing to do it,
and what we'd charge for doing it.

i sure wouldn't do what you listed
for just 5%, nothing guaranteed...

i highly doubt you would either.

further, anyone who _might_ do
such a business will go bankrupt,
and that'd likely happen quickly...

one _might_ be able to work it
if one did very careful vetting
-- and one is a fortune-teller --
and thus avoided losing money
on books that'd never recoup...

but vetting would add a lot to
the already-considerable costs.

so i don't foresee that working.


>   If publishers don't adapt, 
>   they won't survive.

with some unique exceptions
(e.g., the textbook business),
publishers will _not_ survive,
because there is not any way
for them to add enough value
to the ultimate end-product so
they can build a business on it.

especially if they can't predict
the future with any certainty...

-bowerbird

p.s.  i do see a possibility for
some writer/editor pairings,
where a combination of their
unique strengths makes the
end-product worth so much
more than before that _both_
parties see it as worthwhile...

p.p.s.  as yet another aside,
you are happy to give amazon
the 30% they require, right?




















http://amandahocking.blogspot.com/2010/12/some-things.html

amanda, congratulations on your great success.

as you've seen, it can introduce some obstacles.

nothing you cannot overcome, however...     :+)

let me give you my advice, much of which has
already been given to you by various others...

1.  hire some help.  you can afford it now, so
if there are things that someone else could do,
you should pay them to do it.  and let me echo
that you need to get an accountant.  yesterday.

2.  do not sell any of your rights to publishers.
you are doing just fine without any of their help.
especially do not trade off a percentage of your
earnings, because you don't know what it will be.
if/when you hire things out, do it at a _flat_rate._

3.  take a deep breath; take your time; be careful.
things are coming at you very fast right now, and
you might feel like you need to react just as fast...
not so.  take your time.  make sure you do it right.

4.  get an editor for the entries which you post here.
many of your posts here have embarrassing glitches,
such as missing words.  that can happen with a draft,
but that's why most writers don't show readers drafts.
you might think "oh heck, this is just a blog, so what?",
but you are a writer now, and people will _judge_ you
on your writing, so you don't want to disappoint them.
you voice comes through loud and clear, but glitches
can (and will) prove to be a noisy distraction.  fix 'em.

5.  attend to your grandma.  no, she won't know, but
_you_ will, and you'll have to live with yourself forever.
i know it hurts to see her that way.  but you're a writer,
and the pain (and all the rest) will be instructive to you.

love and kisses, little one.

you are more important than you know.

-bowerbird














http://www.thebookdesigner.com/2010/12/end-of-year-talk-about-self-publishing

stephen said:
>   But is anyone designing eBooks 
>   with a sense that they're making art?

i am...  or, to be more accurate, i am
programming _authoring-tools_ which
will help writers create artful e-books.

but most authors simply want to make
a plain old regular book, which is fine...

***

nice summary post, joel.

for me, the most significant development
in 2010 was that authors finally started to
make _big_ money selling their e-books...

not all of them, of course, not even a lot
of them, but how many do other authors
really need, before they start to dream?

you probably heard amanda hocking sold
100,000 e-books in the month of december!
that's a really stunning number, i would say.

thus, to me, the rubicon has been crossed...
the book world will never be the same again.

-bowerbird


















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/response-to-richard-curtis.html

lee said:
>   How many of the 
>   self-published authors 
>   who are smoking you in sales 
>   are essentially giving 
>   their books away at 99 cents? 
>   I doubt many of them are 
>   smoking you 
>   when it comes to revenue.

let's call b.s. on the idea that
e-books which _sell_ at a price
of $.99 are being "given away".

since -- down the line -- _most_
e-books will be sold for that....

except the ones coming from
stupid corporate publishers...

heck, that'd be the ruling price
right now, if only amazon would
pay the 70% rate at that price...

but amazon obviously _prefers_
a dollar to handle a transaction.
(i.e., 30% of its $2.99 minimum.)

for now, anyway...

but you can bet amazon is doing
all that it can to lower that fee,
and that it _will_ be successful.

(even now, amazon is willing to
settle for just $.65, as proven by
its 35% royality on a $.99 book.
but amazon makes you pay the
penalty for the lower price, by
declining to give you the 70%.
so when you drop your price
by $2, you eat $1.70 of that.)

as soon as it can live on a $.60
fee-per-transaction, amazon will
dip its $2.99 minimum to $1.99.

and authors will willingly follow,
since that will mean more sales,
enough so that profits go _up_...

and, as it makes more and more,
amazon will be able to charge
less for each transaction, until
eventually the minimum is $.99.

-bowerbird







ponzo said:
>   my novel goes 
>   an hour without a sale.

um, for your own sake,
you might want to _try_
to be a bit less obsessive.       ;+)

***

anonymous said:
>   I checked out
>   the kindleboard link 
>   and found it very sad.
>   It's basically a bunch of 
>   authors shouting out 
>   their numbers to each other. 
>   Everyone seems hell-bent 
>   to tell the world 
>   how successful 
>   and important they are. 
>   Everyone has become 
>   their own cheerleader and 
>   spends their time 
>   trying to convince 
>   the people above them 
>   that they just as important, 
>   and the people below them 
>   that they're more important. 
>   
>   It looks like a sad, 
>   sad horserace.

well, as someone said,
you might misunderstand
the purpose of that board.

but yes, "marketing" is 
extremely depressing...

it's a wonder that anyone 
-- anyone at all -- really
truly thinks that "it works".

do we honestly think amada sold
100,000 e-books in december
because she's a great marketer?

retract the hype, people, to let
your success happen naturally...

-bowerbird









>   The publishers are not 
>   setting themselves up 
>   as gatekeepers who choose 
>   what the readers get to read. 

i wouldn't be so sure of that...

for an inside gander at how the
publishing industry views itself,
look at "merchants of culture",
a new book (from wiley) that is
_about_ the publishing industry,
one that cites many "insiders"...

as the title implies, the view is 
that they communicate culture.

and, if you look at the industry
as it _used_to_ exist, they did.

the old people in the industry
actually nurtured authors and
really cared about books and
the ideas contained therein,
ideas that changed lives and
the very course of society...

they were serious about books.

but then corporations started
buying up the publishing houses,
and installed office bureaucrats
and accountants to run them...

they were serious about money.

so everything changed, and
nothing is the same since...

but despite that, the industry
still has this grandiose view
of itself as the _guardian_ of
culture, even as they put out
celebrity tripe like snooki's...
(god love her, but i bet even
_she_ let out a big belly-laugh
when they told her that they
wanted her to write a book...
but hey, you write the check,
and she'll write the book, yes!)

so it will be a glorious happy day
when the corporations decide to
leave publishing far behind, and
move on to some other widgets.

-bowerbird









anonymous is absolutely right.

$14.95 paper-books will 
never be able to compete
against e-books at $2.99.

and that's precisely why
the publishing industry
is now a dying dinosaur.

-bowerbird









anonymous said:
>   That's like saying a Rolex 
>   will never be able to 
>   compete against a Timex. 

right.  it won't.  not if the buyer
doesn't want to spend a fortune,
and only wants to know the time.

you do know, don't you, that that
is why most people buy a watch...


>   They're both watches, but 
>   the comparison pretty much 
>   ends there.

which is why most people will
buy the timex, not the rolex...

-bowerbird









jtplayer said:
>   Well of course 
>   that's a lame statement. 
>   If the book I want is 
>   unavailable as a $2.99 ebook, 
>   then I'm gonna 
>   buy the paper book.

and what if the book you "want"
is only available as an e-book?

once the money dries up for the
big corporate publishing houses,
they won't be able to crank their
spin machine to make you want
to buy all their books any more.


>   Not to mention the fact that I, 
>   like many millions of others, 
>   do not own an ereader. 
>   And maybe never will.

well, it wouldn't matter to me
if you decided that you don't
want to read books any more.

millions of americans have
already made that decision,
it would seem.  research says
that the majority of them read
one book (or fewer) last year.

many report that they haven't
read any books "since college".


>   But of course bird believes 
>   that someday very soon, 
>   all paper books will be 
>   a thing of the past, and 
>   readers such as myself 
>   will have no choice but to 
>   buy ebooks. Fat chance 
>   of that day ever coming.

for someone who says that
he's not stupid, i find your
reading comprehension certainly
seems not to be as good as i'd
expect from a person who is
calling himself "a reader"...

i've distinctly and clearly said,
thanks to _print-on-demand,_
you and other people will still
have the option of printed books
for a long time, _provided_that_
you are willing to _pay_ for 'em.

now, sir, if you would be so kind
as to please stop misinforming 
people about what _i_ believe, i'd
appreciate it very much.  thanks.

-bowerbird











robin said:
>   @bowerbird - 
>   I really have to 
>   disagree with you about 
>   all ebooks will be sold at $0.99.

there's no need to disagree...
not yet...  wait...  you'll see...


>   I think we'll actually 
>   see people coming up 
>   from that price. 

people will try.  it won't work.

the stampede of new authors
seeking attention and sales
will undercut prices severely.

(some of these "new authors"
will be refugees cut when the
corporate houses go down,
so they won't be "unknowns",
and they _will_ have chops,
not to mention some backlist,
so you must take 'em seriously.)


>   I'm a bit of a lone reed 
>   on pricing, except for Bella 
>   in that Michael's books are 
>   priced at $4.95 and $6.95 
>   and even at that price he can 
>   sell 10,500 copies in a month. 

if you're happy with that, fine...
i'm not gonna tell you to change.

but for the people lurking along,
i'll note that, unless you do some
experimenting with price-points,
you might not realize if it is true
that you could triple your sales by
cutting the price in half, meaning
you'd make more profit _and_
build your fan-base even wider...


>   I don't think 
>   people reading ebooks 
>   think that this price
>   is too high.

compared to amazon's $9.99 or
the agency5 price of $12.99-$20,
it's not too high.  not at this time.

but the more books people buy --
and like! -- at $2.99, the harder
it will be for them to justify even
a price of $4.95, let alone $6.95.

and you might find -- later on --
that it would've been easier to
get their attention via low prices
"back in 2011, when it was new,
and still relatively uncrowded"...

-bowerbird









oh yeah, one more thing...

this year, you're gonna start
finding some rolex authors
in the timex bin... surprise!

and it won't be because they
suddenly lost all their ability
to craft a high-quality book...

in fact, you'll find that they
are taking chances that they
never took before, and that
they are succeeding wildly...

then, in 2012, there will be
so many rolex authors in the
timex bin, you won't believe it.

and the year after that, you
won't even bother looking
in the rolex bin any more...
who wants to pay high prices?

-bowerbird












jtplayer said:
>   I'm well aware bird of 
>   your comments regarding POD.

so why did you distort them into
something completely different?

hanlon's razor states:
>   never attribute to malice 
>   that which is 
>   adequately explained 
>   by stupidity.

so...  was it malice all along?

whatever the case, just stop.

i am perfectly capable of telling
people what it is _i_ believe...

so you can stick to telling them
what _you_ believe.  you get it?

-bowerbird









jtplayer said:
>   I realize 
>   you consider yourself 
>   quite clever

there you go again,
trying to tell people
what it is that i think.

that's _exactly_ what
i told you to stop doing.

you just don't get it...
do you?

so let me reroute this,
and tell everyone else
that jtplayer doesn't
seem to have the
foggiest idea what
i believe, even when
i spell it out clearly
in black and white.

-bowerbird












michael said:
>   Hey Bowerbird. 
>   What books have you written? 
>   I'd love to read one.

oh, what a nice thing to say...

(i'll pretend not to notice that
this could well be a set-up.)        ;+)

...but i don't write "books"...

i write poetry.  not print poetry.
performance poetry.  the kind
that gets up off the page so it
can dance around the room...
i don't have anything posted
that you can watch, but if you
want me to recommend stuff
by some friends, i can do that.
(rives, buddy, shane, sekou.)

i also write software, especially
e-book authoring-tools, which
help authors make e-books that
are both powerful and beautiful.
e-books should be easy to make.

i also write blog comments, but
you probably already knew that.

i did save all my blog comments
for 2010, and i might decide to
put that file on amazon as just
a little experiment for myself...

i've also written about e-books
on various listserves and forums
over the past 25 years, so if you
want a list of those, i'll make it.

and -- as far as i'm concerned --
joe's blog here is ground central
for the e-book revolution, so i
will continue to make posts here
for as long as joe allows me to,
so you can just read me here...

-bowerbird
















jtplayer said:
>   Suffice to say, 
>   I do get it.

so it _was_ malice...

i never like to jump
to that attribution,
not right off the bat,
since i much prefer
to give most people
benefit of the doubt.

but now i know that
you don't deserve it.

i'll remember that...

***

cpe said:
>   I wanted to ask if 
>   you can help with 
>   the hard returns 
>   needed for poetry 
>   in ebks....

not really.  (sorry!)

since, in large part,
it's insurmountable.

you just can't put
a large something
(like a long line)
in a small container
(like a small window).

it's simple physics.

so the best options
that we have are:

1.  to use an image
to present poems.
it works.  ...until
the letters become
too small to read.
but even then it
won't be a jumble,
it's just unreadable.

2.  to create each line
as its own paragraph,
indented a bit, with an
equal negative indent
on the _first_ line, so
-- if/when it's broken --
the first line displays
flush left, while the
subsequent lines are
displayed as indented.

***

tara said:
>   Bowerbird, do you 
>   have a link to 
>   your software?

when it's up, it'll be at:
http://jaguarps.com

"jaguar publishing system"


>   Is it ready 
>   for consumers? 

it'll be available for free,
so i don't really think of
my users as "consumers".

but it's not up yet, no...

and before i do put it up,
i'd like some early testers.

so if you, or anyone here,
would like to test it for me
-- i promise it is stable --
you can send me an e-mail:

bowerbird at aol dot com

-bowerbird













all-things-andy said:
>   Wait until that 
>   self published author
>   is competing against
>   best sellers and 
>   highly edited books 
>   at the same price point.

that competition will happen
down the line, regardless...

collaborative filtering will
sort it all out for readers...


>   Lower prices will probably 
>   increase unit sales

"probably"?  i believe economists
have found it's a near certainty.
you could look it up, you know...


>   but not by the same ratio 
>   as the price drop. 

actually, some of the very best
controlled experimentation has
found that e-book sales increase
by more than one would expect.

a price-cut in half will usually
increase sales from 3-5 times...

as i've said before, if you _fail_
to get the increased sales, then
you'll know you've cut too far...

likewise, if you can raise prices
_without_ suffering a shortfall,
you should certainly do _that_...

pay attention to your _profit_.
there's almost no reason today
to take less profit than you can,
_especially_ if that strategy will
also produce more fans for you.

just beware of the naive belief
that a higher price will give you
more profit.  odds are it won't...


>   Readers are FAR FAR more 
>   limited by time than money. 
>   What serious reader 
>   doesn't have a book pile 
>   years long waiting for them?

um, did you think that through?

yes, the serious readers _do_ 
purchase more books than
they will ever read, i agree...

and that means they'll buy even
_more_ books when books are
priced at "impulse item" levels.

indeed, there will come a time
when that is the _only_ price
that they'll be willing to pay...

oh, and let us not forget about
the "non-serious" readers too...
their money's good, you know...

it might -- or might not! --
be good if we could "protect"
authors from the dynamics of
the marketplace.  but we can't.
low prices are simply inevitable.

-bowerbird












mark said:
>   I just started publishing my 
>   work to Kindle in December. 
>   In my estimation, I'm working 
>   harder at promoting my books 
>   now than I did when they
>   were paperback only. 
>   It's the same kind of grind 
>   a writer experiences, sending 
>   out his queries and samples, 
>   but the rewards are 
>   more immediate.

i always think it's funny when
people think they can judge
the results of self-publishing
one month out of the gate...

it reminded me of a blog entry
by lee goldberg a while back, so
i went and dug it up.  it's here:
>   http://leegoldberg.typepad.com/a_writers_life/2009/07/you-can-become-a-kindle-millionaire-part-5.html

one month in, he draws all these
conclusions on what works and
what doesn't, and how he'll treat
this way of exposing his work...

i'll repeat what i posted there:
>   self-publishing like this 
>   is a long-run game,
>   not something you can 
>   evaluate in a month...
>
>   if what you put out is 
>   worthwhile, then it will
>   continue to earn money 
>   for a very long time...
>   (of course, if it's weak, 
>   it will nosedive faster.)
>
>   this is why you'll earn 
>   more in the long-term
>   than you do from the 
>   big publishing houses,
>   because their window 
>   of opportunity is short.
>
>   this will become even 
>   more the case once the
>   power of collaborative 
>   filtering kicks in, and
>   hype (and even reputation) 
>   become secondary.

now, of course, 18 months later,
we hear lee goldberg say here
that he has changed his tune...

so, mark, i'll say the same thing.
you can't judge this in a month.

moreover, you're overestimating
marketing's effect on success...

it _feels_ like marketing "works",
because you tell people about
your book, and they go buy it.

so if you tell them all at once,
and they all go buy it at once,
it makes you feel very powerful.

but then what do you do?

you have to go find new people,
and tell them, and then _more_
new people, more and more,
until you use up all your juice.

but this is not a short-run game.
it's a marathon, not a sprint, so
if you start with a big push and
then stall out, you didn't do a
favor to your long-term success.

far better to adopt a "go-slow"
mentality from the beginning...
don't rush out to tell everyone
that you've got a new book out!
let it come up in conversation...

yes, the build will be slower...
but it will also be more natural,
and it won't stall out, so you'll
have a better long-run success.

few things are more pleasant
than an author with a new book.
(akin to a newborn's mother!)

but nothing can be as grueling
as an author who's obsessive to
the point of being hellbent on
_marketing_ their new book...

-bowerbird









one side had all the power.

the other side "submitted"
manuscripts, and hoped to
"be accepted", because such
acceptance meant their work
was "good enough" and thus
would receive the "stamp"
of _publication_, which was
the seal of a quality writer,
and a chance for a paycheck
(or at least a lottery ticket)...

but hey, don't take it
_personally_, because
-- you know -- it's
"just business"...

is it any wonder that
such a system created
angst in the other side?

but now the world has
changed, irreversibly.

now the _other_ side
has all of the power...

fancy that...

-bowerbird












http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-robin-sullivan.html

>   Really glad there's 
>   someone out there 
>   fighting against 
>   the "price low" myth

really easy to label something 
a "myth", isn't it?

here's a suggestion, and 
yes, i am dead serious...

all of you authors here should 
raise your $2.99 books to $5.99.

you got $4.99 books? $9.99.

do it today, and do it in unison 
(so nobody bears the brunt),
and leave the new price in place
for 6 months. no, make it _12._

(and yes, your sales will drop...
for a while... but they will rise
again... sometime... maybe...)

do it.

_do_it._

do it now.

right now.

i dare you.

i double-dog dare you.

whatsamatter? you chicken?

because this rocket is about
to _blow_, and if you ain't a
believer, i want you to get off
the launch-pad now, to make
room for someone deserving.

show us your courage.

show us your stupidity.

do it. do it right now.

and then come back here
and tell us that you did it.

i dare you.

-bowerbird











stephen said:
>   I'm yer huckleberry.

great!  c'mon now, you others...
it's been 2 hours now, and only
steve answered the challenge!
myth-busters, where are you?


>   If my sales go kaput, 
>   I change it back in 30 days.

oh, don't you worry about that.

there's a lot of inertia in pricing;
a month isn't enough to notice,
especially since the number of
kindle-owners is increasing so.

you won't see a drop for a bit,
likely not for 2 or 3 months...
(but then it'll drop like a stone.)

of course, then when you lower
the price back, it will also take
2-3 months to recover.  or more.
assuming that it _does_ recover.

it might not _ever_ get back to
where it _would_ have been, if
you wouldn't have messed with
your momentum.  but you know,
myth-busting is tough business!

-bowerbird

p.s.  i'm kidding, of course.  you
won't do any real _permanent_
damage.  or not much...  at least
i don't _think_ so.  let's hope not.

but seriously, where are all you
other big brave myth-busters?
you do know that you have to
be willing to experiment, yes?
and to take _risks_?  that risks
sometimes _do_ pay off, highly?
c'mon!  get just a little greedy!
_raise_those_prices!_  why not?
so what if you lose your place
on the magic rocket?  so what!










jtplayer said:
>   I've seen it written here that 
>   there's plenty of profit in a 
>   2.99 ebooks at the 70% 
>   royalty rate

$2 per book is _more_ than a
traditionally-published author
gets on the sale of a p-book...


>   and to price any higher 
>   than that would be 
>   somehow obscene. 

where'd you see it written here?
where did anyone use that word?
give a link, or stop making it up.

-bowerbird









robin said:
>   Ideally you want to 
>   set the price on 
>   what the market will bear 
>   which I personally think 
>   is higher than $2.99.

that's the kind of thinking
that ruled in the halls of
the corporate publishers,
and that's precisely why
they're in hot water today.

just like their brothers in
the corporate record labels,
who took great delight in
forcing customers to buy
an expensive album when
all they wanted were the
only 2 decent songs on it.

just like their brothers in
corporate film companies,
who seem to think that
12 bucks is a fine price
for a movie in a theater,
(where the popcorn also
costs as much as 6 bucks),
when at the same time
$9 a month means i can
stream unlimited netflix.

i mean, really, charge what
you like, but don't get the
impression that customers
don't notice, or don't care.

there _are_ consequences.

they may pay today, but
decide to pirate tomorrow.

-bowerbird










jtplayer said:
>   Joe's previously used the word 
>   "obscene" a number of times

where?  link to it.  _prove_it_.

"obscene" is a loaded word...

you can't just make up stuff.

-bowerbird













jtplayer said:
>   I'm not making a damn thing up. 

well, from the best that i can tell,
indeed, you _are_ doing just that.


>   So get off my back bird.

i'm not "on your back". i'm merely
asking you to back what you said.

you say joe used "obscene" to
refer to pricing over $2.99, but
i can't find a shred of evidence.


>   This blog has 
>   no search function, 

have you heard of google? i have.

so, when you said people used 
the word "obscene" to describe
pricing over $2.99, i googled for
where that had happened, and
i found that it hadn't happened,
as far as i see. so i asked you to
give evidence on what you said.

you repeated what appears to be
nothing but a bald-faced lie, and
attributed it specifically to _joe_.

except -- as far as google finds --
joe's _never_ used the word here,
not once, on any topic at all, and
certainly not "a number of times".

and the few times other people
have used it, it had nothing to do
with the _pricing_ of e-books....

google's certainly not infallible,
so maybe it has happened here,
which is why i'm asking you to
provide some links as _proof_...


>   and if you think I'm gonna 
>   start going through blog posts 
>   looking for the quote just 
>   because you don't believe me, 
>   you're nuts. 

you said joe had used that word
"numerous times".  where's proof?


>   you're nuts. Which, btw, 
>   I believe you are anyway.
...
>   you are an effing 
>   annoying individual.
...
>   Your assholishness 
>   is showing again, 
>   and it's not flattering.

i've challenged enough assholes
to know the first thing they do -- 
it's always the first thing they do
when challenged, _always_ -- is
to call _me_ "an asshole".  it's so
predictable i told all my friends,
so now they laugh if they see it
happening again, like clockwork.
for me, it's now the acid test of
if a person really _is_ an asshole.
so hey, congratulations, jtplayer,
you passed!


>   do not accuse me of 
>   making stuff up. 

if you don't wanna be "accused"
of making stuff up, i'd suggest
that you stop making stuff up.
it's pretty simple, really.


>   Once again...
>   ignore me and I'll ignore you.

that's another thing assholes do...

they badger you, so that you'll
agree to a mutual "ceasefire"...

but i'm wise to that little trick.

so no, mr. player, i ain't gonna
"ignore" when you make up stuff.

i ain't gonna "ignore" when you
spout something stupid, again.

and i ain't gonna "ignore" when
you badger people on this blog.

i'm unafraid of your name-calling.
you might regularly fail to notice,
but your cheap tactics don't stick.
they just make _you_ look bad...

-bowerbird









dear "anonymous".

i'm not "bickering".

i'm as cool as
a cucumber...

i simply asked for
substantiation on
quotes that were
reported by jtplayer.

he wants to place
loaded words like
"obscene" into the
mouths of others,
so he can "argue"
against straw men.

then when asked
for substantiation,
as anyone can see,
all he can provide is
continued hot air...

he _wants_ to cause
a flamewar, so that
you will stop reading,
and thus fail to learn
that he makes up stuff.

and that's why i stay
cool as a cucumber...

-bowerbird









verilees said:
>   I think I need to shut up now

oh please no.  you're perceptive.

_creating_ fans via low pricing,
and then giving hard-core fans
an option to give _more_ money
-- however you can manage it --
is probably the smartest model.

cory doctorow is "trying out"
self-publishing, but finds that
the biggest money he'll get is
from the "collectors editions"
-- high-quality leather-bound --
which he is selling at $250 per.
that's right -- two hundred fifty.

and those are being purchased
by people who got his e-books,
originally, at the price of _free_.

if you really want to be able to
count on your fans for the rest
of your life, it might be smart --
starting out -- to treat 'em nice.
believe me, they'll remember...

-bowerbird









moses said:
>   Robin, I think those numbers 
>   may be too high

i'm not sure why you doubt her.

kindle location numbers do _not_
correspond to the word-count...

i've been told that they equate to
128 bytes in the file, which means
they will be highly susceptible to
variations caused by word-length
and formatting idiosyncrasies...

-bowerbird








mark said:
>   I wish Amazon would 
>   approximate page counts 
>   in the product description.

word-counts might work...

but page-counts are _highly_
manipulable monsters, as any
book-typographer will verify.

-bowerbird













moses-
>   It's not about doubting her

well, you were "questioning"
her word-count numbers...

and no, that doesn't mean that
you and her cannot be friends...

for all i know, her numbers 
might be wrong -- it's possible --
and it is your friendship that
causes you to "question" her.
i made no judgements there.

but you had seemed to assume
that the locations are related
to word-count, but they aren't,
at least not in a direct way...

so i just told you what i have
heard, which is that they are
directly related to the filesize.
might help you figure it out.


>   I've read the book, so I 
>   have a pretty good idea 
>   about the length. 

maybe you estimate that well...


>   I also have a very good 
>   sense of the length for 
>   3,500 Kindle locations for 
>   a book with normal formatting

you might not know if the books
have "non-normal" formatting...

-bowerbird












moses said:
>   Michael's book is 
>   formatted normally, though. 
>   There's nothing 
>   really odd about 
>   how the text is formatted.

that's not what i meant...

there are all types of things
you won't necessarily see...

to use an extreme example,
if the book was formatted
using something like utf16,
it will be 4 times bigger than
if it was encoded in latin1...

same characters, just done
with a different encoding,
thus 4 times as big, and
therefore perhaps having
4 times as many "locations".

but again, i haven't done
any kind of research on
kindle location numbers,
so i can't provide much
enlightenment on them,
and thus do not like to
post on them too much.

-bowerbird










moses said:
>   A book with a lot of big images 
>   will not, however, have a 
>   significantly inflated 
>   number of locations.

um, i never mentioned _images_
in terms of an effect on file-size.

that's because the mobi file is
converted from an .html file and
-- as most people will know --
images get pulled in via a tag,
which takes up very little space.

so those images are likely to be
stored separately from the text,
and thus won't affect locations.

the people who appear to know
how location-numbers are made
report it is 128 bytes in the file.

again, that's the mobi file, and
i am not familiar with details of
how text is stored in such a file,
so i cannot elaborate any more.

-bowerbird









moses said:
>   I'm pretty sure that
>   the file size you see 
>   on a Kindle book's 
>   Amazon page (like when it 
>   says 150 KB or whatnot) 
>   does take into account images.

yeah, i'd think it would, but
that has nothing to do with
what we're talking about here.

you'd have to factor out the
size of all the images before
you could draw conclusions.


>   For example, a 100 KB file 
>   should have a predictable 
>   number of locations 
>   if that's true

ok, i'm quite sure the numbers
are "predictable", on the button,
providing one knows the details
of how they are computed...

but there are many details that
you might be totally unaware of.

mobi files are compressed, just
as one "for instance", but you
don't know if those 128-byte
chunks are computed with or
without the decompression...

you don't know how the c.s.s.
might affect those locations,
either from the stylesheets or
from any in-line markup, or
even if those two might differ.

you don't know how often any
"key frame" data gets stored,
and whether that data counts
in the location numbers or not.

you don't know how image tags
are represented, or .html links
(internal or external), and how
they'd affect location numbers.

you don't know if locations are
figured on the document tree,
or the text inside of that tree...

or any of a number of other
possibly important variables.

and all this is compounded by
the fact that several variables
that _might_ be crucial are
highly positively correlated.
the obvious pair at the top is
word- and character-count...

until you do controlled tests,
you'll only confuse yourself...


>   The math hasn't added up.

i've generated some test files,
and it looks like it adds up fine.
i'll post a link to 'em tomorrow.

***

and remember the moral, folks.
the sullivan books are positively
page-turners/location-burners,
and you'll be done reading them
before you want them to finish.

so go and buy 'em, because they
are _not_ too expensive for you!

-bowerbird








blogger seems to be on the fritz.
maybe it's all the talk of penises.

by the way, if you women did
have penises, you'd probably
write something different, so
you can thank your lucky stars.

i will post my message about
penis-size, i mean _file-size_,
later, when blogger allows me.

-bowerbird





selena said:
>   because men don't 
>   write literary fiction? :x

i'm not sure.

does that have anything to do
with football?  or maybe beer?
sports illustrated supermodels?

if not, then no, probably not.

-bowerbird












moses said:
>   One of the topics that 
>   came up was file size

yes, _i_ brought up filesize,
since it's the crucial variable,
according to the people who
seem to act like they know...

locations are 128k file-blocks.

but no one (except, i guess, you)
ever considered images were to
be included in that filesize, not
as related to location-numbers.

you were arguing with yourself.
or against yourself, i'm unsure.
...but you were the only person
to participate in that particular
part of our little debate here...

***

so, i generated some .mobis,
for location-number research.

>   http://z-m-l.com/misc/holymoses

as you see, there are 5 .mobis
in the directory, all based on the
.html file and the auxiliary files,
which are included for you too...

the first thing to note is that the
cover image is 280k, so that size
needs to be subtracted from the
.mobis, to obtain their text-size.

(even then, you are getting the
_compressed_ size, which is not
-- as we will see -- important.)

examination of their text reveals
that the differences are simply
that "triplets" of vowels were
repeated at different rates...

in holymoses-03.mobi, it's 3.
in holymoses-06.mobi, it's 6.
in holymoses-12.mobi, it's 12.
in holymoses-24.mobi, it's 24.

so each file has twice as many
characters as the earlier one
-- not exactly, but roughly --
and yes, the finding is that
each also has twice as many
_locations_ as the earlier one.

(there are about 35 locations
that seem to be "overhead"
in all of the versions; they
are probably related to the
auxiliary files in the mobis.)

to tease out the confound of
word- and character-counts,
i joined together some words
in the holymoses-06w.mobi file.

thus it has the same number of
_characters_ as holymoses-06,
but only half as many _words_.

however, the location-numbers
are exactly the same, proving
it is the characters that count,
not the words. (as we'd expect.)

***

again, there are all kinds of
complicating factors, like the
variety i mentioned up above,
and you would have to study
the mobi file-format specs to
see the ripples they cause in
location-number determination,
but that makes my eyes bleed,
so you'll have to figure that out
on your own, if you really care.

but hey, once moses admitted
that he'd done the original math
incorrectly, most people stopped
caring at that point.  (or before.)

but, ya know, give a dog a bone,
and he's gonna chew on it...

the 128k-block story holds up...

***

now let me take care of a few
pieces of unfinished business
so i can bow out of this thread
before it hits the 200-post mark.

***

i have said before, and repeat,
that everyone should charge
what they want for their e-book.
whatever they want...  exactly...

i also think you should aim for
the most profit you can get...

if that means pricing high, do it.
if that means pricing low, do it.

in the trade-off of short-term
versus long-term profit, you
should do whatever feels best.

it makes no difference to me.

but don't expect that a higher
price-tag will mean more profit.
it might.  but it also might not.

on the face of it, it's as naive as
the child who believes a nickel is
worth more than a dime because
it's bigger.  sounds good; untrue.

***

there's been some "confusion"
here about what joe has said,
but there really shouldn't be...

as _anyone_ can _clearly_ see,
just by looking at this very post,
joe _actually_ said this:
>   This is an eye-opening post 
>   for many reasons, the first 
>   of which is Robin and Michael 
>   made $10k more than I did 
>   in December, even though 
>   I sold more books. It certainly 
>   makes me rethink my "$2.99
>   is the magic price point" 
>   stance.

so joe clearly does _not_ think
that any pricing above $2.99 is
"obscene".  probably never has.

-bowerbird






jtplayer said:
>   I've seen it written here
>   that there's plenty of profit 
>   in a 2.99 ebooks at the 70% 
>   royalty rate, and to price 
>   any higher than that 
>   would be somehow obscene.

that's what he said, and he
even _italicized_ "obscene".

which is a loaded word...

you can search and find it;
it's right here on this page.
(until he deletes it anyway.)

he attributed it to others,
but nobody else said that.

then he put it in joe's mouth,
only joe never said anything
close to that, and the only
direct quotes jtplayer finds
have joe talking solely about
his _own_ prices, and not
the prices of anybody else...

this is all right here, in
black and white, and not
the colorful prose that was
"imagined" by jtplayer...

i'm not sure why jtplayer
takes offense at this, or
thinks i'm out to get him.

these are simply the facts.

they constitute no "rant".

no, i recite them exactly
like i will now tell you that
santa monica's temperature 
is at 57 degrees fahrenheit,
and a congresswoman was
shot in the head saturday,
and the bowl championship
football game is scheduled
to begin in about 20 minutes.

-bowerbird





jtplayer said:
>   But then again, you have 
>   a history of interpreting 
>   people's posts around here:
>   ...
>   Bowerbird to Moses Sirega

you didn't link to that, did you?
you pretended to link to it, by
giving a quote and a date, but
you didn't actually give a link...

so you still don't get it, do you?

because if you _would_ have
given the link, people could've
seen that _i_ gave a link, back
to the blog of moses, where he
had said the very thing which
i had supposedly "interpreted".

>   http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/09/ebook-pricing.html?showComment=1285544510110#c1101881764111632512

so here you are again, jtplayer,
making stuff up and failing to
give links so people can check.

but hey, at least you have the
integrity to sign your comments,
unlike the "anonymous" trolls,
who have nothing to lose
by cursing and being rude...

-bowerbird






ok, pricing appears to be
"the stupid issue du jour"
in e-books these days...

some of you are new to it,
but i've been playing the
e-book game for decades,
and it's been marked by
a continual evolution of
"stupid issues du jour"...

for instance, the question
of whether readers would
embrace e-books was once
"the stupid issue du jour"...

and speculation about the
nature of the hardware
needed for e-books was
"the stupid issue du jour"...

then later the question of
whether publishers would
embrace e-books became
"the stupid issue du jour"...

and then the position that
only _beginning_ authors
benefit from e-books was
"the stupid issue du jour"...

and then the position that
only _established_ authors
benefit from e-books was
"the stupid issue du jour"...

and all along the long way,
people bellowing about how
they liked the look and feel
and the touch and smell of
paper-books and how they'd
never accept e-books was
"the stupid issue du jour"...

and now e-book pricing is
"the stupid issue du jour"...

all of these issues were
tremendously _heated_.
and if you weren't here
to witness it all yourself,
you'd be simply _amazed_
that they stirred so much
dialog, debate, and dissent.

because, in the long run,
each of these "issues" just
simply vanished into thin air.

as i was saying...

these issues simply vanished.

technology and its march
seem to inspire such issues.

back in the early 1980s,
i started word-processing.

for me, this was _magical_.

drafting stuff on paper was
a nightmare of cross-outs
and arrows and twisty type.
it involved countless rewrites,
and re-types, all of it painful.

but in a word-processor?
magic.  my "sheet" of "paper"
was always clean and neat,
and writing became _easy_.

so i started telling people,
like fellow grad students,
professors, and secretaries,
about this writing miracle
called word-processing...

almost uniformly, at first,
they just pooh-poohed it.

i thought they didn't get it,
so i persisted, only to find
their resistance increased.
they _refused_ to hear it!

i was stunned.  here i was,
telling them about _magic_,
and they insisted that they
liked writing the old way...

i knew this was just stupid,
but some of them persisted,
for a very long time.  they all
came around _eventually_,
mind you, but it took a while.

it was the same with e-mail.
i saw the potential right away,
but it took others a long time,
even to just give it a little try.
they liked old-fashioned mail.

then, over the course of years,
they experimented and found
that it was extremely useful,
and eventually all of society
came to discover the utility...

in each of these cases, i knew
the answer was _inevitable_.

but the dialog was _heated_.

in the end, i should've known
just to avoid the whole thing.

so i'm gonna opt out of
these pricing discussions
from now on, or _try_ to.

because the answer is
inevitable, whether you
or anyone else, knows it
or not.  it is _inevitable_.

-bowerbird













"bev" said:
>   Do you actually have 
>   anything constructive to say 
>   about Robins guest post or not?

surely it can't be that difficult to
find something "constructive"
in what i have already posted...

but, since you asked so nicely...

i believe that robin's remark that
amazon's recommendation system
will link _similarly-priced_ books
was a rather astute observation...

now, on reflection, it's not really
surprising.  it's essentially saying
"people who buy some books at
$5.99 also buy others at $5.99".

or, to put it slightly differently,
"people who buy $2.99 books
tend _only_ to buy $2.99 books".

thing is, it seems like there are
a whole lot more of the former.

either way, it tells us something
about _positioning_, which is
something that robin is wise to,
since she does the marketing...

if you're attempting to do such
"positioning", then i'd guess you
could learn something from that.

and i think many writers here
_are_ wondering how they can
"market" their work, which might
include doing that "positioning".

you want any "edge" you can get,
and this might be such an edge...

because it is difficult to convince
people your $6 pastrami sandwich
is better than the $3 pastrami
being offered by your competitor.

and not just a little bit better,
but fully _twice_as_good_.

and if you can do that convincing,
maybe you should do advertising,
not book-writing.  i'm just sayin'.

but i'm not sure i'd agree that
"marketing" makes a difference,
not when a customer is able to
read a long sample of the book.

seems to me that the proof had
better be in the pudding itself,
rather than in any "positioning".

if the customers can take a bite,
a big bite, from both sandwiches,
they won't listen to "advertising",
or pay attention to "positioning".

anyway, "bev", i hope all that was
"constructive" enough for you...
oh, and hey, what did _you_ think
of robin's post.  because i guess i
must've missed the "constructive"
part of your comment up above...

-bowerbird









so "bev" deleted her comment.

i don't delete mine.

(any deletions you see by me are
posts where i corrected a typo, or
posts the system issued twice.)

-bowerbird




oh, i guess her comment
is still there.  it looks like
she deleted a duplicate too.

-bowerbird





dear "bev"-

i'm glad that robin inspired you,
vaporized your biggest fears,
and gets your eternal gratitude.
onward and upward.


>   I'd looked at Lulu as an option

lulu's prices are a bit too high...
at least last time i checked 'em.

might want to try createspace...
consider lightning source too...

but keep in mind that physical
product is an albatross today,
since the cost of reproduction
and distribution is just too high.
it's _great_ we can do one-offs,
with customers bearing the cost,
but it's still not the best way to
make money, especially at first.


>   Knowing that I WILL 
>   be published has
>   massively boosted
>   my confidence

in time you'll take it for granted.

but it's nice that, at least now,
you appreciate the struggle that
always presented as the _first_
major obstacle for writers, one
that stopped many (if not most)
of them from going farther --
i.e., pleasing gatekeepers, for
the benefit of _being_heard._

in an age where production and
distribution was _so_ expensive,
it was understandable.  but gee,
thank goodness we're past that.

-bowerbird





























http://diveintomark.org/archives/2011/01/09/dive-into-2010

let me ask directly, to be clear.

does the license allow me to
create an e-book of this content
and give it away for free?

-bowerbird









thanks for confirming that, mark.       :+)

for people who receive the e-book for free,
and who want to pay you for "your cut",
do you have a way for them to do that?

what amount would you "recommend"?
for instance, how much do you receive
when o'reilly sells a digital copy?

-bowerbird

p.s.  i'll let you address pau, and his
use of the "steal" word, if you want to.
















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-hp-mallory.html

here we have the essence,
summed up in two quotes...

first, the value proposition:
>   I figured I had 
>   nothing to lose 
>   and decided to 
>   put myself out there 
>   and see what happened.

second, the payoff:
>   self-publishing 
>   saved my books from 
>   a life of quiet desperation 
>   in my PC

the money is nice, of course.
and big money is even better.
it's what the world understands.

but the writers here understand
that, even without any profits,
there is still a worthwhile payoff
if the work is no longer invisible.

-bowerbird








always a good thing to do is to
check your book's _formatting_
if you upload to amazon's d.t.p.,
because there can be _glitches._

and since a sample is available,
readers can spot 'em and decide
to pass on making a purchase if
the formatting ain't up to snuff.

book designers and typographers
have long scoffed at formatting
done by self-publishers, often
with good reasons for doing so.

but these days, even the major
publishing houses put out some
crappy formatting themselves...

so you -- as a self-publisher --
can actually _distinguish_ your
book if you do a good job on it.

with a little elbow-grease and
the right knowledge behind it,
you can out-shine those majors.
not "just as good" but _better_.

but sadly, most of you don't...

i've looked at some books here,
and seen some amateur goofs...

for instance, no typographer
would _ever_ release a book
that had straight apostophes.

let alone straight quotemarks!
(oh my word, are you kidding?)

dashes are another giveaway.

and you'd be amazed at what
some people do with ellipses...

the worst thing of all, though,
is inconsistency across a book.

if half your quotemarks are
straight, and half are curly,
you weren't paying attention.

if _any_ of your curly quotes
curl in the _wrong_direction,_
you weren't paying attention.

if some of your en-dashes
should have been em-dashes,
you weren't paying attention.

if spacing around your dashes
is inconsistent across the book,
you weren't paying attention.

if your headers are inconsistent,
you weren't paying attention.

the list goes on and on...

i agree most ordinary people
"don't care" about such things,
at least on a conscious level...

but i also agree with designers
that people _notice_ this stuff,
on an unconscious level, and
it feeds into their judgments
on underlying professionalism.

so it's a way to get an edge...

like i said, i've looked at some
of the books mentioned here,
and i can document all this...

i examined one extensively,
and found 40+ serious errors,
and hundreds of minor bugs...

ain't my job to call anyone out,
plus i have learned some people
don't like it when you point out
their errors; they fail to realize
that you're doing them a favor.

but nonetheless, i can't help but
shake head and shrug shoulders;
this looks like a delightful book,
but it's working with a handicap,
and it's an unnecessary burden,
as these things are easily fixed.

-bowerbird

p.s.  if you suspect it's your book,
you can ask me and i'll tell you:
bowerbird at aol dot com









rancor?

really?  rancor?

no danger of that.

i thought your comment was
the funniest thing all week!

i remember when detractors
said you would _never_ make
_any_ money self-publishing...

gee, it seems like it was only
a couple of years ago, in fact.

oh yeah, because it _was_ just
a couple of years ago, in fact.

in fact, joe was one of those
who was telling people that...

look how fast things changed!

now the line is, "well, yeah, but
you will never be a billionaire..."

a _billionaire_?

that is _funny_.      :+)

***

shoe on the other foot, though.

if you got a baby who depends
on you to cover a bare bottom,
and depends on you to load up
the other end too, you _might_
wanna go for a situation where
the certainty of a paycheck is
a lot higher than self-publishing.

this "business model" is so new
that it needs "quotes" around it,
especially since it's so dependent
on just one player -- amazon...

when your "business" depends on
a company that's a heckuva lot
_bigger_ than you are, you don't
really have any "business" at all.

you have something that can be
smashed to bits in half a minute.

and recall when joe related that
odds of hitting the top lists are
smaller than making the n.f.l.?

i feel he may be wrong on that,
at least if you're female and/or
you weigh under 180 pounds...
but it's not too far off the mark.

the world of prospective authors
has always been over-run with
vastly unrealistic expectations...

vastly.  unrealistic.  expectations.

publishers used to restrain that.
now that _you're_ the publisher,
make sure you've got a handle...

because _nobody_ wants to see
your kids go bare-ass or hungry,
least of all you...

-bowerbird












(i wrote this thursday,
so if it seems to be
out-of-sequence,
that's why...  it is...)

***

most authors "fail"...

at least in the sense that
they fail to sell a lot of books.

so let's compare models...

***

under the traditional model,
95% of the authors fail to
pass the gatekeepers, so
they fail to sell any books.

95% of the remaining 5%
also fail to sell a lot of books,
which means 99.75% fall in
the didn't sell well category.
oh, they'll sell some books in
their window of opportunity
in bookstores, but not many.
overall, just .25% sell well...

however, all of the authors
who passed the gatekeepers
_can_ feel like a _success_,
because they got "published",
and that's a badge of honor.
plus they received an advance,
for some monetary success...

***

in the self-publishing model,
100% of the authors "pass"
the gatekeepers, because
there are no gatekeepers...

95% of them nonetheless
will fail to sell a lot of books.
indeed, of the remaining 5%,
95% of those won't sell well,
oh, they'll sell _some_ books,
probably more than authors
traditionally did, due to the
long "shelf-life" of e-books,
but still not enough to matter
in terms of a financial sense.
overall, just .25% sell well...

however, _all_ these authors
_can_ feel like a _success_,
because they got their story
out to people in the world...

***

so here's the real tradeoff...

if you're willing to be in the
95% who get _nothing_ from
the traditional model, and the
badge of honor you _might_
get if you fall in the lucky 5%
who pass the gatekeepers
would be _important_ to you,
and you don't really care if
your story gets out to people
(should you fail to be chosen),
then you should go traditional.
if you're in the lucky 5%, your
money will be in your advance.
but that'll be the extent of it.
because just .25% sell well...

***

in summary...

if you want to be _assured_
that your story _will_ be told,
and you don't need a badge of
honor, you should self-publish.
your money will be in the sales
that you make, which will likely
be comparable to any advance
that you'd have received if you
had gone the traditional route
_and_ passed the gatekeepers.
but that'll be the extent of it.
because just .25% sell well...

the only real losers in _either_
model are the people who use
the traditional model but fail
to pass the gatekeeper so thus
get _absolutely_nothing_ -- and
remember, that's 95% of them...

-bowerbird













http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-selena-kitt-part-2.html

all you people saying that
"amazon has the right
to decide what they sell"
need to be reminded that
we have the right to _yell_ 
if we don't like the decision.
so no, we won't be quiet...
this is pressure-politics and
both sides can play the game.
deal with it.

all you people saying that
"amazon must be consistent",
watch out what you wish for.
it's _much_ better for them to
be "inconsistent" and remove
the occasional book that gets
complained about rather than
_every_other_ "similar" book,
now and forever more.  really.
deal with it.

all you people saying that
"it's a good thing that we
now have multiple vendors"
are just fooling yourselves.
every one of these retailers
is a huge corporation that
will act exactly like amazon,
once they get complaints,
and they will get complaints,
from the same small minds.
deal with it.

all you people saying that
"americans are prudish"
are totally correct, of course.
but let us also remember
that lots of children were
_victims_of_sexual_abuse_
by members of their own
family and/or household,
and now carry deep scars,
so they will react to stories
about incest in a way that
will never be fully rational.
and we cannot blame them;
that'd add insult to injury;
so we have to understand.
deal with it.

there are no easy answers...
these are difficult questions,
with lots of conflicting forces.
deal with it.

there is, however, one thing
you can do that will help you
to better ensure your future,
and that is to get your fans
to come _directly_ to you,
instead of going through
those middlemen retailers...
how many of you are now
offering incentives, so as to
encourage fans to do that?
too few of you, as far as i see.
you need to make it happen.
do that work to _guarantee_
you are not at the mercy of
others who care not for you.

why are you giving amazon
1/3 of your money anyway?

-bowerbird













hope said:
>   We give Amazon 30% because 
>   we know that the people that 
>   have that awesome new Kindle 
>   or Nook or Sony or iPad 
>   aren't going to go look for 
>   "Hope Welsh",  they are going 
>   to go to Amazon, and B&N and 
>   type in "paranormal romance"

those are _amazon_customers_.
so it's only fair that amazon gets
30% of the take if you're gonna
use _their_ customers like that.

i'm talking about _your_fans_.

people who know they like you,
and look specifically for you, yet
buy your book from amazon, so
amazon still takes a 30% cut...

why are you letting that happen?

***

selena said:
>   Bowerbird makes it sound 
>   easier than it is.

if you look back at my comment,
you'll see i specifically called it
"work", so i'm under no illusions
it is "easy".  on the other hand,
though, it's not all that difficult.

if you look back at my comment,
you'll see i suggest incentives...

it's simple to give fans something
a little "extra" for coming direct.
it's a reward for being your fan!
it's "pay" for connecting directly;
make it worth their while to go
out of their way just a little bit.

and no, of course you'll _never_
get as many fans as amazon has.
you'll always have to stay there,
to make use of their customers,
and convert them into your fans.

but paying a 30% surcharge on
sales where you could get 100%,
where your fans would _rather_
have you receive all the money
and _not_ split it with amazon,
well, that's just bad business...

and when, on top of all of that,
you start _complaining_ about
the way that amazon treats you,
well, i hope you will understand
if i don't have much sympathy...

just obtain your independence.

***

asrai said:
>   Most people are too lazy to go 
>   out and search for new fiction.

go shmoe with "most people"...
i'm talking about _your_fans_,
and your not _rewarding_ 'em.

you're the ones being lazy here,
letting amazon do all the work;
then you whine when amazon
protects its business interests,
and it affects you adversely...

that's what you get for being
dependent on someone bigger.

make your fans offers that are
too good for them to refuse...

-bowerbird












selena said:
>   Not necessarily. 
>   You're forgetting about 
>   rankings on Amazon.

that's value that amazon adds...

it's worth something.  might even
be worth the 30% they charge,
when added to everything else
they give.  but now suddenly the
equation isn't so lopsided, is it?

amazon does _a_lot_ to ensure
that its customers return to it...

are you doing as much to ensure
your customers return to you?

that's what you should consider.


>   I do expect a company
>   to treat its customers and 
>   vendors professionally, and 
>   if they don't, those customers 
>   and vendors have every right 
>   to complain.

as i said above, you and i have 
"every right to complain", and
nobody's trying to take it away.

and i would submit that if/when
amazon unshelves books because
some of its customers complain,
that _is_ acting "professionally".

i'd further submit that if/when
they decide that they will _only_
unshelve the specific books that
are receiving complaints, _not_
all books that might be "similar",
so as not to give the complaints
more power than they deserve,
that's also a case where amazon
is acting "professionally", even if
the action displeases some of us
as being "inconsistent", because
the world at large is complex...

like someone wise said, it'd be
like arguing with 13-year-olds.

***

ellen said:
>   As a reader, I don't care 
>   how much the author gets 
>   out of what I pay. 

maybe a reader shouldn't care.
that's why amazon is a success.


>   I want the book I want, 
>   and I want to get it easily 
>   and at a reasonable price.

as do most customers.  well-put.
that's why amazon is a success.


>   I have a Kindle. 
>   I go to Amazon.

yet another example of the ways
amazon adds value for readers...


>   I've passed on free books 
>   from authors who 
>   had them on their websites 
>   in formats I'd have had to 
>   make an effort to convert. 

what a hassle.  amazon solves it.
more added value for customers.


>   I've passed on free books 
>   when it meant going to 
>   some obscure website 
>   and it wasn't a book 
>   I was dying to read anyway.

many readers will pass on that.

so...  you have identified here
a number of author-obstacles.

as a reader/customer, you want
things to be _convenient_...  ok!
that's why amazon is a success.

but none of that applies to fans.
because fans are _dedicated_...
fans will go to extreme lengths.
that's _why_ we call them "fans",
since "fan" is short for "fanatic".

and i'm talking about _fans_...


>   The idea that any indie author 
>   is going to sell more, as many,
>   or close to as many books 
>   on his/her own website 
>   as through Amazon 
>   strikes me as pie in the sky.

well, good, then i am glad i said
you'd never be able to do that...

but if you try, you can sell more
to fans directly, from your site.

because your _fans_ want _you_
to have the money, not amazon.

but i dunno, maybe none of you
_have_ any fans.  what a shame.
all those customers, but no fans.
all those readers, but no fans...


>   As an author, giving Amazon
>   30% for access to their site 
>   strikes me as a rare bargain

that's part of this exercise, is to
get you to understand just that.

and to factor it into bellyaching.

-bowerbird
















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-aaron-patterson.html

aaron said:
>   In the first month 
>   at its new price point, 
>   I sold 102 eBooks.
>   The next month, 250.
>   Then, 340, 550, 700, 
>   850, 900, 1000 and 1200.
>
>   I eventually 
>   readjusted the prices 
>   of both my novels to $2.99. 
>   I expected my sales to drop, 
>   but my numbers went up 
>   instead: I sold 2600. 
>   In December, I sold 3200, and
>   my sales continue to climb.

you see that "numbers went up"
after you raised your prices...

i see a blunder, a _big_ blunder,
a blunder of major proportions.

you had a good december, yes,
where sales "went up" to 2600,
doubling the november number.

had you left your book prices at
the lower level, though, just like
amanda hocking, you might have
seen a december like she had --
where sales rocketed from the
10,000 she had in november to
_100,000_ during december...

oops...

like they say, live and learn...

-bowerbird

p.s.  you _did_ do the right thing,
by raising your price to $2.99,
because that gives a 70% share,
as opposed to just 35% at $.99...
but you did it at the wrong time!
in retrospect, hey, nobody knew
december would show a bump...
everyone will know it next year.










aaron-

crap, i just noticed that i 
got your numbers wrong.

november was when you
raised prices, and your 
november was the 2600 
which doubled sales of 
the month before (1200).

(it takes a bit for a price 
increase to cause its lag;
a decrease works faster.)

in december, your numbers 
only went up by a paltry 25%, 
from 2600 to 3200, indicating
that you robbed yourself of 
momentum, at the very time 
when other authors were
experiencing a big _jump_
in their own momentum...

so your timing was even worse
than i had thought originally...

sorry about that.

oh well, the good news is
amazon is reported to have
ordered 4.5 million chips for
the first quarter of 2012,
so they are expecting that
kindle sales will stay robust,
so you will continue to build,
albeit from a lower level and
with a smaller acceleration...

timing is everything...

-bowerbird

















ellen said:
>   If Aaron had
>   left his prices lower, 
>   maybe he would have 
>   sold more books

maybe?

_maybe?_

are you really trying to tell me
he can sell as many $2.99 books
as $.99 books.  is that what you 
are trying to tell me?  seriously?


>   maybe he would have 
>   sold more books, 
>   maybe he wouldn't have. 
>   It's speculation 
>   either way *shrugs*.

well, the nice thing about
"speculation" is that you can
believe whatever you want...

of course, if you're gonna
believe whatever you want,
there's no need to pay _any_
attention to the real numbers,
is there?


>   But it IS certain he would have 
>   made less per unit sold.

so what?

who cares about "profit per unit"
if the variable cost of production
and distribution is zero?  no one.

if a lower royalty produces more
_profit_ than a higher one, only
clowns and fools take less profit.

(which doesn't mean that it's
not ok to be a clown or a fool,
sometimes, for good reasons.)

and that reminds me, ellen...
didn't you just argue, in another
thread here on this very blog,
that it was worth it to you to
pay amazon its 30% cut because
they made more sales for you,
and thus produced more profit,
in comparison to selling books
on your own site where you'd
keep 100%, but sell far fewer?
yet here you are, in this thread,
making the very opposite point.
what's up with that?

-bowerbird










ellen said:
>   It's counterintuitive, 
>   but it does seem to 
>   sometimes be the case.

believe whatever you want.

and price however you like.

-bowerbird








mike said:
>   My book is up on 
>   Kindle at $4.79 
>   (my publisher's price,
>   not mine) and it's 
>   going absolutely nowhere. 

your publisher is
killing your book.


>   It's currently #274,790 
>   and falling fast.

your publisher has 
killed your book.


>   This is despite 
>   eighteen months 
>   of work on my part 

you are doing c.p.r.
on a dead book.  stop.

write another one 
and self-publish it;
price it at $.99 to 
give a boost to sales
and your flagging 
self-confidence...

then write another,
and self-publish it.
and then another, 
and then another...

then, once you have 
_"enough"_ sales that 
you won't have your 
self-confidence dashed
by a sharp sales decline,
raise your price to $2.99.
(but do not raise the price
in november or december.)

another clear signal that
you can raise your price
is when your current book
starts to show a new life.

notice that i am basically
telling you the same thing
that joe told you when you
asked the question initially.

-bowerbird










"anonymous" said:
>   Just out of curiosity, 
>   is that what you did to 
>   achieve all your success?

nah.  i still give away my art.

i'm an old man, and i have
little need for any money...

of course, if you wanna _own_
my stuff, you'd have to buy it,
and -- as the saying goes --
if you have to ask how much
it costs, you can't afford it...

(6-7 figures, if you must ask;
and don't lowball me, either.)

but the young'uns tell me that
i'm an inspiration and a model,
and they make a ton of money
out there in the "real world",
as _poets_, whoda thunk it?,
so that all makes me happy...

still, i could never compare to
_you_, "anonymous".  _no_one_
has given more to the world
than you, without asking for
any money or credit in return.

all the phrases you've turned!
the songs you have composed!
(some of 'em with your buddy
who's known as "traditional".)

you are prolific and profound.

so stand proud, "anonymous"!
ignore those ignorant people
who label you as a "coward";
they haven't given you credit
for all your accomplishments,
maybe since they don't know
who you are...  still, you can
walk tall among us mortals...

plus you're the most selfless of
_all_ of us, so let me just say
"thank you" for all you've done.
we're all richer because of you,
yet you still labor in... well...
in anonymity.  how ironic, eh?

heck, you were probably the
person who first uttered that
old saying that i quoted above.

now here i am, using it freely,
without even giving it thought,
and you never got paid a cent
in royalties, or even a personal
"thank you", since nobody knows
exactly who you are, do they?

and now you are gracing _us_
with your presence right here.
everyone should be so honored
to witness all your brilliance...
glad i'm one of the lucky ones!

-bowerbird












joe said:
>   I was just talking with 
>   my buddy Blake Crouch, 
>   and we're both pretty 
>   much befuddled by pricing.

um...  earth to joe konrath...
you're making $1200 a _day_.
that is over $400,000 a year.
i think you've got it down pat.


>   On one hand, we're both 
>   considering lowering all 
>   of our ebook prices 
>   (it would be close to 
>   40 of them combined) 
>   to 99 cents. It would 
>   no doubt boost both of 
>   our sales numbers, though 
>   I think we'd take a hit 
>   financially.

i think it would be a bad move.

but not necessarily financially.

i think that'd come out a wash.
much less profit per unit, yes,
but moving _lots_ more units...

plus gaining more fans and
obtaining higher rankings...

plus making your customers
happy due to getting bargains.

so, given all of that, why do
i think it would be a bad move?

because you'd only get 35%,
and that's giving _too_much_
of the overall pie to amazon.

why should _amazon_ make
$1200/day selling your books?

no good reason that i can see.
that would be almost _twice_
what you make.  it's not fair...

i scold authors who do not
give amazon enough credit
for what it does, but i also
think you need to avoid an
imbalance on the other side.

$.90 on a $3 book is a _fair_
cut for amazon to be taking,
good return on its investment.

$.65 on the same transaction
for a $1 book is _too_much_,
and i do not think you should
let amazon take it from you.

if you were brand new and
needed its help, this might
be a slightly different story.

but you've already paid your
dues as an amazon beginner.
(and remember that amazon
only offered up the 70% rate
_after_ apple gave it first.)
you have proven your value
as a partner in its business.
it's time for you to get paid.

if you want to sell books for
a dollar, take 'em off amazon
and sell them on _your_ site;
maybe limit 'em to fans only.

one easy way to do that is to
offer a fan-club membership
-- let's call it, say, $10 -- and
then throw in 10 free books...

wean yourself off middlemen,
don't give them a bigger cut!

-bowerbird











hey, joe, i was thinking...

you're working with amazon,
so you talk to people there
and they might listen to you.

so how about you nudge 'em
into giving a better "royalty"
at the lower price-points?

i would suggest that _50%_
is a fair split on a $.99 book,
as it gives amazon 49 cents,
and 60%/40% author/amazon
is a fair split on a $1.99 book,
as it gives amazon 80 cents...

eventually they will do this
anyway, as they sharpen up
their procedures and lower
their costs, but given the
huge boom we already see,
i'd think they can do it now.

so hey, run it by them, ok?
even if they say "no" initially,
it will give 'em something to
think about, and that's good.

***

mike dennis said:
>   I have more books ready, 
>   but I'm just hearing footsteps 
>   from the experience of 
>   my novel, that is, plunging in 
>   (even at 99 cents) and failing 
>   to break through the glut of 
>   self-pubbed writers out there.
>
>   But I will give it 
>   plenty of thought, I promise.

well, actually, mike, you should
probably stop thinking about it,
and just go _do_ it.

because, believe me, there are
gonna be _10_times_ as many 
self-published writers fighting
for a piece of the big money pie
in 2011 as there were in 2010.

so every day you wait puts you
another day behind _that_ glut.

besides, the reports are pretty
much unanimous so far that
multiple books improves sales,
even of each _individual_ book.

makes sense.  the best customer
is one you've already satisfied...

(joe thinks that it's "shelf-space",
as if this was laundry detergent,
but i say it is repeat-customers.)

-bowerbird












>   Obviously, the trick is 
>   to break out of that 
>   crowded pack. And 
>   that's what I can't get 
>   my arms around.

this isn't some mysterious
set of black boxes that you
are interacting with here...

they are sentient humans,
who will tell you _exactly_
how they decide to buy...

they get recommendations,
they look at bestseller lists,
they read the samples, and
then look at prices, and buy.

so really, it's all pretty simple.

there is no special trick
that will break you out
from the pack because
if there were, everyone
in the pack would use it.

the only thing you can do
is write good books and
give good long samples,
so just by reading them,
people will have made an
"investment" in the books,
which leads them to buy...

then, if they're any good,
people will like 'em, and
come back and buy more.

it's always encouraging to
see when amazon tells you
that "people who bought
book 1 from this author
also bought book 2 from
this same author", because
that means a happy buyer.

so that's where it all starts.

then other recommendations
will begin coming your way,
and your sales will go up,
and maybe you'll hit a few
of those bestseller lists, or
maybe not, but either way,
before you know it, you will
be on an upward sales trend.

and, because e-books are now
taking off, _most_authors_ will
enjoy the nice luxury of trends
that go _up_ for a long while...

even if it doesn't start right off.

so jump in...  the water's fine...

and you've got nothing to lose...

-bowerbird










jason said:
>   But since I don't want 
>   to pay $7.99 each for
>   the rest of the books 
>   in the series I'm going to 
>   pass on the cheap one.

that doesn't surprise me...

i'm leery of the notion that
you can change your prices
willy-nilly, or do the other
pricing tricks that are often
discussed here, _without_
alienating the customer-base.

if -- after carefully reading
your sample -- people decide
to come buy your book and
they find a different price
than the one given earlier,
that can be a bit unsettling.
especially when the price is
more expensive.  but even
if it's cheaper, it's a surprise.
and customers don't generally
like to be "surprised" by stuff.
shifting ground is unpleasant.

if it's a "sale" (i.e., temporary),
then fine, they even feel lucky.

but if it's just because you are
doing price experiments, it can
make 'em feel like a guinea pig.

and  the "strategy" that jason
discusses above feels just a bit
too close to "bait and switch"
for my mind to be comfortable.
maybe some of your potential
customers might feel the same.
even if they don't agree, they
might still opt out, a la jason...

so if your impression is that
you can pull in a lot of readers
at the cheap price, and then
convert them to paying more,
you might be the one who is
in for a surprise...

(besides, shouldn't your fans
and repeat-customers be the
ones who get to pay _less_?
what kind of club do you run?)

***

also, while i'm on the topic of
"experimentation", it's fun to
watch what some of you do,
and how you discuss all of it.

because you make _all_ the
mistakes that are covered in
classes on "scientific theory".

where should i begin?  ...first,
without a "control" condition,
you don't have an experiment.

and even farther, if you do not
assign to conditions randomly,
you can't draw any conclusions.

third, you need to be "blind" to
the experimental conditions...
otherwise, there will certainly be
_huge_ "experimenter effects"...

(wikipedia explains these things.)

but i'd say the thing that's _most_
striking is how quickly you jump
to conclusions.  most of you seem
to realize quite well that there is
a lot of day-to-day variability in
your sales.  one day you sell a lot,
yet the very next day not a lot...

nonetheless, some of you tell us
how you changed your price, as a
test, and got immediate effects,
one way or the other.  odds are,
that was _not_ a real effect, just
the random day-to-day variation.

you were primed to see an effect
-- that's why you did the test --
however, so you "saw" one that
wasn't really there.  this happens
all the time with humans; that's
why scientists had to develop
strict criteria to help avoid it...

besides, even if there _are_ some
short-term effects of  the change,
it's long-term ones that matter...
it can take _months_ for the true
and meaningful effect of a change
in a price to fully  manifest itself.

of course, if ya don't even have a
control condition, ya won't know.

-bowerbird










selena said:
>   And all of you
>   who keep breaking up
>   your lines like
>   you're writing poetry
>   can...

i _am_ writing poetry...        :+)

-bowerbird











joe said:
>   Be nice.

it's ok, joe, "anonymous" is just
having a little fun poking at me.
i can take it. :+)

***

"anonymous" said:
>   We know that.

well, you and i might know it,
but there are some people here
who _didn't_ know it, because
they were asking joe to delete
their duplicate comments, or
just bemoaning the duplicates.

i thought i'd empower them...


>   The question we have_ is_ 
>   whether there a way for us 
>   to delete _ your posts_.

ok, you're doing the emphasis
thing all wrong, so let me teach
you how to do it correctly...

an opening underbar should
have whitespace to its left,
with punctuation excepted...

an closing underbar should
have whitespace to its right,
with punctuation excepted...

all emphasized spaces are
represented by underbars...
(in other words, underbars
are _not_ simple toggles.)

you'll have to learn this if you
want to use my free e-book
authoring-tool formatting app.

you also said "there a way"
instead of "there is a way"...

if you want to throw jabs at me,
you're going to have to step up
your whole act, attention-wise.

or you'll be mincemeat pie...

***

selena said:
>   In my best Crocodile 
>   Dundee voice, 
>   "That's not poetry. 
>   THAT'S poetry." :P

crocodile dundee is funny, but
i stopped listening to people
telling me "that's not poetry"
a very, very, very long time ago.

just like you stopped listening
to people trying to tell you that
"self-publishing isn't publishing"
a very, very, very long time ago.

>   http://www.williamstafford.org/spoems/index.html)

there's some nice work there...
not all to my taste, but i'm glad
you found a poet that you like...

putting the text up as images
is kind of a drag, because one
cannot copy out the words...

which was probably the intent,
but wrongheaded nonetheless.
especially in this day and age of
o.c.r. offered up in the cloud...

i'm also bothered by errors like:
>   in stillness they jostled.
>   the traded meanings while
>   pretending to have only one.

"the traded"? show more care...

>   http://www.williamstafford.org/spoems/pages/wordshappened.html

-bowerbird









lundeen said:
>   I did that last time, 
>   and it showed up that day, 
>   then didn't the next.

been there too.
done that too.       :+)

***

selena said:
>   and of course William Stafford, 
>   who wrote a poem 
>   every single day of his life. 

i write a lot of these comments.
often more than one per day...
sometimes even _much_ more.

have you noticed?        :+)

bukowski wrote about booze...
i write about electronic-books.

but seriously, the poems i write
to be performed for my people,
out loud, on a stage?  i refuse to
write them unless they wake me
up in the middle of the night and
make me get up and write them,
or they will not let me go back
to sleep.  i've learned to cave in.
but that's literally what it takes.
any sooner, i say it ain't ready...

so otherwise, i don't write any.
the world has too many poems
already; don't need no more.    ;+)

-bowerbird






robin said:
>   There is NO WAY you can 
>   substantiate that statement.

pardon me?

my statement, as you quoted it,
pivots around the term "might"...

so i wonder exactly what kind of
"substantiation" you are seeking?

i didn't maintain it _would_ have
happened, i said that it "might"...

are you trying to tell people that
it _could_not_have_happened_,
that it is a sheer impossibility?


>   Unless able to spawn 
>   an equal and identical 
>   alternate reality where 
>   the prices stayed the same 
>   any speculation on whether 
>   his sales would have increased 
>   or stayed the same or lowered 
>   is nothing but opinion.

which means you have nothing 
but "opinion" and "speculation" 
to offer in return.  well and good.

but let's dig just a bit deeper, ok?

because if all we're doing here is
exchanging meaningless opinions,
then it's a big waste of time, not?
everybody already has an opinion,
so they don't need yours or mine.

so let's try and sort this all out...

i'll go find quotes to back it up
if you feel that i need to, but i'd
think i can just say outright that
lots of authors had _dynamite_
sales in the december just past.
it wasn't just amanda hocking...

although let's remind ourselves,
because it really was _shocking_,
that ms. hocking increased her
sales from a _healthy_ 10,000
to a mind-boggling _100,000_
-- a 10-fold increase on a sum
which was quite big to begin! --
so december 2010 was a stunner
just on the basis of _that_ alone.

but it wasn't just ms. hocking...
tales of jumps not just in sales,
but also the _increase_ of sales,
were reported across the board...

and face it, that was no surprise.
the kindle is at a very low price,
and the holiday gift-giving was
upon us.  there was one kindle
under the christmas tree where
i saw presents get unwrapped,
a gift for a 16-year-old girl...
i wouldn't be surprised if any
of you saw one get unwrapped.
i wouldn't be surprised if any
of you actually received one...

so it's not surprising _at_all_
that e-book sales _jumped_
in the last month, not to me,
and probably not you either.

but aaron's chart _leveled_off_
in december.  he'd had a 200%
increase in sales in november,
but managed just a 25% increase
in december.  so, what happened?
why was his december experience
so different from everyone else's?

well, he raised prices, for one.

what else?  nothing i know of...

he was on a great upward trend,
but zapped it with a price-raise.

and yes, that's just "my opinion".

so what's _your_ opinion, robin?

put it out there, so people can
see whose "opinion" they most
resonate with, whose "opinion"
rings their tuning forks of truth.

***

i am continually bewildered and
perplexed by you people who
seem to live in your very own
"equal, identical alternate reality"
where low prices seemingly do
_not_ fuel greater sales volume.

because in _this_ world i live in
-- here on planet earth -- that
is pretty much an iron-clad rule,
according to all our economists,
and amazon is one of the prime
examples (right behind walmart)
that is held up to prove that rule.

-bowerbird















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-lee-goldberg.html

lee said:
>   I make more in one month
>   from Kindle sales than I did 
>   during the two years that the 
>   book was in print in hardcover.

i think that sums it all up nicely.

-bowerbird














jon f. merz said:
>   that's not exactly 
>   putting your money 
>   where your mouth is

you have it all mixed up.

konrath puts his mouth
where his money is, and
that's why writers are so
appreciative of his blog.

who else was willing to
say "there's gold here",
and invite _competition?_

***

jon f. merz said:
>   I'm more than willing 
>   to jump into self-publishing 
>   with both feet, but only when 
>   I see some real measurable 
>   and sustainable results.

we don't have any of that here...

so you will need to go away now.

good thing the traditional guys
are still willing to work with you.

because we sure ain't willing to.

you don't deserve the information
you've been given, and you then
presume to demand "measurable
and sustainable results"?  mosca!

come back in about 10 years, ok?

by then we'll have proof for you.
so you'll "jump in with both feet".

if we need you sooner, we'll call.

don't call us, we'll call you.

thanks.  that is all.  good day.

-bowerbird











bryon quertermous said:
>   authors have been trained 
>   to look for benefits other than 
>   money to keep them going. 
>   Benefits like awards, 
>   peer recognition, 
>   book shelf space, and so on. 
>   Granted, all of these benefits 
>   are disappearing quickly, but 
>   right now, while they're 
>   out there, I still want them. 
>   Even more than money. 
>   And to get those benefits 
>   I need to start with 
>   a traditional deal. 

sounds like you know 
what you want. so go!        :+)

you can come back in 5 years.     ;+)

***

barbra said:
>   I'm just wondering 
>   why you think 
>   agents are still needed. 

without one, you'll get fleeced,
since you don't know which parts
of that "standard contract" are
paragraphs that are _routinely_
crossed out by the good agents.

(those cross-outs are "standard"
too, but they don't tell you that.)

so that's why...  because you are
dealing with corporate crooks...

it's their _job_ to rip you off, and
if you make it _easy_ for them to
do that, they'll just laugh at you,
for being such a fool.

***

joe said:
>   I've been on the fence 
>   about ebook buys before. 
>   I simply download 
>   the free preview.

it's really funny how one person
sees an insurmountable problem,
and the next person just solves it
without giving a second thought.

i won't buy _any_ book without
having read the preview first...
but maybe that's just me...      :+)

***

lee said:
>   It's too early for anyone 
>   to say, especially me, 
>   what the best way is 
>   to launch your writing career 
>   is going to be 
>   in the new publishing world.

you've got an extra "is" in there...

maybe lee is reticent, but
i charted the course of this
revolution a long time ago,
so _i'll_ tell you the best way
to launch your writing career.

write, and write, and write,
and then write some more...

read, and read, and read,
and then read some more...

join some writer groups where
there is a sincere desire to
help each other _improve_,
even at the expense of "feelings".

(run fast, in the other direction,
if a group wants its members
to be "supportive", as that is
a sign that people only want to
have their ass kissed, which is
the kiss of death for honesty,
and honesty is a vital necessity.
"supportive" is the flag word;
if/when you hear that, run!)

and last, but not least, put up
your work for sale on the kindle.
and the other e-bookstores too.
do that as soon as you've written
anything you think is worthwhile.

price it low, to garner attention,
and then _forget_all_about_it_.
don't obsess, or do "marketing".
get your ass back to the desk and
write write write write write...

if/when fans start to show up,
create and nurture a relationship
with 'em.  they're your paycheck,
and don't you ever forget that...

when the other paychecks come,
big ones from the e-bookstores,
buy yourself some champagne
and have yourself a celebration.

live a vibrant life, so you'll have
interesting things to write about.

-bowerbird












carson said:
>   Just wondering what it is 
>   with this _we_ crap

that's _the_royal_we_, carson...
specifically, me and my monkey.


>   and why anyone would 
>   want a character named 
>   Bowerbird to work with them 
>   in the first place. 

not a realistic thing to wish for.
i don't even "work" for myself...
so i'm sure not gonna work for
anybody else, thank you much.
not even my monkey...


>   Have you been appointed 
>   spokesperson for this blog?

i will not run if nominated.
i will not serve if elected...


>   Do you carry some sort of 
>   clout that WE are unaware of?

not that i'm aware of...

i think it's perfectly clear
that i speak only for myself.

and for the children, of
course.  and my monkey.

and the little furry animals
with no voice of their own.

other than that, just for me.


>   I'm thinking not.

isn't it wonderful how
great minds think alike?


>   Amazing Joe hasn't 
>   deleted you by now.

joe was probably _thinking_
what i said out loud, but he
was much too polite to say it.

joe's done enough marketing
that he knows when to zip up
his lip and smile politely and
say "let's discuss it privately".


>   Rock on John F. Merz.

at least i spelled his name right.


>   Rock on John F. Merz.
>   Your opinion is as valid as any.

what kind of "opinion" is it
when someone says, "hey,
you do all the work for me,
and i'll take all the money."


>   Your opinion is as valid as any.

except mine, you forgot to say.
my opinion should be attacked,
because who do i think i am,
anyway?  who appointed me?

but hey, let's ask around, ok?

does anyone have any "real 
measurable and sustainable
results" that will prove that
e-publishing works, to the
satisfaction of jon f. merz?,
to the degree that you will
do all his work and let him
have the money that rolls in?

anyone?  anyone?

bueller?... bueller?...  bueller?...

step right up, folks, because
jon f. merz is a very busy man.
he's got a traditionally-published
novel that just dropped, and is
busy promoting it, as we speak.

ok, we'll see if anyone responds,
carson, but i get the feeling that
nobody here really gives a crap
whether jon f. merz decides to
go into self-publishing or not...

-bowerbird









carson said:
>   I think you need 
>   a reality check, 

i think i have a very firm handle
on the "reality" happening here.
this is all comic relief, carson...
you can laugh _with_ it, or you
can have people laugh _at_ you.


>   because ABSOLUTELY nobody 
>   here gives a crap about 
>   your approval/disapproval.

you seem to be a quick study.
you just showed up, as shown
by the fact that you're spouting
lines that have been discounted
over and over again in the past,
and yet you know what everyone
here thinks...  very remarkable...


>   because ABSOLUTELY nobody 
>   here gives a crap about 
>   your approval/disapproval.

you're sure making 
a lot of loud noise
for someone who 
doesn't give a crap.

all those other people who don't
give a crap whether jon f. merz
self-publishes or not?  can you
hear them making _any_ noise?
no, because they're all so quiet.

-bowerbird








i wrote a comment on editing,
but felt i had to say this first...

one irony is that the "editors"
at big6 houses no longer do
much "editing" at all.  instead,
they do content acquisition,
namely the selection of books
which they think will _sell_...

that's why it's so remarkable
that most of them are young
(i.e., under 30), because you
wouldn't expect that they'd
know much about the market.

and maybe you'd be correct.

because over recent decades, 
the big6 houses have become
increasingly bad at choosing
material that will hold its own.

they still manage to connect,
on occasion, and then market
those hits to the hilt, but the
_average_ number of sales on
the _average_ book has been
decreasing for a long time...

meanwhile, the average _cost_
of the average book has gone
up, and up, and up some more.

that's largely an accounting trick,
so the "losses" on average books
can be used to write off taxes on
the huge profits from the "hits",
but it has had real consequences
on the midlist authors it impacts.

plus when your costs increase
while your sales are decreasing,
your business gets put in a bind.

that's the jam where publishers
find themselves today, and their
reaction is to "let go" personnel,
like those who actually _did_ do
the editing on books-in-progress.

today's freelance editor might've
been doing that same job for a
big6 publishing house last month.

it behooves authors as a group to
befriend these freelance editors.

***

now that that's out of the way...

-bowerbird








thomas said:
>   title growth in the Kindle Store 
>   is much lower than it would be, 
>   if a tsunami were under way.

finally, someone said it.  thanks!

there'll be a tsunami, some day.
but it clearly hasn't happened yet.

too many writers are still simply
unaware of the new possibilities,
and many who _do_ know are
still waiting for some "proof"...

but in the next few years, as the
corporate publishing industry
crumbles into dust, and more
midlist authors are turned loose,
they will turn to their new outlet,
uploading their backlists and their
trunk novels and their new work,
all priced low to get eyeballs...

and top-of-the-line authors will
realize they don't have any need
for publishers any more, so they
will abandon the sinking ship...

and new authors will increasingly
decide to go straight to e-books,
but even the ones who would like
to go traditional will discover that
nobody is now willing to sign 'em,
except at rates that are insulting.

and the number of kindles, ipads,
nooks, and tablet machines will
continue to blossom indefinitely,
so there will be customers too...

there will be a tsunami.  one day.

but it clearly hasn't happened yet.

-bowerbird









if reader "r" buys book "b"
from writer "w", and both
of them end up happy, why
should anyone "a" give a 
crap "c" what carson "c"
thinks about the deal?

-bowerbird















bowerbird is my real name.

no, it's not the name
on my driver's license,
because i haven't done
a change-of-legal-name.

no, it's not the name
on my birth certificate,
but i've never said it was.

the name started out as my
performance poetry name,
back in 1987, but it has
generally come to be used
for everything that i do...

everything.

which is why you've got
a person up above who
"knows me" from the world
of performance poetry,
including listserve posts
that i made a decade ago.

on that listserve, one guy
took a "poison pen-name"
and posted ugly attacks
on me, at the same time
he was making normal
posts under his real name.
but he slipped up when he
accidently revealed himself
by posting one message
in his poison pen persona
from his normal account,
which forced him to admit
he'd been doing it all along.

on the project gutenberg
listserve, one guy got
so incensed by me that
he actually collected my
posts on a "fan" website.

>   http://www.gnutenberg.de/pgtei/0.5/examples/bowerbird/poo.html

he tries to insult me by it,
but his feeble attempt at
negative spin is laughable.

he made the site years back,
but the final upshot is that
_i_was_correct_all_along_...
that guy recently decided
to use an approach that is
exactly like the one that i
had advocated all along...

he didn't come right out
and _admit_ he was wrong,
because he's not big enough,
but his actions make it clear.

so i'm proud of my record.

and i'm proud of who i am.

i'm not trying to "hide"...

i sign my posts because
i _want_ you to know that
they were written by me...

and i'm not trying to hide
in "real life", either...  if
you were to meet me today,
i would introduce myself as
"bowerbird", just like i've
been doing for many years.

i've also told y'all here
my cell -- 310.980.9202 --
and issued an invitation
to buy lunch for anyone
who visits santa monica,
and told people where
i perform most tuesdays
(da poetry lounge at 9pm,
at greenway court theater,
south of melrose and fairfax,
up from famous canter's deli.)

you can save these posts
and check back in 5 years,
and you'll find i am right,
just like i was right on the
project gutenberg listserve,
where i still post regularly,
by the way...

-bowerbird







robin-

you _should_ take the deal.

because we need 
a guinea pig...
or should i say 
"a sacrificial goat"?

i'm glad joe said "naive",
so i didn't have to
introduce the term,
but if you really believe
you can crawl in bed
with these thieves
and come out ahead,
well, robin, you are naive
to the point of gullibility...

those guys have a _lot_
more experience stealing
than you have protecting
yourself from legal thieves.

so you're gonna be fleeced.

that's exactly what we need.
somebody who already has
a high profile and is making
lots and lots of money already,
who tries to get a leg up by
signing up with a corporation.

and then gets fleeced.

and thereby serves as warning.

and who knows?, maybe it will
work out just fine, and you will
have outsmarted the thieves
who got to where they are
because they were able to
outsmart the lesser thieves...

and best of all, you can come
back here and tell people that
i was wrong and don't know shit,
so they should never listen to me.
you and i both know you'd love it.

you'll never know if you don't try.

so give it a try, robin...

give it a try.

-bowerbird




robin said:
>   I plan on standing 
>   on their shoulders 
>   and be a bit higher 
>   than I am now.

i don't know what publisher
made you the offer, but i do
know that none of those people 
are comfortable at all being the 
"shoulders" that someone else
"stands on".  if you make it work,
more power to you, sister...

if not, the message will be clear
to everyone about these sharks.

but all of that is assuming you
actually go through with a deal.
from what you say, i doubt it...

for instance, you seem to think
you can continue self-publishing.
they'll want you to stop, even if
only temporarily, because they
usually do non-compete clauses.

you seem to think they would
revert any rights to you quickly,
but i'd say there's little chance.

you seem to think you'll benefit
from their marketing, when they
are likely thinking that they will
benefit from _your_ past work.

you seem willing to trade money
for the "legitimacy" gained from
being "published", and they will
take advantage of that fact, but
i'm not sure you'll willingly trade
as much money as they demand.

you're counting on your fans, but
fans who were very happy to aid
a writer-as-individual might turn
quickly on a cog-in-corporation,
especially on e-books that cost
$7.99 or $11.99.  and the calls of
"sell-out" might haunt you even
if you "return" to self-publishing.

but hey, nonetheless, i still think
that you should take the deal!

either way, someone will have
their predictions proven correct.

-bowerbird








whoa.

i just walked away 
from the computer
for a minute, and 
it flashed on me...

first, what if this publisher 
_does_ give robin all of
the things that she wants?

well, then take the deal, 
i guess...

but i cannot see _any_ 
big6 publisher making
such a one-sided deal...

they are used to the 
one-sidedness being 
in _their_own_ favor...

...unless...

then it hit me.

it might be a "detour" play.

the most likely scenario
is that a movie studio is
thinking of doing a film
based on sullivan's books.

so they would then go to a
publisher that is owned by
the same parent corporation,
to have them sign the books.

then later, when the movie deal
gets made, the terms are friendly
to the studio, _and_ the publisher
walks away with 50% of the gross.
pretty sweet, considering that
they knew it was a sure thing.

behind-the-curtain cooperation
like this is very common, and
is a good way to ensure that
bribe money stays in-family...

so watch every detail in the
contract, robin, because the
one detail that's out of line
is the one that they plan to
take advantage of you with.

they'll be willing to throw you
all the bones you want, just so
they get the thing they want...

-bowerbird







robin said:
>   bowerbird - you seem to 
>   expect "the worst in people" 

that's not true.  not true at all.

people have to _earn_ that!

but yes, most of the thieves
operating inside corporations
using legal (and illegal) means
to steal from creative artists
have more than earned it...
they've risen to the very top!


>   they are either 
>   incompetent or evil 
>   (probably both 
>   in your mind). 

evil people who are _also_
incompetent are humorous.

but the evil people who _are_
competent are very dangerous.

then again, if you and michael
ran an advertising agency, you
might _be_ those people!      ;+)


>   I think most people 
>   in publishing LOVE books. 

the people doing the grunt work,
for grunt pay, are in publishing
because they _love_ books, yes.

corporate asses who _own_ the
publishing houses, because they
bought them back in the era of
mergers & acquisitions, are just
greedy evil entities, and the only
thing _they_ love is _money_...

guess who writes the contracts?

if you crawl in that snake-pit
and expect to be dealing with
people who "love books", then
you are gonna get snake-bit...

-bowerbird









robin said:
>   Conspiracy Theories

oh dear.

you really think i'm 
making this all up,
don't you?  oh well, 
sorry, i did my best.

i _do_ believe that we
need a guinea pig, and
if you make it work, i'll
be the first one here to
say that i was wrong...

i would _like_ to be wrong.

but i know i'm not wrong...
way too many people have
trod this path before you.

and if i _am_ wrong, then
we truly have a new day...

and the best advice for
such a new day is that
if you want to sign with
the big6, you'd _better_
do what the sullivans did,
and make your reputation
online beforehand, so you
gather up enough power
that you can _negotiate_...

-bowerbird











hey, the thieves that operate
in the content corporations
don't compare to the bankers.

content corporation thieves
steal _millions_ of dollars...
hundreds of millions cumulative.

the bankers steal _billions_...
which cumulate to _trillions_.

oh, gee, is my cynicism showing?

just another "conspiracy theory"?

ok, now tell me, where did y'all
hide _my_ rose-colored glasses?

-bowerbird







sorry for not responding sooner,
but it _was_ saturday night...

i was starting to wonder maybe
i'm the only one living in a world
where it's not so uncommon for
publishers to take advantage of
authors.  maybe just joe and me.

***

first, robin, i do _not_ hope that
you will "fall flat on your face"...
as i said, i hope that i'm wrong,
and i hope you succeed, wildly...

authors can love their publisher.
i hope your husband is like that.

indeed, i hope the whole thing
is something that works for you.

it's good for everyone when
someone will be a guinea pig.
we get to see what stuff works,
without paying a price ourself.

and if it does work for you,
it'll be a great success-story
for the self-publishing arena.

so it's all-win for my purposes.

***

robin said:
>   @bowerbird - 
>   with due respect 
>   I don't think you will 
>   admit you were wrong

oh, don't be silly, robin...

don't you think i fully realize
my biggest flaw is that i am
a pompous smug smart-ass
know-it-all?  the _best_ thing
i can do to make myself more
likeable is to admit i'm wrong.
it makes me seem _human_...
so i always _jump_ at chances
to do just that.  the problem is
that i am wrong so very rarely,
and i'm too stupid and stubborn
to just _pretend_ i was wrong...


>   you didn't with the 
>   $0.99 price point that 
>   Moses raised with you 
>   regarding Michael's books.

link to the specific comment.


>   But you still contend that 
>   ebooks need to move 
>   to $0.99 - or did I 
>   misunderstand your point 
>   on this?

you completely misunderstand.

first, i don't think any prices
_need_to_move_ to anything.

i have no such agenda; indeed
no reason to care about prices.

and i don't believe they'd care
even if i _did_ have an agenda.
or if you did, or anybody else.

prices "move" because of the
dynamics of the marketplace.

this particular marketplace
will be characterized by an
emerging "surplus" of supply,
because thousands of writers
will turn up, all with zero costs
(except for the _sunk_ cost
of having written the book),
and pricing as their only tool
to get the attention they want.

so yes, i think it's _inevitable_
that the prices will go down...

i think it would be _stupid_ to
think anything else will happen.

i mean, seriously, if you can
give me a counterargument,
_any_ one at all, please do...

because i say it is _inevitable._

but i, myself, _me,_ personally, 
don't give a rat's ass either way.

what _i_ want, most of all, is
for writers to _make_money_.

and as far as i can see, so far,
low prices mean bigger profit.
and more fans.  a bigger pie...

but again, i don't really care.
if a writer wants to price stuff
at a higher level, and give up
some sales, fine!  go ahead!

it's probably also important to
point out that i do _not_ think
profit is the only consideration.

for instance, here's a comment
where i told amanda hocking
she should _raise_her_prices_
from $.99 to $2.99, because
she could get a higher royalty:

>   http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/12/bestseller-shift.html?showComment=1292048061314#c8968083385092778490

i also advised joe similarly:

>   http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-aaron-patterson.html?showComment=1295334325369#c3289033903940970361

i gave this advice because i
firmly believe that it is unfair
when amazon takes a 65% cut
on a $.99 e-book transaction.

if a writer is well-established,
the writer gives up too much.

(i think writers who are _not_
well-established also give up
too much on that $.99 e-book,
but i understand that for them,
gaining audience counts more.)

so yes, you do misunderstand
my position.  but you are likely
not the only one, so i appreciate
the chance to explain it to you.

-bowerbird








robin said:
>   I put my money 
>   where my mouth is and
>   did a test taking Michael's 
>   The Crown Conspiracy 
>   from $4.95 to $0.99 and 
>   I'm losing $9,670 a month
>   so it's going back to $4.95

last thing first...

i'm positive you didn't _lose_
money, let alone "$9,670"...
maybe you didn't make money
you had predicted, _but_ that's
not "losing" money, unless you
count chickens before hatching.
a certainty about entitlement is
lurking there that is troubling...

but putting that aside...

***

remember when i discussed
doing wonky experiments?
specifically, how this was
a mistake y'all are making?

dropping a price from $5 to $1
is a tremendously unwise act,
one that i'd _never_ advise...

let's start with a simple quote:
"every book has its audience."
(derived from ranganathan.)

that audience is willing to pay
a certain price for that book...
it has a demand-curve which
shows its desire for the book.

to assess the curve, explore it
in a smooth manner; do _not_
jump wildly from place to place.

dropping a price _five-fold_,
from up high to rock-bottom,
is a very wild jump.

the most you should increase
a price is to _double_ it, and
the most you should decrease
a price is to cut it in _half_...

and that's if you wanna see
the most _dramatic_ effect.

also be aware you're trying to
plot a _curve_, not a _line_.
you need _multiple_ points.

so smaller changes are good,
and you have to do a few...

moreover, as i said earlier,
the _long-term_ effects of a
change are more meaningful
than the short-term ones...

if you jerk around a price,
all you are going to do is to
piss off and confuse buyers.

now, if you feel you _must_
make a short-term change,
make it absolutely clear to
your audience what it is...
call it a "sale", and "for a
limited time only". that is
language they understand;
you won't undermine yourself
looking like you price wildly.

but again, it's best just not to
do short-term price-changes.
see the darn thing through...

i have other concerns too.

robin's book is in a series --
it's the _intro_ for the series.
but the other ones are $4.95,
so having this one at just $.99
makes it seem an anomaly...

there's no justification of it as
"a special introductory price".
so it seems out-of-place, like
bad stock they wanna dump.

also, we've already heard
one person say they resist a
low-priced intro to a series
when the subsequent books
cost a bunch more, so that
might be happening here.

so no, i'm not so sure that
_one_ $.99 book amongst
a _catalog_ of $4.95 books
will sell well.  especially if
-- as robin says she did --
you have engineered its
success on _positioning_...

robin said her books link
to others priced similarly,
so they have an _audience_ 
used to paying more, and
perhaps leery of low price.

with such an audience, you
might not get a sales jump
by dropping your price at all.

you might get a _drop_ if 
you price it out of its range,
i.e., sever it from its audience.

(robin did get such a drop,
but that was short-term;
i'm talking long-term, so it
doesn't count as evidence.)

***

i want to ensure that
nobody thinks i'd advise
such a drastic action as
dropping a $4.95 price
that customers are paying
down to a bargain $.99.
that's suicide...

this is not a change from
what i said before.  look:
>   http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/09/ebook-pricing.html

you'll see i advised that
you drop a price in _half_,
and see what happens...
if the sales don't _triple_
you should raise it back,
as you found the "true price",
the one that resonates with
the _audience_ for the book.

-bowerbird










robin, i'd really like to 
see you take this deal.

the paper-book arena
is crumbling fast, but
when borders goes down,
it will give barnes&noble
breathing room, as the
only game in town, so i'd
expect them to last for
another 2 years at least,
which means you'll have
plenty of time to milk it,
given that accelerated
timetable you mentioned.

plus you _seem_ to have
protected your interests
adequately well (we'll see), 
and i'd be curious to learn
how this all turns out...       :+)

some stories _do_ have
happy endings, they do.

and face it, if you play
texas hold-em, then
i _know_ you want to
at least see the flop...      ;+)

-bowerbird






tony said:
>   Why is everyone 
>   getting mad at Bowerbird?
>   The guy is obviously retarded. 
>   Let him post his idiotic comments 
>   then go back to eating his own snot. 
>   It's his life, and you don't have to 
>   read his posts.


tony, thanks so much for your
kind and thoughtful support... :+)

-bowerbird







>   Most importantly, you seem 
>   to understand that this is 
>   a business transaction, 
>   nothing more or less
...
>   The fact remains, if you 
>   go into a business transaction 
>   with your eyes open, armed 
>   with the knowledge necessary 
>   to make good, sound 
>   business decisions

um... wrong...

the one thing that this deal is
_not_ is "a business transaction".

in a "business transaction",
both sides expect to profit.

robin has said, flat out, that
she doesn't care about cash.

she expects to make _less_
from this deal than she could
by pursuing the other path.

she's willing to do it because
there might be other payoffs,
some of them non-monetary,
others with a very uncertain
-- but perhaps lucrative --
monetary value.  it's a risk.
a risk of near-certain cash for
uncertain payoffs that might
(or might not) be of value...

so this is a _gamble_...

not a "business transaction".

robin is going for three things.

the first is the "legitimacy" of
being "a published author"...
michael will get this benefit
just as soon as they sign, so
this is the _certain_ payoff.
it's mostly an _ego-stroke_,
but robin-as-marketeer will
be able to leverage the label,
so it has _some_ cash value.
but how much is fairly unclear.
the absence of the label hasn't
seemed to hurt michael so far.
like i said, this is an ego-stroke.
there's nothin' wrong with that.
egos need stroking occasionally,
and if cash has lost its zest...

robin's second target is having
michael's books in bookstores.
this is also an ego-stroke, but
it's one that could potentially
have a good cash payoff too.
there are obviously still people
who buy books who do _not_
have e-readers, lots of them,
and it'll be interesting to see
how many books michael can
sell to this market-segment.
seth godin has wondered if
all heavy book buyers have
turned to e-readers, so that
the only paper-book buyers
that are left are the people
who only buy a book or two
a year, in which case michael
won't receive a big bump...
but there is also the flip side,
where people who already
bought the e-book will have
loved it so much that they
want a hard-print copy too.
it works for cory doctorow...
so, it's an empirical question.

robin's third target is a hope of
hitting the new york times list,
or, more generally, world fame.
that's the marketeer in her...
the thought of slapping the slug
"n.y. times bestselling author"
on all of michael's books from
now until the end of time will
make any p.r. person salivate.
(the _real_ value of that slug
might not be all that high, but
try telling that to a p.r. hack.)
yes, it's a long-shot, and robin
knows that, but she's willing to
pay the money for the chance.

if they come in, these payoffs
can make this "a good gamble".
and as robin is willing to put up
the cash for the bet, good luck!

but the uncertainties involved
mean it's downright silly to call
this "a business transaction"...

-bowerbird


















http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2010/12/a_defense_of_pagination.html

cata said:
>   If you prefer the screenful-at-a-time paging, 
>   then all you need to do is hit Page Up or Page Down 
>   on your keyboard (or include a gesture/button/glyph to 
>   do the same on your reading device.) I do so frequently.

the problem, as werner notes, is that the "page cutting"
is very "crude".  there is usually a line or two (or three)
that is redundant, and it's often inconsistent how many,
so that the eyes have to scroll the text to find their place.
this is the type of mental energy that inhibits reading...

worst is when _half_ a line (top or bottom) is displayed.

and of course the problem gets multiplied -- severely --
when it is _pictures_ that are chopped in half at a break.

otherwise, yeah, page-up/page-down work just _dandy_!       ;+)

***

bill said:
>   One devices with keyboards, don't most people 
>   just scroll a whole screen by tapping the space-bar?

"most people" don't even know that command works, bill.

including, i would guess, cata up above, who otherwise
would've mentioned it when discussing the same thing...

besides, this command also does a sloppy "cutting job"...

***

marc said:
>   This has the advantages of pages, but makes more sense 
>   conceptually in that the book is simply one long column 
>   of text instead of a mixture of multiple horizontal columns 
>   arranged in z-space which most eReaders use.

i've never considered pagination to be _anything_but_
the chopping up of "one long column of text", so i'm
not sure i see what the conceptual revolution is here...

but i'll take a look at it, and see what i think...

(or i guess i won't, because openmargin isn't open yet.
but it appears to be quite similar to bookglutton.com.)

***

kenneth said:
>   Pagination actually has two functions in online books -- 
>   one is to help keep the page and the second is to
>   enable the reader of an ebook to communicate better 
>   with the reader of a printed copy. I think the second 
>   is actually more important. If the ebook reader doesn't 
>   have page numbers, then it's very difficult to communicate 
>   the location in the book with a person reading a printed version. 

gosh, i'm glad the topic finally came around to something important.
these are the "pagination" issues that i thought were going to be
discussed when i had initially read the heading for this blog-post.

it never even _occurred_ to me that the relatively minor issue of
pagination in e-book viewer-programs would be the _actual_ topic,
since i thought that issue had been decided way back decades ago.
(face it, bob, you _did_ decide that issue way back decades ago.)

i'm also chagrined to observe that, after a year of thinking about it,
this is the best that joseph pearson could come up with?  sincerely?

i mean, monocle is a nice piece of work, so i would have expected
that its programmer would exercise thought at a much deeper level.

so let me come directly to the sore spot:  yes, we _should_ actually
implement both modes in our viewer-app programs, so that the
end-user can choose the one that they want.  and no, that's _not_
because we, as programmers, are incapable of deciding which one
is better.  pagination is _clearly_ better.  but that doesn't mean that
it's better in _every_ situation, for _every_ user, on every _book_.

we give end-users _options_ because these other situations exist,
and because we aren't some fascist control-freaks who insist that
_we_ make all of the decisions and end-users just do as we say...

we give end-users options so they can do what they want to do,
even if it's _not_ the "best" thing, the most optimal, or whatever.

***

but now let's get back to the points that kenneth is making...

we offer page-numbers in our e-books so that _communication_
can be enabled between people using e-books and paper-books.

to go directly to the point, every one of our e-books must be able to
assume the pagination of the "canonical" printed version of the book.

i'm sure someone will want to argue with me about this...  save it.
i'm not interested.  i've thought about it for decades, and i _know_
i'm right about this issue.  eventually everyone will agree with me.

because the alternative is to sever ourselves from print being useful,
and that's a sacrifice that we have no reason or willingness to make.


>   Citation also becomes much more difficult.

citation is probably our most important means of "communication",
so yes, this is true by definition.

but there's something more important underlying "citation" as well,
and that's that our _legacy_ of print uses citation-by-page-number.

when we digitize an old book, all of its pointers are _page-numbers_.
we have to face the facts that we don't even have enough money to
_correct_the_ocr_ when we digitize these old books, so we sure don't
have enough money to convert all the page-number citations to links.
so it's a cold hard necessity that we'll have to keep the page-numbers.


>   Since at least 80% of book sales are still printed versions, if 
>   people are going to discuss book, the page number remains crucial.

even when books are printed only on occasion, print-on-demand,
and never in large runs anymore -- that is, it's all "born digital" --
page-numbers will remain vital.  if we don't have page-numbers,
we'll have to invent another kind of _pointing_mechanism_, and
we'll all have to agree on it, which probably won't _ever_ happen,
so we just need to stick to page-numbers.  even for born-digital,
with a paginated copy as "the canonical version" posted online...


>   at our book site, www.libertary.com, we present each chapter 
>   as a scrollable web page, but we mark the pages within the chapter 
>   by fairly unobtrusive dotted lines. (Libertary is an experimental new 
>   approach to publishing with about 40 books available to read free

that's one way to do it.  i'll have to look at it to see what i think of it...

ok, back later, after having looked at one book there at libertary.com,
"how we got here" by andy kessler, and now i'm confused, kenneth...

first of all, as you noted, you break the long webpage into segments.
we can call them "pages" if you like, except you have missed the part
about a mechanism in the viewer-program which allows the reader to
easily move from page to page.  i said up above this was the "minor"
interpretation of this post's heading, but i didn't mean by that that it's
_unimportant_.  it's very important, so much so that it is _obvious_,
yet your implementation doesn't include any pagination mechanism...

i suggest that you look at the pagination methods on ffffound.com...
they allow users to press "j" for the next photo, "k" for the previous,
which means each photo comes up nicely positioned, with none of the
irritation that comes from having to look at a photo that's been split...

"h" also allows you to go to the top of the page, "l" goes to the bottom,
unless you're already at the bottom, when it goes to the next webpage.
("h" will also take you to the previous page if you're already at the top.)

indeed, the "paging" methods found at ffffound.com are likely the best
example you can find showing the superiority of paging over scrolling.

and joseph pearson will be enlightened to see the two methods are
co-existent on the same webpage, so the user can choose either...

so now, back to libertary.com...  so kenneth said straight up that he
feels the second reason for pagination is the important one, where
pagination serves as the _synchronization_mechanism_ between
the electronic version of the book and the printed version of it...

but in comparing the digital version of kessler's "how we got here"
at libertary.com with the printed version(s) being sold at amazon,
i found the pagination breaks _differed_.  so what gives, kenneth?

i've put up some public-domain books that were digitized.  like this:
>   http://z-m-l.com/go/myant/myantp123.html

this is how _i_ think the synchronization should be done...

-bowerbird















http://craigmod.com/satellite/long_road

simpler is better.  so go look at markdown.
and then consider the argument that .html is
little more than an unnecessary middleman.
then you will have arrived at something simpler.

-bowerbird





craig said:
>   There are few things online that have 
>   survived the past decade, but 
>   A List Apart is one of them. 
>   Originally registered on May 7th, 1988

um, i doubt it.  _highly_ unlikely.  look again.     ;+)

-bowerbird








craig-

i might have understood why you
deleted my recent comment _if_
you had corrected your error, but
since it still remains, i'm perplexed.

-bowerbird



















http://www.alistapart.com/comments/a-simpler-page

i'm glad people are not just
swallowing this article whole
as "the accepted word", but
rather challenging every bit...

and i'm glad you're big enough,
craig, to roll with the punches...

there's a lot of stuff wrong here
-- a lot -- so much that i am
not even going to start in on it,
i'll just hope that your openness
to feedback and your commitment
to thinking about this topic will
-- in the long run -- steer you
to a much better formulation...

-bowerbird












http://www.evilgeniuschronicles.org/wordpress/2011/01/12/ebook-pricing-vs-revenue

ok, i see joe already got here.  good.

congratulations on being one of the
first people to bring in the concept
of "elasticity", which is a crucial one.

many publishers have a _fatalistic_
attitude about the number of units
they will move, that it is completely
static, that it is completely inelastic,
such that any change in their price
means equivalent change in profits.

you'd think that these corporations
would be economically savvy enough 
to understand a price-demand curve.

but evidently not.

fine.  let the individual authors take
all the money at the low-price end.

joe likely now has more data, from
a lot more authors, you can graph.

-bowerbird

















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-jeremy-robinson.html

linda said:
>   Granted my prices are higher, 
>   but changing price hasn't had 
>   any discernible effect on sales. 

your $6 e-book
is dead on arrival.

lower your price 
and _leave_ it low.

temporary price-cuts
will not be effective.

***

sth said:
>   How do you sell 1000 books 
>   in the first month with 
>   a pen name that has 
>   no track record?

jeremy tells of a big campaign.

and there's a matter of quality.

not discounting any of that, but
there's a degree of luck involved
with such a quick, viral uptake...

be patient.

-bowerbird










mike dennis said:
>   Other commenters keep
>   writing it off to "luck", but 
>   I refuse to believe that luck 
>   is what made you successful.

don't get it mixed up.

luck is _not_ what made
jeremy successful, but
luck _might_ be why he
got more sales under his
no-reputation pen-name
than under his "real" name.

why do some youtube videos
go viral with millions of views,
while others enjoy far fewer?
nobody really knows, but
luck is certainly involved...

the same with anything else
that goes "viral" in cyberspace:
it just happened to impact the
right people at the right time,
who told their friends, who...

so that's not something that
you can expect to bottle up,
for release at opportune times.

which is why you shouldn't
feel bad if it doesn't happen.

***

joe, i'd think you should add
to your recipe of ingredients
"a generous preview sample".

i think it's already important,
but the preview will come to
be increasingly crucial to sales.

if amazon won't let you give
a long-enough sample, put one
up on your website.  it is vital!

***

catana said:
>   Mine includes living 
>   close to the poverty line.

christy pinheiro will vouch that
i used to do battle against the
self-publishers who insisted
that one had to transform into
a business to make money from
self-publishing, by spending
all kinds of money up-front...

the very thing that is _most_
appealing about self-publishing
in electronic form is that you can
do it with zero up-front money...

that means you can self-publish
even if you live at poverty-level.
_that_ is the real "magic", folks...

is it better if you can hire people
to do the cover art, and make
video trailers, and all that rot?
sure...  but it's not _necessary_.

be patient.  if your book is good,
word-of-mouth will do its magic.
it might take a while.  could take
a _very_ long time.  but you ain't
goin' nowhere, so it don't matter.

***

joe, about printing hardcovers...

it depends on whether you want
to handle distribution yourself,
or hand that over to someone...

if you hand it over, might as well
use l.s.i. (or createspace, since i
saw you blurbed them recently,
assuming they do hardcovers.)

but if _you_ handle distribution,
i'd suggest a chicago printer...
physical deals benefit from the
utility of interacting with a local.

plus p.o.d. can't match the ways
a printer can make quality books,
which you need for a $40 product.

an ability to pick paper you love,
actually feel a sample hardback,
_touch_ examples of their work --
these things will transform you,
the same way you felt that day
you first picked up a hard-copy
of your book from a publisher...

plus you'll get lower cost to boot.

(and some chicago printers are
big enough that they _will_ do
distribution too, if you pay 'em.)

-bowerbird








selena said:
>   I think of it more 
>   as an "x-factor." 
>   Some writers have it. 
>   Some books have it. 
>   Some viral videos have it. 
>   It's hard to pin down 
>   or say what "X" is... but 
>   we all recognize it 
>   when we see it.

you mix up luck and talent,
zeitgeist and other stuff,
and then put an "x" on it?
i'm not sure what good 
_that_ will do anybody...

maybe i'll tease that apart
later on, but for right now,
what strikes me here is that
-- acknowledging the value
of showing good models --
this focus on the people who 
are _selling_big_ is just the
reinvention of the corporate
preoccupation with the "hit"
and the "blockbuster".

the tyranny of mass popularity
is no less boring simply because
it's adopted by artists ourselves
and not enforced by middlemen
or the corporate gatekeepers...

for me, the miracle of the net
is that artists who are _niche_
-- daring, risky, and individual --
can now easily find and nurture
their audience, and can also be
sustained by that audience, both 
_financially_ and _artistically_.

if you can find 300 people who
_love_ your work, or 3,000 who
like it very much, or 30,000 who
like it a lot, or 300,000 who
like it enough to toss you $1
once a year, or a combination
of all of these, it's a _big_deal._

chasing _fame_ is the old way.
the new is _artistic_integrity_.
the new is fun experimentation.
the new is _being_yourself_...
the new is _self-sustaining_...

dare to spit in the face
of popularity and fame;
make up your own game.

-bowerbird









joseph, excellent questions!

let's see what people say...

-bowerbird








james said:
>   I suspect that 
>   the last great impact 
>   the Big 6 have on publishing, 
>   before most of them collapse, 
>   will be their influence on 
>   the development of a coherent 
>   and useful e-book format. 
>   Ironic, that.

it would be ironic, if it happened.
heck, it would be flabbergasting.

but it ain't _gonna_ happen...

it was the corporate publishers
-- the big 60, and yes i said 60 --
who developed the .epub format,
and the progenitor before, o.e.b.

in both cases, they were clueless.

in a nutshell, they just don't grok
electronic books, so they listen to
the technocrats, who -- like _all_
bureaucrats -- love complexity, as
it ensures 'em their job security...

it didn't help that the publishers
asked for d.r.m.;  when the mark
_requests_ snake oil, you know
the time is ripe to rob 'em blind.

and when it ended up that .epub
was difficult to create, it was ok,
because the big publishers didn't
mind raising the cost of entry for
little guys to compete with them.

and when it ended up that .epub
didn't work too well, that was ok,
because the big publishers didn't
want e-books to be successful...

and when it ended up that .epub
was reliving the nightmare of the
"browser incompatibilities" which
we'd suffered back in the 1990s,
that was ok too, because the big
publishers wanted to stall out the
revolution killing their business...

and when it ended up that .epub
and its d.r.m. made customers
unhappy when it caused trouble,
well, um, gee, whatcha gonna do?

and now the big publishers are
struggling for their lives, so they
are in no position to think about
something like a _file-format_,
nor are they likely to agree on it.

not that they haven't thrown a
big bunch of cash at the issue.
they've supported development
of a number of "new" formats,
from blio to clio to iceberg to
who knows what they got goin'.

but all the efforts are hamstrung
by the same difficulties, namely
that they don't grok e-books,
don't really want 'em to work,
are looking for a costly solution,
and are begging to have d.r.m.

it's also the case that the format
is a trivial part of the equation...
what's important is the program
that _displays_ the e-book, _not_
the format in which it is stored...

also of great importance is the
_authoring-tool_ creating a file.

the big60 (a.k.a., the i.d.p.f.)
made a critical mistake when it
failed to provide the world with
free and open-source programs
for authoring and viewing .epub.

such "reference implementations"
are necessary to build a standard,
at least if you want it to _work_.

but you have to want it to work.

-bowerbird











azarimba said:
>   You never went to 
>   parochial school 
>   back in the bad old days 
>   when the teachers 
>   photocopied the pages 
>   for working, and 
>   passed them out 
>   to the whole class.

when the kindle was announced,
one guy boasted -- in advance! --
he could crack its d.r.m. within
_a_mere_2_minutes_ of receiving 
and setting up his hardware unit.

and he collected on that bet,
too, by taking his kindle and
laying it on a xerox machine
and clicking the "copy" button.

out came a crisp and clear copy 
of the kindle displaying its page,
with text equally crisp and clear.

copy "protection" _vanquished_,
just like that.  tada.  dirt simple.

try it yourself; you'll be amazed...
it really makes a crisp clear copy.

-bowerbird








verilees said:
>   Use the Kindle for pc, 
>   hit screen print. 
>   Paste clipboard contents 
>   to notepad or any other 
>   text editor and print out

screen-print will work great
if you're doing a page or two.

i also wrote a screen-capture
tool that grabs a _portion_ of 
the screen -- just the text --
and saves _that_, eliminating
the need for laborious cleanup.

i even have the tool click the 
"next page" button, alternating 
with the screen-cap, so i just 
have to set it up to start, and
it will collect the entire book 
in one automatic operation...

once you have grabbed all of
the screen-caps, you do o.c.r.,
which converts those images
to raw, editable, digital text...

if i can do it, so can "pirates".
your _defense_ is a low price.

seriously, if your customers
are buying your books just to
make paper copies of forms
and such, you should package
up all those forms into a file
and use it as_ advertising_...
saving them the hard work
of doing all of that _clipping_
will endear you to them and
they'll buy the book as a way
to _thank_ you, figuring that
the interstitial text is worth it.

-bowerbird














joseph said:
>   Is this is all just a bubble, 
>   and if so, when will it burst? 

this is a great question.

but maybe not for the reasons
you might think of, right off...

it'd be easy to interact with
the question as it was asked.

you hear answers being framed
before the question even echos:

"in some ways, yes, it _is_ a
bubble, because blah blah..."

"on the other hand, we can
continue to blah blah blah..."

"some people have observed
that blah blah blah blah, but
there is also blah blah blah..."

it's a great way to go through
a long laundry list of variables
-- all of 'em very fascinating --
on whether sales numbers will
increase, stabilize, or decrease.

so it's an interesting exercise...

still, to think in those terms is
to miss something here that is
far more profound and deep...

this is a pure revolution here.
we have crossed the rubicon.
tomorrow will be different --
completely -- than yesterday.

what has happened here is that
you have fallen upon something
or -- let us not be _ignorant_ or
unappreciative of the benefactor
-- _amazon_ has _handed_you_
a key to solving a mystery that
has perplexed us in cyberspace.

i will put it in a very crass way,
to make it easiest to understand:

you found a way to _monetize._

blogging was an early movement
along many of the same lines --
namely, artistic self-expression
via this new communication tool
that let _you_ speak to the world
-- but the vexing question was
"how can i make money at this?"

nobody really figured out a way.

schemes were tried, but no one
could make any of them _work._

but that is all changed now.

you guys, authors self-publishing
the digital product of e-books,
have made it work, quite well!,
thanks to a boost from amazon...

you are now "monetizing"...

(and, my word, are you _ever_!)

the secret -- as many of us knew
all along -- is to collect a _small_
amount of money from a _large_
-- very large -- number of people.

amazon is the key here, because
it put together the large number
of customers, _plus_ it was the
mechanism for collecting money.

you have now demonstrated that
it's possible for artists to connect
directly with fans, and live on the
proceeds from that connection...

or, at least, to be well-paid for a
hobby, which is more than most
people can say about their hobby.

it might not happen right away,
lord this has all come so slow!,
but other artists _will_ pick up
on what you've done, and find
their own way to do the same...

so, to answer the question posed,
it doesn't matter if it is a bubble
or not, because the world is now
fundamentally altered, and it will
_never_ be the way it used to be.

so this is huge.  this is immense.

do not underestimate this...

this is the beginning of the shift
that empowers artists worldwide,
thus shaking the earth to its core.

imagine a world where the artists
are in charge, and the greedsters
are the ones with hat-in-hand,
begging for some spare change.

this is absolutely staggering...

you will soon come to realize that
no matter how big the cash gets,
it is one of the smallest parts of
this entire equation...  seriously...

you are the lead artists riding the
event horizon of massive change.

welcome to the new, my friends.
might wanna spruce up the place
before everybody else gets here,
because it's gonna be a big party.

-bowerbird











http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/time-investment.html

gniz said:
>   THE SAME WILL HAPPEN 
>   WITH BOOKS AND BOOKSTORES.

let us be more precise...

chain bookstores will disappear.
totally and completely.  goodbye.

dovetailing that change will be
a downfall of publishing houses.
(but they won't disappear, since
they still have the asset of their
intellectual property backlists,
exactly like the m.g.m. catalog
which is re-sold every so often.)

independent bookstores
will _largely_ disappear,
but there will always be
_specialized_ shops and
_used_ bookstores and
_rare-and-antiquarian_
dealers with storefronts.

physical objects, especially
ones with high collectibility,
will always manifest in stores.

so that's the story with stores.

_books_, however, print-books,
physical books, ink-on-paper,
those will be with us _forever_.

(or until we run out of paper,
but that would mean that we
lost all of the trees, meaning
we will have bigger problems
on our hands, like extinction.)

the espresso machine makes
you think print-on-demand
requires heavy machinery, but
in reality, it's just a glorified
laser-printer.  which means
your local convenience store
_could_ do print-on-demand.
eventually, it'll be ubiquitous.

a book costs a-penny-a-page
to print-on-demand, plus $1
if you demand a fancy cover...

$4 ($3 cost plus $1 profit) is
a reasonable price to pay for
a 200-page p.o.d. book, and
there are lots of cases where
even an e-book enthusiast
would pay for such an object.

and that's not even taking into
consideration home-printing...

so let's not get it twisted, ok?

stores will largely go away...

but print-books?  here to stay.
in fact, with p.o.d., we might
have more p-books than ever.

-bowerbird










tom said:
>   As of yet there is no basis 
>   to think that ebooks will 
>   wipe out paper books 
>   other than wishful thinking.

wishful thinking?

i don't know anyone who
_wishes_ the bookstores
would go out of business.

just like we did for their
brethren "the record stores",
we will mourn their passing
with sadness in our hearts,
remembering the good times
we had browsing their aisles.

it's similar to how we think of
our good friend "the newspaper"
whenever we see him looking
so weak and frail these days...
he used to be strong and robust.
especially on sundays!  just huge!
i can remember times when i was
actually _startled_ by the sound
of him hitting the doorstep.  bam!
now he's but a shadow of himself,
and everyone knows he won't last.

it's very obvious if something is
on its last legs, and checking out.

however, no one even entertains
the notion that p-books _will_ be
"wiped out".  they will flourish...

it's just that corporate publishers
won't be issuing them in big runs
for sale in stores.  it's corporations
that are washed up, not p-books.

instead, books will be sold as
e-books, and printed mostly
one-at-a-time, by the person
who is willing to pay that cost.

the exception will be the author
who engineers a "group buy" for
fans, and then does a print-run
to lower the costs below p.o.d.

-bowerbird








joe said:
>   my income for January 
>   will be about $42,000.

the quick calculation is
12 * $42,000 = $504,000...

but january has 31 days, 
so that's an overestimate.

will he hit a half-million?

dividing $42,000 by 31,
and multiplying by 365,
totals to $494,516.12...

ooh, just barely misses!

so close, and yet so...
well, it's not far, at all.
it's _darn_ close, in fact.

but still...  it'd be _such_
a nice catchy amount,
so pithy and succinct...

"yeah, i made a cool
*half-million*dollars*
on my books in 2011."

so you'll have to tell us,
mr. joe, once you know,
what's the _exact_ amount?

and so you can visualize,
the number you will need
for your january sales to 
project to a half-million is
$42,465.76.

$42,465.75 would project to
one nickel short, which might
be more poetic, donchathink?

-bowerbird

p.s.  it's _humor_, folks, so
savor the moment and don't
ruin it by pointing out that
february's numbers will take
all of the suspense out of it,
and the _real_ question is if
joe's total doubles to a million,
or if selena hits two million,
or whether amanda hits four.










joe said:
>   Hanging above my desk is 
>   a magnetic sign that was 
>   on my car during my 
>   500 bookstore tour. 
>   That tour is one of my 
>   proudest accomplishments. 
>   It's something that 
>   no author had ever done, or
>   ever will do. The only one who 
>   has come close is Barry Eisler, 
>   who has broken 300 in a year.

buddy wakefield -- who is my
good performance poet buddy --
lived in a honda civic for 2 years
while touring hundreds of u.s.
and canadian  poetry venues...

the practice did him some good,
i guess, helping turn him into an
international slam champion...

-bowerbird















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-terri-reid.html

terri said:
>   However, some of 
>   the stories had to be told, 
>   so, I continued to write. 
>   ...
>   Suddenly, the thought of 
>   writing for a living 
>   made sense, because, really, 
>   what did I have to lose?

this is the story i like to hear...

the writer who writes because
the stories demand to be told...

the self-publisher who decides
"i guess i have nothing to lose by
offering my books to people"...

and the audience who responds
by reading, and telling friends...

this is the way worlds change...

pay attention...

pay close attention...

this is the way we all change...

-bowerbird







marie said:
>   Her books are good. 
>   That's the secret. 

amen.


>   You only need 
>   a few good reviews 
>   and a couple of good books 
>   to get the ball rolling. 

that's right.

the "you _must_ market" crowd
is selling you a load of hogwash.

and that hogwash won't scale.
as more and more new writers
join this revolution, the _din_
from all of them _marketing_
will only turn off customers...

you are not in charge here.

the _readers_ are in charge.

_they_ are the ones who will
determine the books that they
will reward with word-of-mouth.

_they_ write the reviews.

it is _their_ actions which steer
the recommendation engines.

do you think writers were the
only ones to be constrained
by the corporate gatekeepers?

the _readers_ were the victims.

and now _they_ are in charge...

i'm not saying you need to
kowtow to their every wish.

indeed, the beauty of all this is
that you can spit in their face
and your art can still _exist_...

but do not get the impression
that you can tell the audience
what they should buy.  you can't.

-bowerbird





















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-sam-torode.html

sam said:
>   How to sum of the years of 
>   disappointment and bitterness 
>   trying to get 
>   traditionally published? 
>   I spent 3 years writing and 
>   honing the book, and it was 
>   the most satisfying creative 
>   project I'd ever worked on. 
>   The 2 years that followed, 
>   trying to sell the manuscript, 
>   were like tossing my heart 
>   into a meat grinder.

now, now, that pain is over.
best to put it behind you...

***

sam said:
>   A couple nights ago, 
>   between 10 pm and 6 am, 
>   it sold 99 copies at 99 cents.
>
>   Last night, between 10 and 6, 
>   it sold 80 copies at $2.99.
>
>   So, 10 copies less, but 
>   much higher revenue. 

you can't judge the numbers on 
such a constricted time-frame...

you won't even be able to
judge the effect of your
price-raise until _march_,
by which time the rising tide
will wash out the effect anyway.
(at least, let's _hope_ that's so.)

some e-book buyers have to
return to a book many times
before they'll make the buy...

and that's not unusual...
marketeers tell us that it
can take as many as 6-8
exposures to sell a product.

the first time they might just
come because they hear about
the book and have curiosity...
they'll read the description
and look at the star-ratings.

the next time they might
actually read all the blurbs.

the next time, the reviews...

the next time they'll actually
grab the sample.  then later,
after they've read the sample,
which might be much later,
they might come back again,
just to review everything...

and then, after all of these
visits, and perhaps more
word-of-mouth, or maybe
encountering the book as
an amazon recommendation,
they'll actually come and buy.

if, when they come to buy,
they find the price has been
raised from $.99 to $2.99,
it probably won't make that
much of a difference, since
they were already reeled in
by the $.99 price on their
earlier visits, and they had
already decided.  but if that
$2.99 price had been there
from the start, maybe they
would _not_ get reeled in...

right now, your customers
were reeled in by the $.99.
and $2.99 is not so much
more that they will balk...

so let's see how many
customers you reel in
with the $2.99 price...

but you're lucky, because
you got your big jump to
5,500+ per month, which
means you have momentum.

let's just hope that you
didn't stilt that momentum
too much with the raise...

you need to understand
that i think you _should_
have a $2.99 price-tag.
eventually.  because the
35% royalty on everything
under $2.99 is a _joke_...
amazon takes too much.
it's not fair.  so i do think
you should have raised
your prices from $.99...

but i don't think you 
did it at the right time.

either you shoulda had it
priced at $2.99 all along,
in which case we can all
be pretty sure that you
would _not_ have gotten
that fantastic jump from
300 buyers in december
to 5,500+ in january...

or you should have left
the price at $.99, until
your sales started to
level off, or got up to
25,000-monthly levels,
where the difference in
the royalty rates starts
to mean big differences
in the cash you receive.

but to raise the price
when your sales-curve
is experiencing a surge
in its acceleration is,
i think, a big mistake,
because it will probably
hurt your momentum...

when you are having
a momentum period,
just ride the thing out.

-bowerbird






gniz said:
>   One author I know 
>   ...
>   suffered a fairly dramatic 
>   drop in actual books sold 
>   when she shifted to 2.99. 
>   However she made the same 
>   amount of money as before 
>   (not more). 
>
>   Nobody seems quite sure why.

nobody seems quite sure why?

oh please...  there are a million
economists who can tell us why.

it's called a price-demand curve.
find it in any econ 101 textbook.
or, you know, it's on wikipedia...

indeed, it's such a strong effect
that it's also known by the name
"the law of demand"...  yes sir,
they actually call this _a_law_...

i'm surprised many people here
seem never to have heard of it.

***

wannabuy said:
>   $2.99 vs. $0.99... yawn. P
>   (I'm stating I'm part of 
>   the market that isn't 
>   price sensitive on 
>   books that cheap.) 

yes, but you "wanna buy"...    :+)

other people might be more
reluctant to part with the cash.

seriously, i totally understand
the difference between $.99
and $2.99 is small for a book
you know you want to buy...

but what about, say, 10 books,
which you _might_ want to buy.

at $.99 each, that's 10 bucks.
probably still an impulse buy.

but at $2.99 each, 10 are $30,
and you're gonna stop to think.

now how 'bout, oh, _100_ books.

at $.99 for each, that's $100.
ok, that might be your budget
for books for a couple months.

but at $2.99 each, it's $300,
so you'd blow your budget...

so if your budget is just $100,
that means you can only buy
_33_ of those $2.99 books,
not the whole batch of 100...

now if you're an author who
is selling one of the lucky 33,
you're ok with that, i'm sure.

but what if you're one of the
authors of the unlucky 67?
you just made a pricing error.

and even more to the point,
i think the person with that
$100 budget will decide to
buy 100 books at $.99 each,
instead of 33 at $2.99 each.
especially the heavy readers.
(and kindle owners _are_.)

the 100 cheapies require no
sorting or selection.  just buy.
if you've decided that it'll be
worth your time to read it,
it's obviously worth a buck.
no more analysis necessary.

but if you decide to go with
33 books at $2.99, you have
to do research to pick which.
they're all pretty good, or you
wouldn't have decided to pay
$2.99 for them, but now you
have to decide which of them
is worth more than 2 others.
and that's a pain in the butt.

it's not as if your budget will
_grow_ just because you want
to purchase more costly books.

$.99 e-books are _impulse_
buys... knee-jerk purchases...
but when a person has shot
their wad on $.99 e-books,
they have nothing left to buy
any of your $2.99 e-books...

if it boils down to one book,
$2.99 vs. $.99, machts nicht.

but it rarely boils down to
one book for kindle people.
kindle people buy _lots_ of
books.  lots and lots and lots.

and commenters here are
_counting_ on that tendency
when they recommend that
you upload several books,
because of repeat-purchases.
if you find an author you like,
are you more willing to pay
$10 for their 10 books or
$30 for their 10 books?
maybe they'll have to decide
just how much they like you.
and if they just spent $30
for the 10 books from some
_other_ author, are they
gonna have any money
left over to buy _yours_?

again, i will repeat, because
it seems i cannot repeat it
enough times for people to
have it sink into their skulls,
but i do indeed recommend
that authors price their books
at $2.99, so they can get the
70% royalty instead of 35%...

but you're gonna sell more
copies of your book at $.99.
probably 5 times as many...
that's why they call it a law.

-bowerbird












shelia said:
>   whose counting the books 

no, hu is the president of china.

(doncha hate it when _writers_
screw up the language?  i mean,
screwing up on math is kind of
_expected_, but _language_?
that's supposedly their forte.)


>   whose counting 
>   the books 
>   when you can 
>   count the money. 

hu is counting the money...
hu is the president of china.

do you know how china
_got_ all of the money?

low prices.

from "the gambler", sung by
kenny rogers, by don schlitz:
>   You got to know 
>   when to hold'em, 
>   know when to 
>   fold'em,
>   Know when to 
>   walk away, 
>   and know 
>   when to run.
>   You never 
>   count your money, 
>   when you're 
>   sitting at the table.
>   There'll be time 
>   enough for counting, 
>   when the 
>   dealing's done.

time enough for counting...

-bowerbird







but, seriously, sam, if you went
from 300 sales in december to
_five_thousand_plus_ this month,
i'd image you were keeping track
every single day of this month,
if only out of sheer amazement...

so how about sharing the rise?

if you gave us the number for
every day, we could chart your
path and project into the future.

that would be far more useful
than sampling a chunk from
every now and then to view...

what say you?

-bowerbird






the best set of numbers,
because he hasn't diddled
with his prices, except his
increase to $2.99 for 70%,
are joe's totals, either daily
(if he has them) or monthly.

but really, anyone's figures,
provided they are complete
or at the very least regular,
would be very informative...

i mean, seriously, if you
are going to be obsessive,
do it in a way that will
help you to be smarter,
not in a way that only
increases your neuroses...

-bowerbird








evilphilip said:
>   when the truth was that 
>   she got around $42,500 
>   for that novel in advance 
>   which is a pretty fair 
>   chunk of change

it sure is a chunk of change.

heck, it's as much as joe
made during the whole
month of january, 2011!

of course, that was for
work he'd already done,
instead of an "advance"
which obligated him to
do work to earn it back.

-bowerbird








sam said:
>   Then I calculated that 
>   it only takes 97 sales at $2.99 
>   to make the same revenue 
>   as 600 books at $0.99. 

that's right, percentage-wise.

but how many actual buyers
do those price-points attract
for any specific book?  _that_
is the important information.

if you get _10_times_ as many
sales at the lower price-point,
you've obtained more readers
_and_ more profit as well...

and it's also vital to consider
"revenue" in a manner that is
more long-term in nature...

the 600 (or 400, or 800, or
_whatever_ the number is)
readers who you garnered
at the $.99 price-point are
that many readers primed
to purchase your next book.

(provided they liked your
first one, an assumption
that i am happy to grant.)

this is better than having
97 people primed at $2.99.

it's more word-of-mouth,
more reviews, more ratings,
more suggestions in the
people-who-bought-this
recommendation engine,
more real-world presence.

again, i hasten to repeat
-- because it seems that i
can't repeat it enough --
that _i_recommend_ the
$2.99 price-point, since
the 35% royalty is unfair.

but one needs to consider
the entire equation here,
and not just part of it...


>   So, I'm not inclined 
>   to post sales figures.

i'm confused.

you already posted the figure:
5,500 books as of january 28.

as a lump sum, it's not useful,
because it doesn't tell us trend.

a day-by-day specific number
would give us information on
trend, but the "sales figure" of
5,500 would total up the same.


>   But, I will try to post 
>   what's helpful to others. 

what you posted is not helpful.
and what i asked for would be.

but whatever.  if you'd rather
not give the information, fine.

really!        :+)

your story on the whole remains
uplifting.  our questions, about
what caused the sudden jump,
and how the price might have
affected your momentum, are
also interesting, perhaps even
more so, and you have given us
little information about them...
however -- as i said -- the main
story that a slow-moving book
_can_ catch on is one that will
give hope to the many authors
who are stuck with such books.

best of luck with your next book.

-bowerbird









jtplayer said:
>   I find this talk of Sam posting 
>   specific sales figures amusing. 

you do, do you?  pray tell...


>   Back in December 
>   such an idea 
>   was considered 
>   akin to releasing 
>   tax return information.

it _is_ akin to that.

which is why you shouldn't
expect any author to react
to such a _demand_ from
anyone with anything but
"mind your own business".

which, if you would have
actually, you know, linked
to a _specific_comment_,
instead of throwing out a
vague "back in december",
anyone could have seen,
and judged for themselves.

but sam already _released_
that information, so there
is no reason not to give it
a more specific breakdown.

the i.r.s. is interested in
the monthly _total_, and
not the daily _specifics_.

we, on the other hand,
would be more interested
in those _daily_ specifics
than a _monthly_ total...

***

it's also the case that
i _requested_ the info.
i didn't _demand_ it...

and when sam said that
he'd rather not give it,
i was confused, and i
said so, but i also said
that if he didn't want to
give the info, it's _fine_.

i didn't _demand_ info.

***

you also fail to point out
that the earlier _demand_
was from a perspective of
"i don't believe the number".

it was a demand for _proof_.

it was an accusation that
somebody was _lying_...

that's totally not the case
in this thread.  i believe sam.
i'm not demanding _proof_...

don't twist things, player.

unless you are simply unable
to understand the distinction.

in which case, go ahead and
be "humored" by all of this...

my cat used to love playing
with an empty box.  it gave
him no end of amusement...

evidently you can do likewise
with an empty thought...

-bowerbird










jtplayer said:
>   I provided a direct link 
>   to the 12/10 blog posting 

you linked to the general post
instead of a specific comment
because you knew that no one
would read through _all_ of the
comments trying to find _one_
that supported your argument.

and even if they _did_ try that,
tough, they would not succeed.

since they _could_not_ succeed.

because there _is_ no comment
that supports your argument...

which is precisely why i told you
to link to a _specific_comment,_
because i know you cannot do it.

and don't bother posting another
"reply" where you stonewall and
fail to link to anything specific...

since it just stinks up the place
for the people who want to have
_actual_honest_ discussion here.

-bowerbird



ok, how about an update...

it is now mid-february,
and in another thread,
sam relates the situation:
>   http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/02/guest-post-by-victorine-lieske.html?showComment=1297799452494#c1720996373000152915

sure enough, the raise
in his price _did_ affect
his momentum adversely.

after having risen to #50,
in a steep climb that might
have continued otherwise,
the book's ranking instead
starting _dropping,_ until
-- when it fell to #200 --
sam felt the need to step in
and price it back at $.99...

so, to review, with a book
that sold just 300 copies
in december (after selling
5-20 in months before),
january sales were 5,500.
momentum was palpable.

sam raised the price and
boom, lost his momentum.

now he has to climb back.

but he will never recover
momentum he had then.

i don't recommend $.99.
because the "royalty" that
amazon pays for it is unfair.

i recommend $2.99 instead.
even if you make fewer sales,
and make less money, as a
protest against amazon's rate.

but kids, don't raise a price
in the middle of momentum.
that babe can be very fickle.

-bowerbird






here's another update...

***

in mid-february, sam said:
>   After raising the price 
>   to $2.99, it gradually 
>   dropped from #50 to #200 
>   over the course of 2 weeks. 
>   The income for a $2.99 book 
>   at #200 was still greater than 
>   for a 99 cent book at #50

today -- march 6th -- the rank
for "dirty parts" is now at #471.
(it was at #378 on march 4th.)

i'm not sure how the profit on
a $2.99 unit at #471 compares
to a $.99 unit at #50, but i'd be
extremely worried by the trend.

you're either moving up or down,
and only one direction is good...

-bowerbird





















http://amandahocking.blogspot.com/2011/01/gratitude-and-fact.html

amanda said:
>   I eat peanut butter 
>   with frozen cheese pizza 
>   because it tastes awesome.

you're weird.  i mean, seriously...


>   I'm still gonna drink orange Hi-C 
>   from a juice box, and I don't care 
>   what anybody thinks.

i love hi-c.  but not from a juice-box
-- those puny straws creep me out...

-bowerbird
















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-blake-crouch.html

blake said:
>   to me, the best thing 
>   about the ebook revolution
>   isn't the money. It's the 
>   unlimited creative potential.

that's an artist talking.

thank goodness!

i was beginning to think
all this talk about money
and this new "gold-rush"
would mean we would be
over-run with greedsters.

the real potential here is
one that appeals to artists
-- a chance to go directly
to your audience, at last,
without any compromise
to your vision so that it
will pass the gatekeepers.

-bowerbird
















"anonymous" said:
>   I've come to believe that 
>   if readers like an author 
>   they will pay 
>   a fair price for the book.

sibel said:
>   I think if readers 
>   enjoy an author's work, 
>   they'll pay a fair price for it.

this idea about a "fair" price
amuses me.  the corporations
think that $12.99 is "fair"...

so how does one define "fair"?

i suppose for many people it's 
whatever you get away with.

oh, and the corporations
probably think it's "fair"
for them to demand that
barnes&noble remove all
you indies from the top100.
after all, you don't _print_
books that are sold in the
barnes&noble brick&mortar,
do you?  so why should you
be placed on the same lists
as they are?  it's not "fair",
not from their perspective.

remember, sweetheart, that
_all_ is fair in love and war...

-bowerbird









tara said:
>   it's popular to talk about 
>   "need for artistic freedom" 
>   and "need to earn money" 
>   as if they were opposites, 
>   but I'm sorry, 
>   it's just not true. 

i think you misunderstood.

badly.

perhaps that medical bill you're
unable to pay is clouding your
ability to interpret correctly...
(sorry about that, by the way.)

i am all in favor of artists
making money.  lots of it.
as much as possible.  heck,
if we could all be as rich as
damien hirst, i would love it.

and i love self-publishing,
and all other d.i.y. art...

but you know, don't you?,
that for a long time there,
the only people who were
making money by doing
self-publishing were the
sharks (speaking of hirst!)
who were selling e-books
that told you how you could
make money selling e-books
that told people how to
make money selling e-books
that told other people...

they would even sell you
the e-books that you could
then sell to other people...
to save you the time and
effort of writing 'em yourself.
for a hefty price, of course.

are those the type of people
who you want to come running
to this brand new opportunity?

people who run con games?

i thought not.

if you're willing to go
hungry and homeless
to be a writer, then i am
in your corner, baby...

if you are unwilling to
"be a writer" _unless_
you can get rich quick,
the quicker the better,
i'm not in your corner.

so, to respond to you,
if the shoe fits, wear it.
if it doesn't fit, don't...

***

jtplayer, i don't need to
have an excuse like an
unpaid medical bill to
explain _your_ failure in
reading comprehension...
it's just par for the course.

-bowerbird







tara said:
>   it's because I don't want 
>   to be fooled by such people 
>   that I really appreciate 
>   straight talk on money from 
>   Joe, Blake and all the others

i appreciate it too.  i'm glad that
joe is spreading the good word,
because i want artists to know
about this new opportunity here.
it's unselfish of joe to reveal it...

as i said, on another entry here,
this is a revolution for all artists,
who can learn how we too can
support ourselves in cyberspace.

but just like picnics draw ants,
all this dialog about _money_ is
_bound_ to draw the con men...

so it's nice when someone like
blake talks about how he enjoys
the artistic control he now has,
because that is something that
will resonate with the _artists_,
yet fly right over the con men.

***

gniz said:
>   I have a strange sinking 
>   feeling that if we're 
>   too slow too mobilize 
>   and organize and 
>   protect ourselves, 
>   the good times 
>   won't last very long.

a couple notes about that.

first, don't be so pessimistic.

second, of course artists will
be too slow to mobilize to
protect themselves.  naturally.

third, if you have _any_
inclination that you could
outwit amazon regardless,
you're only fooling yourself.
it would be like the monkey
outwitting the organ grinder.

fourth, we artists need to
_eliminate_ the middlemen,
not "protect" ourselves
from them.  get it straight.
the answer is direct contact.
even if the corporations
continue to remain friendly,
the answer is direct contact.
do you understand that?

***

jtplayer, you just do not
know you're outmatched,
do you?  it's kinda sad...

but, just so we're all clear,
every artist reading these
posts knows what i mean.
_you_ might be confused,
but i assure you they aren't.

-bowerbird











"anonymous" said:
>   I think it's important 
>   to be transparent here

that's very ironic, i would say,
coming from an "anonymous".

whistle-blowing is fine, but
don't mix up your rationale...

-bowerbird









robin said:
>   I often feel like 
>   the only lone voice in the wind 
>   pushing for people to get off 
>   the $0.99 and $2.99 price

c'mon, people.  don't let robin be
the only lone voice in the wind.

chip in with your stories about
how your higher prices worked.

we've already heard _enough_
from the people who tell us
"so i lowered my prices and 
sales increased significantly."


>   perhaps given more time 
>   they'll realize that 
>   readers are happy to pay 
>   $5 for a quality read.

perhaps given even more time,
they'll realize that readers are
_overjoyed_ to pay the $12.99
that some big6 publishers want.

or not, but it _could_ happen...

-bowerbird






robin said:
>   After much debate...
>   I'm finally firming up 
>   my stance between self 
>   and traditional publishing.

sign the contract and then
come back in a year and
we'll talk about things then.

-bowerbird


























http://www.typographyforlawyers.com/?page_id=1325

what about the _evidence_ that human readers
actually _prefer_ a bigger space after a sentence.
(not twice as big, maybe, but a little bit bigger.)

this is why you encounter such resistance...

so the question here is, who is to be the master?
the readers, or the people who make the rules?

-bowerbird









well, one thing you can say for sure about this issue
is that it certainly is controversial!

this page has drawn _many_ more comments than
the average page on this blog has received, by far.

and an article on this over at slate.com last month
drew _thousands_ of comments, when their articles
usually draw comment totals in the _hundreds_...

there _is_ no "correct" position here.

and that online poll shows that there isn't even
a clear majority on what the position should be.

both sides think their own way looks "the best",
and that the other way looks awful.  both sides.

typographers typically prefer "uniform color"
over _everything_ else, so if you gave them
an image of static, i guess they'd be overjoyed.
because of its "even color", they prefer ragged
to justified, but the vast majority of books are
justified, so i guess that shows their influence.

the thing we have to remember is that -- thanks
to the fact that most of our reading is on-screen
these days rather than on-paper -- we _can_
have it both ways.  or, more precisely, either way,
depending on our preference.  we just need to
make it an _option_ in our digital-reading tools...
so regardless of whatever the way it is in the file,
the display meshes with the _reader's_ preference.
because the _reader_ is who we're writing for, right?

-bowerbird

















http://blog.threepress.org/2011/02/02/the-future-proof-ereading-platform

your ability to spin current events in your favor
is quite impressive, and shows you are clever...

-bowerbird












http://mikecanex.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/apples-content-creator-recruiting-poster

if you are taking mike's advice,
leave a comment here saying so.

-bowerbird












http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2011/02/02/why-your-self-published-book-sucks-a-bag-of-dicks/

first, the comments from a. nonamiss made me laugh!

so did the post itself.

i enjoyed reading it immensely.  you are _very_ funny.
i love mockery...  maybe it is mean, but it's _humorous_,
and would you rather have "mean" which is _not_ funny?

so good job, chuck...

now i'd like to see you pick on someone your own size.

because picking on pathetic people makes _you_ pathetic.
know what i mean?

-bowerbird







diana said:
>   It's too bad that those who really 
>   need to stop self-publishing their work 
>   won't see themselves in it 
>   as demonstrated so beautifully by A. Nonamiss.
>   Though, after reading their third comment, 
>   I have to wonder whether the person is real or 
>   posing as a self-published writer to drive the point home.
>   ...
>   ...
>   ...
>   And the really sad thing is that they will never get it.

that diana is quite the prankster, isn't she?

-bowerbird

p.s.  a. nonamiss, don't worry, because
the people, untied, will never be defeeted!
rise up in revolution!  become a millionaire!























http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/02/guest-post-by-bv-larson.html

evilphilip said:
>   I recommend people 
>   take a serious chill pill 
>   until Apple or Amazon 
>   makes an announcement 
>   that something is changing 
>   because there are 
>   NO INDICATIONS 
>   from either company that 
>   anything is going to change.

that's great advice.

sony was just trying to steal
apple's thunder out from the
press conference scheduled
for groundhog day, so they
put out some negative spin
on the first of february...

i'm surprised the press even
bothered to play along, but
i guess they need page-views.

but it was very amusing, since
_sony's_ approach was almost
completely proprietary when
it first released its machine;
it could only read sony books
purchased from the sony store!

and now sony wants to act like
it wants an open environment?
yeah, right.  now it does, when
it's struggling for its very life...


>   Internet paranoia 
>   by tech bloggers 
>   isn't something 
>   writers should buy into.

he's not a "tech blogger" by
any stretch of imagination,
since his tech knowledge is
so limited and confused, but
_mikey_ was _very_ amusing,
the way he went into a big
old twitter twitch-seizure...

i don't think he has been so
worked up since... ok, since
last month...  when he told
konrath to "shut the f up"...
only he used all 4 letters...

heck of a thing to put in
a blog title, donchathink?

-bowerbird








jude said:
>   People who write crap 
>   don't know 
>   they're writing crap. 
>   That's the problem.

then they do not know how to
evaluate their own writing, and
thus it's not gonna do any good
to tell them to "write better"...

but you don't really care, right?
you're just here to brand them
with the label of "crap", right?

it makes you feel better about
yourself and your own writing.
by the way, how is your stuff?

-bowerbird










jude said:
>   I only write 5 star reviews. 

ok.  but you know that some
people ignore 5-star reviews.


>   If I think a book is crap, 
>   I ignore it.

yeah, that's what most of us do.

of course, sometimes you start
a book that you think is good,
but as you read, you're unsure,
but nonetheless keep on plowing
through it, just _hoping_ it will
improve, but sadly it never does.

in which case you might want to
give a bad review, since it's fair,
to warn people off a time-suck.


>   You'll never see me publicly 
>   bash another author, 
>   no matter how bad 
>   his or her work is.

well, you _do_ bash publicly, you 
just did, calling work "crap", you
just don't name names.  still, the
broad brush can also be deadly,
especially since its target is not
well-defined, so can be anyone.


>   But crap is crap. 

yeah, most people realize that.

so they walk away and ignore it.

that's why it's _not_ a problem.

-bowerbird












http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2011/02/04/once-more-into-the-breach-further-response-to-the-self-publishing-hoo-ha/

t.n. tobias said:
>   If these same enablers are the only ones reading this crap, 
>   they're naturally going to over estimate it's quality.

"overestimate" is one word, not two.

and you meant to say "its quality", not "it's quality".

but, as you say, this "doesn't reflect badly on you as a person,
just as a writer."

-bowerbird

p.s.  chuck, some people hate the traditional publishing industry
because it is composed almost entirely of corporate bureaucrats,
and it treats many (most?) authors like worthless scum, while
at the same time taking more than its fair share of the proceeds
which are built on the backs of those authors.  i'd tend to agree.
i don't have personal experience, mind you, or an axe to grind,
and i am the first to admit that this might weaken my authority,
but i've also never been held up at gunpoint, and i think i can
safely say that i don't think that would be very pleasant either...
i also hate the recording business, which, by the way, is never
referred to as "the traditional recording business", i wonder why.
and chuck, when you gonna lay off of the easy targets?  when?









chuck said:
>   But don't cheer something just because it's self-published. 
>   That is a meaningless metric in terms of determining quality.

i don't think you understand, chuck, so i will explain.

from my own perspective, i "cheer" stuff that's self-published.

but my "cheering" is _not_ a stamp of quality.  far from it.
as you say, some self-published stuff is "downright bad."
i would go even farther, and label it as "absolutely dreadful."

but i even "cheer" for that stuff, chuck, and i'll tell you why.

because every person who self-publishes something --
anything! -- has made an active choice to _be_ active,
to be something more than a mere passive "consumer".
and in this day and age, that is a _terrific_victory_, chuck.
it's a triumph against forces that want to beat us down and
turn us into obedient robotic sheep who behave as instructed.
it is the small cog that says "no" to the machine grinding it...

we _need_ to cheer that, because we have far too little of it.

and i'm not afraid of the awful stuff.  or the "downright bad".
none of it garners any attention, whatsoever, so who cares?

now let me tell you what i _am_ afraid of:  glenn beck, rush,
the koch brothers, sarah palin, religious fundamentalists, and
all of the other forces like these, which seem -- to me -- to be
demonstrating the population's inability to analyze critically...

this is the "crap" that scares me, chuck, the kind that _does_
get attention -- _lots_ of attention -- and creates a bad world.

when are you gonna take on _that_, chuck?

you've got some chops, dude.  so go put them to good use.

-bowerbird







chuck said:
>   But DIY indie authors would be wise to recognize that 
>   the stigma against the overall practice remains in place 

i'm not so sure about that "stigma" thing any more, not as
a guiding principle for the great unwashed masses out there.
first, most readers don't know who published a book.  further,
self-published authors are receiving unprecedented support
from readers who're _buying_ their work in _huge_ numbers.
if you're not up-to-date with this, i suggest you get informed.
the news for self-published writers is _very_ upbeat today...


>   and in some cases for a reason.

there will always be "a reason" that self-published works can
be categorized as "crap", because a lot of them _are_ crap...
that's what you get when _anybody_ can publish _anything_,
and the reading/buying audience understands this very well...
but it's very easy to avoid the crap, just like it's very easy to
avoid the dog-poop on the grass patch next to the sidewalk...
and even the dog-poop in the _middle_ of the darn sidewalk...


>   It is not polite to pick apart the grammar 
>   or spelling of other commenters.

i wasn't trying to be "polite".  i was trying to get them to see
the complaint about grammar and spelling applies to _them_,
even if they don't realize it, and think it's about somebody else.

or is this only an argument one can use against the out-group?

and criminey, talk about "knee-jerk defensiveness"...


>   It does nothing to make you or your position more endearing.

i'm not trying to make myself or my position "more endearing".

i'm mocking people who really and truly deserve to be mocked
for their poor spelling and bad grammar.

except they don't know it.

and let's be up-front here, and acknowledge that these people
_themselves_ are people who mock others who "really and truly
deserve to be mocked" for their poor spelling and bad grammar,
so it's not as if i've broken the golden rule here.


>   Please don't do that.

what do you say to people who ask you to stop your mocking?
oh right, you write a _follow-up_ entry, with more of the same.
that's what you do.

so, yeah, ok, right, i will stop doing that.


>   I would suggest that its practitioners are no more active 
>   than those authors who seek traditional publication. 

i am quite sure you _can_ see the difference if you want to...

most of the people who go with the "traditional" route end up
with their work never, ever seeing the light of day by anyone.
i'd guess only 2% ever get any of their work out to the public.

self-publishers at least get the work out, so it has _a_chance_.
(and yes, a whole lot of this work doesn't _deserve_ a chance,
but it doesn't hurt the world that it was given a chance anyway,
or else the world would be choking on a billion bad blogs now.)


>   Trying to get your work published is most certainly 
>   not a passive endeavor.

no, but accepting the rejection and letting the work rot away
instead of giving it time in the sunlight certainly _is_ passive.

and that's where the _action_ of self-publishing is worthwhile.

you know this yourself, because you self-published yourself.
and others can confirm it.  right here, elizabeth said that she
was "empowered" by the idea that she could publish herself.

in my book, that's a good thing.

and it doesn't matter whether elizabeth can write, or not...

-bowerbird























http://leegoldberg.typepad.com/a_writers_life/2011/02/knee-jerk-defensiveness.html

i call bull crap.

put those straw men up in a poll, and
see how many people endorse them...

if you want people to be sensible,
which is a great thing, by the way,
then you must be sensible yourself.

i guess you needed a blog post,
and this was an easy one to write.

-bowerbird


























http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/02/love-is-murder.html

joe said:
>   Just reread my post, and 
>   I don't see any anger there. 
>   Or whining.

me neither.

a lot of people see whatever
it is that they want to see...


>   you know I've done my best to 
>   learn about 
>   the publishing industry, 
>   and tried hard to succeed. 
>   Success didn't come until I 
>   stepped outside the industry.

success didn't come until 
jeff bezos handed writers
the key to independence...

it wasn't anything that _you_ 
"learned" or did, other than to
put your books up for kindle,
which -- if i recall correctly --
you did because fans asked...

if not for amazon groundwork,
you would still be in the slog...


>   I've paid $1850
>   for five bottles 
>   of Sam Adams Utopias

i'd think that for _that_ price,
they would have given you
the whole six-pack...  geez!       ;+)

-bowerbird














http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/02/end-of-bestseller.html

joe-

as i was reading through this,
i kept thinking that i would
have to make a comment on
this, that, and the other thing,
but you kept addressing the
points i was going to make...

so, in the main, you have
gotten it correctly here...

but not quite completely...

so, without disagreeing, much,
let me hit the shortcomings...

first of all, in the short run,
the corporate publishers _will_
indeed die, but they will _not_
go quietly, or without a fight...
they have money, and lawyers
too, so it ain't gonna be pretty.

(they have military weaponry too,
we should acknowledge, but let's
hope that it won't come to that.)

possible actions could take many
different forms, so i won't make
predictions on what they will be,
but you can be certain that the
greedy bastards in corner offices
will not just let you take away
their pretty green cash machine
without mounting a challenge...

now, like i said, they _will_ lose.
they do not understand the new
(their d.n.a. is based on the old),
so there's no way they can win...

but they _will_ give a hard fight,
and if you're not ready for that,
you'll find yourself knocked out.

***

second, in the medium term,
the "we're not in competition"
attitude won't last very long...
yes, at cheap prices, customers
can buy _lots_ of books and not
just _some._  but they can't buy
_all_ the books amazon stocks.
not even with a million dollars.
choices _do_ have to be made.
even at a buffet, you don't see
people loading up _39_ plates...

***

third, and last, in the long run,
prices will not bottom at $2.99.
they won't even bottom at $.99.

eventually, people will be able to
get as many books as they want
-- high-quality, desirable ones --
for _free_.  authors will begin to
receive voluntary payments from
their fans, and -- just as you are
now shocked by how much cash
you're making by selling e-books
even in this relatively early time
-- the writers of tomorrow will be
shocked by the amount of money
that their fans give _voluntarily_.

many will decide that it's enough
they can live on it comfortably,
and that it strengthens them in
artistic and humanistic senses to
be free of the capitalist market,
so they'll _embrace_ the change,
and thus create a virtuous cycle...

i see these artists leading the way
to a new type of society based on
the old model of gift-exchange...

maybe you will be one of them...

-bowerbird










subcreator said:
>   And it will be a long, long 
>   time for paper books to 
>   go away entirely.

sigh.

paper-books will _never_ever_
"go away".  (unless trees should
go extinct, in which case we will
have a lot more serious stuff to
fret over, like _our_ extinction.)

especially with print-on-demand,
we'll have _more_ paper-books,
at generally _cheaper_ prices...
(the cost is now a penny-a-page,
with a $1 charge for the binding.)

what we will _not_ have are the
corporate bookstores which sell
books from corporate publishers.

***

that being said, the movement
towards e-books is cascading,
even as we speak here now...

note that in november, amanda
last-name-no-longer-necessary
sold 10,000 copies of her books.
and we were all amazed by that.

in december, she sold 100,000.
we were completely blown away.

in january, it was 400,000, or...
i dunno, maybe "only" 300,000.
and we are starting to get used
to the total going up that fast,
so we're not all that surprised,
even if we know at some level
that it _has_to_ level off soon...

but there's absolutely no doubt
that the future will point to this
time we are in, right here, now,
as a very vital inflection point...

after decades of turtle-like sloth,
things are happening _very_ fast
for electronic-books.  very fast...

***

joe said:
>   having the store do a POD 
>   version while they waited.

i don't know why so many people
think that that's how it will work.

most bookstores will have copies
of a number of books pre-printed,
so people can thumb through 'em.

when you decide to buy a book,
you'll just take it to the cashier,
pay for it, and walk away with it.

_then_ the bookstore will print
another copy to put on the shelf.

for books in heavy demand, they
might have lots of copies already.

for a book which is _not_ printed,
because it's a niche item, you'd
order in advance to get it printed,
so it was done when you arrived.

so...  no reason anyone must wait.
customers do not like to wait...

***

that jtplayer!  just can't grasp the
fact when he's badly outmatched.

-bowerbird







jtplayer said:
>   That bowerbird...so fixated 
>   on "outmatching" people.

i don't have to be "fixated"
when you persist like you do.

and it was joe who was
outmatching you today.

but since your reasoning was
as lame as it was, i guess you
have a point with the "quotes"
around "outmatching" there...

is it really necessary for someone
to mop the floor with your weak
positions before you give 'em up?

-bowerbird





jtplayer, even worse than your
lame argumentation are these
petty squabbles you perpetrate.

-bowerbird





wingman.  yeah, right.

read my posts in this very thread.

-bowerbird






gary said:
>   The question is: 
>   How do publishers make money 
>   selling their best-selling 
>   author's ebooks at $2.99?
>   I don't think they can, 
>   too many hands in the pocket 
>   to be a profitable venture.

actually, the corporate publishers
can make more money at a lower
price just like everyone else, _if_
we look only at the e-book side.

however, it would cannibalize the
print side, so they will not do it.

***

jenna said:
>   which then need to be migrates 
>   to the various file formats. 

change "migrates" to "migrated"...

then change your workflow.    ;+)

you need to have a "master file"
which propagates all the formats,
so you just make an edit _once_.

i have programmed such a tool, 
and it will be coming out soon...

and it will be available at no cost,
as my gift to authors everywhere.

-bowerbird






jenna said:
>   these are folks who also have 
>   paper versions of their books. 

as in previously-published books?


>   Unfortunately, I have not yet 
>   found a way to magically 
>   turn paper into an ebook

for a previously-published book,
o.c.r. will take you fairly close...
from there, my format kicks in.

if, on the other hand, you mean
they want to _produce_ p-books
in addition to e-books, use .pdf,
which is just another one of the
formats which my tool delivers.
(indesign is a thing of the past.)


>   These books in question 
>   have at least 2 formats which
>   are completely incompatible 
>   with the other. 

and those formats would be?


>   If it worked for the 
>   formatting issues I routinely 
>   have in either pub or Kindle, 
>   but not both

as i want my tool to be useful,
i'll take those issues seriously,
but only to a certain degree...

the kindle is much too primitive
to take its shortfalls seriously...

and .epub is much too fractured
to solve all the inconsistencies
between different viewer-apps.

so at some point, i'll just say
"you'll have to talk with the
other side to get that solved."

i've also made a cross-platform
viewer for my master-format
which blows the other viewers
out of the water.  unequivocally.


>   I'll be interested in your tool 
>   when it comes out. 

if you (or anyone else) wants to
see a preview copy now, tell me.
...bowerbird at aol dot com...

-bowerbird








jenna said:
>   I use InDesign to 
>   design paper books. 
>   Getting Indesign text 
>   to Kindle is a BITCH. 
>   Generating a PDF to then 
>   convert to Kindle goes 
>   even worse! And of course, it
>   all starts with Word documents 
>   out of which I have to 
>   clean the trash coding 
>   to get into InDesign, then
>   export into an ePub editor, 
>   finalize that version, then do 
>   the alterations needed 
>   for Kindle, then do 
>   an epub to mobi conversion,
>   THEN test to see if it works 
>   on the Kindle.

yes, that sounds fairly typical
of what most designers will do.

some authors who are willing
to give up any ability to alter
the final products use calibre,
a free format-converter tool.

in my software, an author can
write the book in the tool itself
(or copy in the text), and then
click a button to get this:

1.  a nice, powerful .pdf and

2.  a nice, powerful .html-book.

3.  drop #2 on an epub-zipper
and you have an .epub file.
 
4.  then just drop #3 on the 
kindle previewer for a .mobi,
the format used by the kindle.

the process is easy enough that
an author can do it every day,
to view the work-in-progress...

-bowerbird

















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/02/guest-post-by-guido-henkel.html

hello guido...

as is usually the case,
the very reason that
your books don't sell
is the very one reason
you don't want to hear.

in your case, it's that
your prices are too high.

now i agree with you
that you don't want to
drop below the $2.99,
because that will mean
a lower "royalty" rate...

but the paying customers
are telling you that $2.99
for a single novella is just
too much for them to pay.

once you dropped the price,
people _did_ start buying...
numbers tripled immediately.

and the sales _would_ have
gone up 6 times as much --
maybe even 10 times -- if
you would've left the price
at the $.99 level for a while.
you didn't give it a chance...

but $2.99 is too high.

especially when you have
a series with 10 "volumes".

you are charging $29.99
for the whole thing, and
it's no surprise people balk.

or they would, if you could
get them in the door, but
you cannot even do _that_.

(and no, i'm sorry, but
this is the new world,
and hype does _not_
get people in the door.
you're wasting time
_and_ your money by
"doing marketing"...
word-of-mouth is the
new boss, same as the
old boss, same as it
ever was, and will be.)

the other problem, one
which you acknowledge,
and is integrally related,
is your lack of reviews...

of your 9 "volumes" up,
6 have 3 or fewer reviews.
only 1 has more than 5,
and it has a mere 9...

every author with a mother
and a spouse and a friend
should have 3 reviews, and
those are all 5-star ratings
(or at least we'd hope so!),
so your stuff goes nowhere
until you get more reviews.

you need to wrap your 9
volumes into 3 packages,
and sell _those_ for $2.99.

***

as for your blog, especially
your series on formatting...

i was terribly distracted by
a number of outright errors,
in spelling and grammar and
sentence structure and so on.

this was especially ironic
because the thrust of the
series there was on being
_professional_.  so, frankly,
i'd wonder if your e-books
are beset with similar errors.

-bowerbird







michael said:
>   never forget that 
>   a story is 
>   a character, 
>   in a situation, 
>   with a problem

with all due respect
to joseph campbell,
formulaic approaches
no longer have to rule.

a story is anything that
you can wrangle which is
able to attract audience.

and if you can do that
without following the
recipe everyone else uses,
your brilliance will be
acknowledged by all.

before, one was forced
to follow the instructions
in the standard manual,
in order to appease the
gatekeepers, because
their rules had created
a self-fulfilling prophecy,
but those obstructions
have now been cleared.

if you really and truly
want to bake your cake
the standard way, fine.
you can be assured that
people will like the taste.

but if you want to invent
the doughnut, go ahead.

-bowerbird








michael said:
>   Bowerbird, sure 
>   you can make donuts 
>   or creme brulee, 
>   or epic poetry 
>   for that matter. 

my comment had
nothing to do with
your specific advice
on michael's book.

it was a reaction to
your general point
that a "story" must
be a certain thing.


>   a story has certain 
>   characteristics

that's old thinking.

_your_ recipe for "story"
might well have certain 
"characteristics", but
someone might invent
a different new breed.

high-jumpers used to
jump the bar so they
landed on their feet.
so some people even
_defined_ high-jumping
as "doing it that way".
then fosbury arrived,
and did it differently,
and now _everybody_
does the fosbury flop.
because the true object
was not the _landing_,
or the style of jumping,
it was clearing the bar.
fosbury cleared it higher.


>   It could be that 
>   he's making donuts
>   and the world 
>   doesn't want donuts.

it sounds more like
you are saying that
he _is_ making cake,
but doing it wrong.

which might well
be the case, i can't
really say, since i
have not read the
book or the sample.

***

s.j. harris said:
>   a compelling 
>   25K word book 
>   is worth that.

you might think so.

i might think so.

many customers
might think so.

the real question,
however, remains
"how many people buy?"

that's all that matters.

-bowerbird







let's remember that
amanda's total is for
_multiple_ books,
and not just _one_...

it's still _remarkable_,
still _mind-blowing_...

but one needs to
compare apples to
apples, not oranges.

however...  goodness,
selling 450,000 units
in a single month is an
accomplishment which
is truly quite amazing.

especially if -- as we
might well expect --
that number doubles
in february.  after all,
it quadrupled in january,
and went up 10-fold
in december.

let's also keep in mind
that amazon has only
sold a certain number
of kindles.  we do not
know that number, but
estimates place it at
less than 20 million...

even accepting the fact
that you don't need to
own a kindle machine
to buy a kindle-book,
she cannot keep selling
a million _every_month_.

maybe she can do it
for all of this year, or
maybe not, but still...
at some time, it has to
level off to the number
of new kindles being
sold in that month...

let us start to prepare
for that eventual time,
and set our resolve
that we will not allow
ourselves to feel any
_disappointment_
when it arrives.  got it?

-bowerbird








robin said:
>   This will be a true test of 
>   whether traditional pubishing 
>   can "beat" indie. 

just exactly what will it prove?

that the corporations can
skim the cream off the top?

who ever said that they couldn't?

or does this just "prove" that
if you want to get the attention
of the big6, you'd better go out
and get big numbers yourself?


>   I suggest everyone 
>   keep their eyes on this one.

i'll be watching it.  but so what?

-bowerbird


















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/02/guest-post-by-victorine-lieske.html

joe said:
>   Q: How did this 
>   ebook catch on 
>   if Lieske is 
>   a complete unknown 
>   and has no other titles?
>   A: Luck. That's how 
>   all books catch on.

luck?  seriously?  no.

ok, it's one component,
but the sure way to get
lots of sales will always
be word-of-mouth...

amazon's engine for
recommendations is
the next best thing...

this is not a lottery.
it is a marketplace,
where the customers
are in communication.
when they love you,
they do your hype...

and if you are asking
how anyone found her
book in the first place,
she already told us:
the $.99 price-point.

-bowerbird







tina said:
>   I'm really kind of 
>   going back and forth 
>   whether to price Book #1
>   of my vampire series 
>   at $0.99 or leave it at
>   $4.99 where it sells really 
>   well (60 - 80 copies a day), 
>   but keeps me hovering 
>   around the #600 sales rank.
>   Will I really sell so many more
>   copies at $0.99 to make up 
>   for the loss in revenue?

tina, don't go from one extreme
to another, especially not fast.

if your book is selling that many
copies daily at $4.99, it means
it must have some quality in it.

you don't need to kick-start it.

if you drop the price to $.99,
amazon takes the lion's share,
so there might be less money
_overall_ in your pocket even
with the healthy sales jump...

you should price it at $2.99,
where you will still get 70%...
so you know that the jump
you can reasonably expect
will mean more money to you.

leave it there at least 2 months,
so you get the long-term effect,
and then see what's happening.

you should get a bump from
the price-drop, and another
bump from the increase in
word-of-mouth, and those
should put you on the lists,
so you get yet another bump.

depending on where you are,
at that point in time, you can
drop the price to $.99 _then_,
if you decide it is a good idea.

(it might be, if it'd shoot you up
to the top of the lists, but you
can't assess it accurately now.)

eventually everyone will have to
go to the lowest price-point, but
there is no reason to jump there
earlier than you have to do so...

-bowerbird








joe said:
>   Are all 99 cent ebooks 
>   Top 100 bestsellers?
>   No.

that's because all of them
are not high-quality work.

and some of them simply
haven't caught on yet, and
they will do so eventually.


>   Why is this one?
>   Luck.

i disagree.  luck _cannot_
sell thousands of copies,
let alone tens of thousands.

to do that, you have to
strike a chord out there.

don't you listen to your
audience?  and don't you
hear them telling you that
you struck a chord in them?

that's not "luck", joe.


>   Why did she get lucky?
>   Random events.

again, i disagree, strongly.

random events can get you
to a certain point _faster_
on the path of the journey,
but you would have gotten
to that same point anyway.

and random events can
take you a bit _further_
than you might have gone
otherwise, but not much.

these are real human beings
spending real money; that
doesn't happen accidently.

i am _not_ ruling out luck.
it does exist, and can be a
very important determinant.

you might miss out on your
audience _completely_, due
solely to some very bad luck,
or even maybe simply because
you are "ahead of your time".

and, on the good luck hand,
you might be helped along
by someone who is able to
channel you to a large group
of people by interpreting your
message so that it resonates
to that group, in which case
you'll likely benefit from that
huge word-of-mouth bump,
and that would be good luck.

and probably biggest of all,
if your muse delivers you
work that strikes a chord
in the population at large,
you _might_ call that "luck".

but one-at-a-time purchases
that cumulate to a big total?
that is not _luck_, and it is
not due to "random events".
no, it's because you struck a
chord in the populace at large.

-bowerbird





ok, i didn't realize that stephen
used the "strike a chord" as well.

but i guess it's the right phrase.

and no, i can't explain _what_
it is that will "strike a chord"
in the population at large...

but just because one cannot
_explain_ a phenomenon does
_not_ mean that it's just "luck".

***

joe said:
>   What becomes popular 
>   has to do with timing, quality, 
>   price, word-of-mouth, and 
>   dozens of other factors. 
>   Those all meet at 
>   a point I call "luck."

so in other times and places,
you might have also called it
"the will of god" or "karma"...

none of those terms, including
"luck", is any more explanatory
than saying "dozens of factors".

it's just that if you say "luck",
people are much more likely to
give up, as that is something
that is outside their control...

-bowerbird












joe said:
>   I can explain the phenomenon. 
>   It's random luck.

where, by "luck", as you said,
you mean the confluence of
"dozens of factors".  i agree.

of course, that "explanation"
doesn't really tell us much...

and i understand your point
that "striking a chord" and
"popularity" are circular, yet
it still rings true to me, since
people recommend books that
"strike a chord", and then --
given sufficient people -- the
cumulative effect of all those
recommendations _results_ in
popularity, so we have "cause"
and "effect", and examining it
-- in this temporal fashion --
as a _process_ overcomes the
objection to its circularity...

it's also true that some books
"strike a chord" in a smaller
number of people, and thus
do _not_ become "popular",
but _still_ exert that impact
in that particular person, so
it's not as if it doesn't exist...

after all, we don't flip a coin
to decide if we liked a book.
_that_ would be "random"...

-bowerbird







moses said:
>   But when it comes to 
>   self-preservation (individuals 
>   undercutting prices) 
>   vs the welfare of 
>   the collective 
>   (trying to keep the standard 
>   at $2.99 or higher),

this is not a commons dilemma.

the "welfare of the collective"
is _not_ served by higher price.

it's the opposite:  lower price is 
a rising tide lifting all the boats
of the writers and the readers...

-bowerbird








guido said:
>   no matter how little sense 
>   it makes fiscally, people will 
>   continue to di it because they
>   do not understand the effects
>   it has on a larger scale.

you're completely wrong when
you say that the "effects" of
low prices "on a larger scale"
are negative.  they are _not_.

but let's put that aside for now.

because you _do_ admit that
authors are going to continue
to do it, so _that_ now becomes
the important takeaway here.

writers are going to continue
to utilize low prices to garner
attention from the public, and
the number of these authors
is going to swell and swell and
swell some more, especially as
the revolution sweeps along...

you think the 99-cent books
are competition now?  wait...
there will be 10 times as many.


>   The 99 cent price point 
>   really stems from fear 
>   and a feeling of inadequacy.

oh please.  mr. psychotherapist.

increasing your profits is the
sine qua non of a marketplace.

when the demand curve gives
more sales _and_ more profit
at a lower price-point, and the
variable cost of creating a unit
is _zero_, only a fool will fail
to understand that expanding
the number of sales is the most 
important thing to be done...


>   I really wish indie authors 
>   would have the backbone to 
>   stand up and collectively say 
>   "No, my work is worth more 
>   than that!"

victorine is selling 1,000 copies
of her book every day.  i'd think
it would be presumptuous of her
to say her work is "worth more".

and yes, i do believe it would be
more fair if _she_ were getting
$650 and amazon the $350 --
instead of the other way around
-- but i don't think either side
has much to complain about...

especially since, when she was
saying "my work is worth more"
by pricing it at $2.99 in august,
she was moving 3 copies a day...

that's the change we are talking
about here, folks.  3 copies daily
at $2.99, versus 1,000 at $.99...

even a fool can understand that.
right?  fools, can you weigh in?

hey, even if it were a loss-leader
intended only to convert buyers
for her next product, that many
sales daily would be a success...

but here's the dirty little secret
-- there is zero "loss" involved,
because victorine's cost-per-unit
is zero, zip, nada, zilch, nothing!
so every one of these sales just
adds more to her bank-account.


>   $2.99 is dirt cheap, 
>   no matter how you look at it.

stop admiring the list-price and
attend to bottom-line instead...

-bowerbird








guido said:
>   lower my price to 99 cents, 
>   but not because I think it is 
>   a generally good move but 
>   because we have reached 
>   the point it seems where 
>   you have to be at 99 cents 
>   in order to compete at all.

exactly.

(but if someone is being
successful at $2.99, then
i'd suggest staying at that,
to get the higher "royalty".)

-bowerbird










moses said:
>   I don't think so. 

is that an argument?

do you expect that i will
find it to be convincing?


>   Lower price (99 cents) 
>   is going to help some 
>   authors break out, but 
>   driving the collectively 
>   expected price for a novel 
>   down to 99 cents (to be 
>   followed by free ebooks 
>   with ads?) wouldn't be good 
>   for authors, collectively.

you just restated your belief,
but again gave no reasoning.

maybe you presume that if you
repeat it enough times, it will
somehow gain in credibility?

it was wrong when you said it
the first time.  it is still wrong.

and yes, i absolutely realize
i'm not doing anything more
than repeating _my_ point,
for which i made no argument.
but if you can do it, so can i.

this is _not_ how argumentation
works, though, just so you know.

-bowerbird








victorine said:
>   If you were to successfully 
>   get into the top 100 with 
>   one of Michael's novels 
>   priced at 99 cents, and 
>   sales were to increase 
>   with your other books, 
>   it's quite possible you could 
>   make $100,000 a month 
>   rather than $40,000.

yeah, robin doesn't know
what she is truly missing.


>   But I think you'd have to 
>   stick with the 99 cent price 
>   for a few months, and 
>   I can see why you would 
>   balk at that, losing what 
>   you would in the short term.

very clever phrasing there, since
"losing" in the short-term isn't
really "losing" much at all, is it?

robin has said that she isn't in it
for the money, which is why she
is entertaining a big6 offer, even
as she admits it would cost her.

but she's not willing to risk the
short-term "loss" in order to see
if she can get a long-term gain
that's head-and-shoulders above.

hey, michael could be the leader
in this race, instead of amanda.
and we see how much attention
the front-runner gets, don't we?

a pity, isn't it, that cash-in-hand
has already trapped her mind...
she might as well be with a big6,
what with her risk-avoidance...

(you know i love you robin, and
this is just me teasing you, even
if i really believe it, while you
believe otherwise, as we know.)

***

joe's experiment has too many
flaws, but goodness gracious,
it's interesting to see the book
rise so quickly in the rankings...

#1078,#13,#14,#57<-start
#584,#5,#6,#24<-13 hours in
#438,#4,#5,#21<-17 hours in
#432,#3,#4,#19<-19 hours in
#405,#3,#4,#17<-20 hours in
#387,#3,#4,#16<-20.5 hours in

-bowerbird











robin said:
>   Except I do...
>   I tried the $0.99 experiement 
>   and it cost me $9,000 a month 
>   in income.

no, you didn't.

dropping the price for 2 weeks
is _not_ what i'm talking about.

and besides, as i have said,
it's a huge mistake to drop
your price by more than 50%.

so you should have gone from
$4.99 to _$2.99_, not to $.99,
to stay at the same royalty rate.

and once you drop a price,
leave it there for _months_.
at least 2 months, 3 is better.

that's the only way you can
gauge the effect of a price.

joe is making the same errors
with his current "experiment".

sweeping in people who were
on the fence at a higher price
is counterproductive.  oh yes,
the temporary bump is nice,
but those people would have
converted "eventually" at the
higher price, so you have only
just cannibalized your efforts.

further, now you have nobody
on the fence, so you're starting
from scratch with all buyers...
it takes time to bring 'em along,
so there will be a dry spell until
your fence gets some sitters...

the effects you see immediately
are short-term effects, and you
need to have the courage and
the intelligence to ignore them.
because in the long run, it's only
long-term effects that matter...

-bowerbird










victorine said:
>   I totally believe Amazon's 
>   recommending system 
>   is why I'm selling, not 
>   that people are scanning 
>   the top 100 each day 
>   to find something to read.

well, it's both.

but the former is far more
important, in all likelihood.

and collaborative filtering
like this is exactly why you
don't need to worry about
"being found" in the future,
no matter how far down
you might be in the pile...

if people like your work,
that will bring in others
who like the same things
that those people like...

it's like using a _magnet_
to pull the needles out of
a haystack.  it works fine,
no matter how big a stack.

(i don't know if magnets
actually attract needles,
but pretend that they do.)

and a good system will
_not_ fall for some b.s.,
like the current system
at amazon is prone to...

currently, their system
links a book with other
books that were _bought_
by a customer, without
any regard for whether
the customer _liked_
either book, or both...

so when you get that
recommendation, say
"the people who fell for
the hype on _this_ book
also fell for the hype
on this _other_ book",
and you'll understand the
recommendation better.
(especially as it relates to
the advertising that's done
by corporate publishers.)

amazon built its system
because it cares more if you
_buy_ a book than _like_ it.)

but once we have a system
correlating _judgments_
instead of just purchases,
it will be a lot smarter --
super-word-of-mouth...

-bowerbird







mark said:
>   What the heck 
>   is Random House doing 
>   with Sizzling Sixteen? 
>   The mass market paperback 
>   is selling at $8.99. 
>   Why on earth would they have 
>   the Kindle version at $12.99?

why?  to punish kindle owners.

besides, it takes a big bunch of
advertising money to get people
to purchase a $12.99 e-book...
you gotta make 'em want it bad,
and that advertising ain't cheap.
plus it's becoming less effective
all the time, they're sad to find.

but that's the way the rich boys
play the game -- big money out
(all tax-deductible, of course)
and big money in.  they want to
force you to play the same way,
because they know you _can't_.


>   Are they actively trying to 
>   discourage ebook sales?

yes.

they loathe a level playing field.

so you better believe that it is
pissing them off _big-time_ that
konrath is breathing down their
neck on the best-seller list with
his 99-cent book, _and_ making
more profit per book than them.

-bowerbird






joe said:
>   #324. Stuck in the 300s 
>   and losing money.

how many retailers put an item
"on sale" and expect to make
_more_money_ on it that way?

a "loss leader" is something on
which you expect to take a loss.

and if you want to gauge the
effect of a lower price on the
number of units moved, you
_must_ leave the lower price
in place for at least 2 months,
or 3 if you want to be certain.

i have said this repeatedly...

short-term effects mean zilch.

-bowerbird















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/02/numbers-game.html

it would be nice if
this was the last time
you had to make this
argument, but i have
a feeling it will take
a long time to sink in.

-bowerbird










evilphilip might be evil,
although i'm not sure,
but he is also correct...

the amazon app has
never allowed you to
make a buy inside it;
it always kicks you
out to the web-store.

if anything changes,
apple and amazon can
fight that out amongst
themselves, but _you_
don't need to fret a bit.

you offer your e-books
through amazon, and
they take their 30% cut.

you offer your e-books
through apple, and
they take their 30% cut.

you are not the property
of amazon...  wake up...

-bowerbird












>   Apple's new policies disallows 
>   the browser switcheroo that 
>   the Kindle app currently uses.

neither apple nor amazon has
said that, not publicly, anyway.

until they do, we do not know.
you don't know.  no one knows.

and it doesn't matter anyway,
because amazon is capable of
doing an all-browser strategy,
and will if they are forced to...

and apple knows that too...

what we're seeing is posturing,
and it's best to remember that.

-bowerbird








lots of authors are now
seeing that they benefit
_greatly_ from low prices,
regardless of how loudly
some people try to deny it.

many writers are now
making great money
from the new system,
when they made little or 
no money from the old.

readers, of course, do
not need to be persuaded
that low prices are good.

both writers and readers
are very happy to observe
that authors now can get
a bigger percentage of
the money readers pay...

it's quite sad that the
bald vast greediness of
the corporate publishers
ruined their industry and
took down bookstores
in the process, but we
warned them all along
that they had to change,
and they did not listen...

-bowerbird










moses said:
>   My point was that IMO 
>   a dramatic, widespread 
>   move toward 99 cents 
>   wouldn't only bad for 
>   authors collectively

you repeat this like it is an
established fact, and it's not.

there are a good many authors
who are being _helped_ by a
move to lower prices, and
_that_ is an established fact.


>   wouldn't only bad for 
>   authors collectively

i think you left out a word.


>   most of whom will 
>   make less money 
>   in a marketplace where 
>   prices are much lower 
>   across the board

again, the actual _facts_
do not support you here.


>   but it would also 
>   bad for readers 

i think you left out a word.


>   but it would also 
>   bad for readers 
>   because traditional 
>   publishing will take 
>   a huge hit 

so what?  good riddance!

we have seen that they are
unwilling to meet the needs
of readers, so amazon and
the self-publishers have now
stepped in to fill those needs.

by their own capitalist rules,
their business deserves to die.


>   even most indie authors 
>   won't be able to put 
>   as much time and energy 
>   into their works if the 
>   royalties are much smaller.

you do not have your eye
on the ball, moses...  you
keep looking at the price,
and the royalty rate, when
what you really _need_ to
look at is the bottom-line.

lower prices for books mean
_more_sales_...  lots more...

and the profit accumulates.

the proof is abundant...

it's really that simple.  it is.

-bowerbird








some people are still
worried about piracy?

goodness gracious...

what a quaint concern.

it almost makes me
feel a bit nostalgic for
"the good old days"...
weren't they grand?

-bowerbird

















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/02/killers-sequel-to-serial-at-cutting.html

blake said:
>   If someone has 
>   read your work, and
>   you release a new one, 
>   but they'll only spring for .99 
>   and not $2.99, they aren't 
>   a fan.  Fans will pay $2.99.

whoa.  it's bad luck to diss
_any_ paying customers...

-bowerbird





blake said:
>   I don't base 
>   my comments on 
>   what I think will 
>   bring me 
>   good or bad luck.

yeah, i can tell that!       :+)


>   Doesn't mean 
>   I don't appreciate 
>   every sale, 
>   even at $.99, 
>   but my theory is 
>   $.99 is like, 
>   $2.99+ is love.

how many people
in the whole world
_like_ you as a person?

how many people
in the whole world
_love_ you as a person?

i rest my case.

-bowerbird







and while i'm here...

***

blake said:
>   For instance, we 
>   actually started writing 
>   KILLERS (our opening scenes) 
>   about two weeks ago, and 
>   we spent the last week 
>   writing and editing 
>   the 3rd collaborative section 
>   in Google docs.

wow.  i wouldn't have
the balls to put out
something i just wrote.

because whenever i
come back to something
a month or two later,
there's almost _always_
something that i _must_
change, even if just a bit.

and i would surely want
my _best_ customers
(the ones who buy early)
to get the version that
i had _improved_upon_,
not the one i first wrote.

but, you know, maybe
that's just me.  could be.

-bowerbird











blake said:
>   I don't think that's 
>   as profound 
>   as you think it is.

i don't think it's
"profound" at all.

it's just common sense.

"love" is a pretty high bar
to be expecting of people...

"like" lets a whole lot more
come through the door...


>   If you know your 
>   story going in, 
>   know what works 
>   for you and 
>   what doesn't, 
>   know your characters, 
>   and you trust 
>   your creative decisions, 
>   you get to 
>   spend your life 
>   creating stories 
>   instead of revising them.

well, like i said, blake,
maybe it's just me...

but i've learned that,
for me anyway, it is
always best to let a
major work percolate
after i've just written it,
or made extensive edits.

i'm not afraid to write
in real-time, as i have
demonstrated right here
on countless occasions,
because i _do_ trust
my creative decisions...

but if i have the chance,
i prefer to let it percolate.

by the way, how many
books have you written
with a collaborator
using google-docs?

-bowerbird

p.s.  and, to be honest,
i've seen far too many
beginning self-publishers
rush a book out too early,
and then regret it later...

you have experience, so
i am _not_ putting you in
that category, but i would
advise any beginners that
they should not try this...










jack said:
>   wow. you show a lot of 
>   patience to an open attack.

oh please.  i made no "attack".

i clearly indicated that i was
making reference only to my
own experience in the matter.

i even included the phrase
"but maybe it's just me"...


>   cause its kinda tacky 
>   to attack someone 

and it does not become
an "attack" if you merely
repeat the word again...


>   cause its kinda tacky 
>   to attack someone 
>   over an opinion.

how curious...  bald hypocrisy,
right there in black and white.

i am amused.      :+)

-bowerbird







jack said:
>   I'm glad i could amuse you. 

i'm glad you could too, jack.      :+)

-bowerbird





joe said:
>   Good on you. It's important 
>   to know your limitations.

it sure is...        :+)


>   When I come back on 
>   something a month or
>   two later, my reaction is, 
>   "Wow, I nailed it."

oh, that's my reaction on 99.7%
of my words.  which is why i am
so glad to be able to edit those
other 3 words in every 1,000...

otherwise, so close, but so far!


>   I've written 24 novels. If I 
>   can't get it right the first time, 
>   I'm in the wrong business.

well then, yes, god has truly
blessed you, joe konrath...

like the old saying goes,
"practice makes perfect".

not to mention that old
carnegie hall routine...

plus, you know, you're lucky.

nonetheless...  regardless,
i am still going to continue
to believe that the reason
you and blake uploaded
your book so soon is _not_
something as pedestrian as
"experience", but because
you both have huge balls.

thus, most of you beginners
should not try this yourself,
_unless_ you have big balls...

-bowerbird






joe said:
>   out of a fear that 
>   it might not be perfect

"perfect"?

who mentioned "perfect"?

let's be realistic...     :+)


>   Every day an ebook isn't live is 
>   a payday you'll never get back.

on the other hand,
e-books are "eternal".

so sales from any one day
-- or any one _month_ --
will fade to immateriality...

and then you die, of course.

-bowerbird




















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/02/shaken.html

dr. cpe said:
>   graphic novels have 
>   a much higher bandwidth, 
>   and could be forced into a 
>   lower payment/royalty rate 
>   and higher list price 
>   because of their file size, 
>   directly because of 
>   these Amazon fees

the fee sounds fair to me.

bandwidth is a real cost.

so why should authors 
who use very little of it 
be forced to subsidize
authors who use a lot?

-bowerbird








dr. cpe said:
>   the first para 
>   of my comment 
>   is me speaking, 
>   the other four paras 
>   should have carried quotes, 
>   as they are from the article 
>   that I gave the link to. 

ok, duly noted.     :+)


>   About subsidizing, 
>   dont know 
>   if should or could. 

i strongly believe that _no_
subsidizing should be done.

this will become a big deal
once people start putting
audio and video in e-books.
(amazon's overall costs will
go up, dramatically, when
that starts happening...)

and if amazon's costs go up,
it means that amazon has
less money to give authors.

so the only _responsible_
course of action is to
recover those costs from
entities who cause them,
rather than force everyone
to share the burden under
the label of "overhead"...

this is of special concern
to self-publishers, who
probably tend toward the
all-text books, which are
cheap to download, who
would thus be expected to
share the higher costs of
the video that big houses
will undoubtedly try to use
to "enhance" their e-books.


>   Although the 
>   'utilize blockbuster 
>   income to subsidize 
>   smaller runs of 
>   any kind of book, 
>   including comix,' 
>   seems a venerable, 
>   time-tested, and 
>   still viable premise, 

that works for _one_
publisher, to a degree.

but it is unfair when
that one publisher is
expected to subsidize
_another_ publisher...

so, if your book costs
just 5 cents for amazon
to download, whereas
my book costs 95 cents,
why should we _both_ be
forced to give up 50 cents
out of our "royalties"?

that's unfair to you...


>   though I'd like to 
>   see how this plays out 
>   as prices go down--
>   if they do-- and 
>   royalty rates go down-- 
>   if they do. 

there is absolutely
no reason to expect
that "royalty" rates
will go down.  none.

if anything, they will
go _up_.  in that vein,
it's wise for amazon
to recover its costs,
which is what it is
doing with this fee.

amazon _does_ do
things that we should
be upset about, chief
among them being
the paltry 35% "royalty"
for items under $2.99.

but this download fee
is _not_ such a thing...

***

now, having said all that,
there is one thing that
people here should know.

the kindle converter now
automatically saves a copy
of the original file _inside_
the kindle file it generates.

that means that it contains
_two_ copies of the file...

which, of course, doubles
the size of the file, and thus
doubles the download cost.

you can turn that option off.
and if your download cost is
too high, you should do that.
the only down side is that --
if amazon switches formats
(e.g., to .epub, but please no!)
-- then your customers will
have to re-download...  but
that is a down side for them
and for amazon, not _you_.

-bowerbird













http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/02/time-is-money.html

"traditional publishing" has now
become a straw-man argument.

few people are receiving offers,
except for the established stars,
celebrities, and any writers who
self-publish and move boatloads.

and contracts are horrendous...

let writers still tempted by that
learn about things the hard way.

time to switch perspective from
the past to focus on the future,
leaving all the dinosaurs behind.

when the situation changes,
_you_ change...  remember?

the situation has changed...

-bowerbird
















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/02/list-experiment-update.html

>   "race to the bottom"

hey, who knew that _that_
is where all the money is?

***

p.j. said:
>   devaluing your product.

get over that notion!

***

david said:
>   You are comparing 
>   $0.99 and a big online 
>   promotional push to 
>   $2.99 with no promotion.

except for the fact that
the price-drop gave him
_something_to_promote_.

the people do love a sale.

so it's a reason to contact
them and let them know...

but a contact that's just a
repeat of a "buy me" spiel
is a turn-off that will only
make them tune you out...

***

w.w. kolb said:
>   Classic case of cutting price to
>   try to make it up on volume. 
>   That's pretty hard to do.

that line was a comedic classic
in the old world, a place where
the variable cost of each unit
was often a significant amount,
usually dwarfing the fixed cost.

but in the new world of digital,
where the variable cost is zero,
you do "make it up on volume".

indeed, that is the _best_ path
to success with digital products,
since every unit is pure profit...

you must update your thoughts.

***

julianne said:
>   It climbed over the next few
>   days to #27 where it peaked, 
>   then the week was up 
>   for the promo price, and 
>   I raised it back to 2.99.

how do you know it'd "peaked"?
it might well have kept going up,
in which case you cheated it out
of the momentum it was gaining.

joe thought his experiment was
a failure after a few days, since
it hadn't gone up "enough" yet...
it was just the case that he had
not yet given it a good chance...

***

so yes, joe, i'm happy that you
stuck with it and found out that
a low price really does work...

but you still are seeing nothing
but short-term effects.  before
you can really evaluate it fairly,
you will have to wait 2 months,
or -- better yet -- 3 months...
when long-term effects kick in.

they might not change much
from what they are right now,
or they might be even bigger,
or they might fade with time,
i'm not making any predictions,
i'm just saying that you cannot
_know_ until you give it time...

-bowerbird






s.j. harris said:
>   Now it's listed for $4.99. 
>   Not sure what the rationale 
>   behind discounting was...

amazon knows lots of tricks
that help it to sell books...

it will often do experiments
with different price-points,
and -- if things work well --
stick with the best numbers.

what is sad in your case here
is that, evidently, a lower price
did not stimulate enough sales.

that means that you will be
struggling with an uphill battle,
since lowering the price is
the easiest solution available
for a book which isn't moving.


>   Joe and Blake are selling 
>   their 18,500 word novella 
>   for $2.99.

joe is a known commodity
to many kindle people...

you need to earn their trust
the same way that he did...


>   $.99 is a ridiculous price 
>   for a book. If it gets to 
>   where that's all people 
>   are willing to pay, then 
>   there won't be any such thing 
>   as professional authors 
>   anymore.

you might be right, and we
will have to leave it to the
amateurs who are making
over a million dollars a year,
like joe and selena and
amanda and victorine and
many more who are hiding
because they don't want you
to know about their fortune.

-bowerbird





jude said:
>   They wouldn't budge 
>   on the ebook price, Douglas. 
>   It's going to be $9.99.

that "free" editing you got
from them has just revealed
its (big) hidden price-tag...

-bowerbird







jude said:
>   they wouldn't even consider it

i hope you will incorporate this 
new-found knowledge into your
assessment of legacy publishers,
who you continually defended...

their system isn't all that it is
cracked up to be...

-bowerbird










joe said:
>   What I've done here 
>   is the equivalent of 
>   putting turkey on sale 
>   for 19 cents a pound 
>   at the grocery store.

well, not really...  not at all...

because the store still has to
pay for that turkey themselves.

and what they pay is probably
more than 19 cents a pound...

so they _lose_ money on every
single pound of turkey they sell.

that's why such a thing is called
"a loss leader" -- because they
actually take a loss on the item.

your "turkey" costs you nothing.
you pay zero cents per "pound".
(although you do have to pay
70% for the "shopping-bag".)

so anything you make is profit.
pure profit.  _anything_ at all...

at a price of 19 cents a pound,
your profit is 6 cents a pound
(after the shopping-bag cost).

so yes, you might "lose money"
in the sense that you do not
make as much profit as you
could have, if you would have
sold the same amount of turkey
at a higher price, but in the end,
you're not _really_ losing money.

you have _more_ money in your
hand after each customer buys
than you had in-hand _before;_
that's _not_ true for the grocer.


>   The sale brings people in, 
>   then they buy other items 
>   that aren't on sale.

i know this is how you _hope_
it'll work.  and it may happen.

but even if that does not occur,
still examine your bottom-line.

it's quite easy.  you made $1200
in the first half of february, with
a price-tag on the book of $2.99.

in the second half of february,
with a price of $.99, you made
_fill_in_the_blank_here_.

i will assume you made _more_
pure profit in the second half,
despite the fact that amazon is
ripping you off with a "royalty"
rate that is half of what it was
during the first half of february.

that's the power of a lower price.

oh, and by the way, you also
obtained that book a boatload
of new readers, which -- as a
_writer_ -- should make you
very happy.  no, not because
"some of those readers might
generate more profit for me
in the future", but just because
your story wants to be heard...

_and_ you made more money.

and your book -- which had
already been out for 2 years,
and hit a sales "stability" --
is now on the bestseller lists.

that gives you higher visibility
as an artist, which is _nice_...
and again, joe, no, not because
you can "leverage" it into some
future sales, but just because
it is nice to get such recognition,
even if you don't seek it, or care.

(and you don't spoil any of my
logic even if you protest loudly
that you don't need validation.
the rest of the logic still holds.)

_and_ you made more money.

and the customers love $.99...
that's nice too.

_and_ you made more money.

have i mentioned that already?
because it's an important point.
it's actually the most vital point.
especially if profit is your object.

it's a win-win-win-win situation,
and it's all thanks to that $.99...

now if only amazon would stop
penalizing people for choosing
a price-point less than $2.99...

oh, and you want to know the
"secret" of selling your _other_
books, you know, the reason
why you put this book on sale?

very elementary.

price each one at $.99 as well...

preferably one at a time, so as
not to steal your own thunder.

-bowerbird




robin said:
>   There is a large enough 
>   population of readers who 
>   will pay $5 for an ebook 
>   that you don't have to 
>   drop your pants 
>   to find an auidience. 

dropping your price is _not_
equal to dropping your pants.

joe dropped his price and he is
going to the top of the charts...

he's not losing any dignity.

he _is_ gaining lots of readers
_and_ a boost in his _profit_...

argue with that...  go ahead...


>   If EVERYONE does it 
>   then it will be 
>   even harder to 
>   stand out from the crowd.

i'm sure your $6.49 price will
"stand out from the crowd" fine 
when everybody else is at $.99.

but the people who didn't take
an advance need to move units,
and that low price moves units.

_and_ makes 'em more money.

-bowerbird




















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/02/ja-konrath-interviews-barry-eisler.html

maybe i'm wrong about this,
and if i am, do please say so,
but i get a strong feeling that
the predominant attitude here
-- among all the commenters,
mostly, not mr. eisler per se --
is that if you can get away with
over-charging, you _should_...

for example, if you can get
$2.99 for a short, go for it!

your readers will pay that,
so go ahead and charge it!

i'm not here to tell anyone
how they should price stuff
-- really, do what you want --
but i can't help but remark
that this is the same attitude
that got new york in trouble.

you can keep edging up the
price, and people will adapt.
look at the price of popcorn
in the theaters, or the price
for a gallon of gasoline now,
as two vivid examples of that.

but what you are doing there
is creating some resentment,
and an adversarial relationship
with your readers, and _that_
is a very dangerous precedent.
(witness the music industry.)

in the long run, remember,
you _depend_ upon them...

they can _literally_ be your
bread and butter, they can.
(and they're quite tasty too!)

joe's saying about how you
best not piss off the chickens
if you are selling eggs can
be understood in this light
as well...  your readers are
the very key to your success.

the variable cost for each unit
you sell is absolutely _nothing,_
folks, so _anything_ you make
-- anything! -- is pure profit...

you need to think of it like that,
and make the decision that you
want to _reward_ your readers
with the lowest possible price
that you can possibly endure...

if you want to _retain_ those
fans for the long-term future,
that is.  in my humble opinion.

and if you make more money
in the process, all the better!

i'm just sayin'...

-bowerbird








joe said:
>   Going down to 99 cents 
>   might sell more ebooks, 
>   and make fans happier,
>   but it's tough to live on 
>   that royalty rate.

yeah, it's tough for amanda,
what with her only making a
measly million dollars a year.

that's the rookie mistake, joe,
focusing on the royalty rate
instead of your bottom line...

and since you are in the midst
of learning that a lower price
_can_ "make it up on volume",
i am rather surprised by that!

you're making _more_ money
at the "tough" 35% royalty rate
because you make more sales
directly due to the low price.
_lots_ more sales.  even more
than the _6_times_more_ that
is required to overcome the
unnecessary handicap which
amazon places on low prices.

now, just to repeat it _again_,
i think that the 35% royalty is
_unfair_, and i believe writers
should _refuse_to_play_along_
simply because it _is_ unfair...
no way should amazon receive
nearly twice that of the author.

so i'm not advocating $.99...

but there can be no denying the
power of lower prices to move
units out the door, in volume...

and imagine if the royalty rate
_was_ the same for _all_ prices,
and you just had to sell _three_
times as much at $.99 as $2.99
in order to profit just as much...

there is zero doubt where prices
would be going if that were so...

so the only reason that we are
not seeing the _real_ truth here
is because amazon is hiding it...

***

barry said:
>   Bowerbird, point well taken. 
>   Though I think our 
>   philosophy is the same: 
>   maximum profits 
>   for the long term.

thanks for taking it so well...

and yes, we have a substantial
degree of philosophically-agree.

and again, i sensed that attitude
more from _other_ commenters
than from you per se, since you
confess to being a pure newbie
to the whole publishing-digitally.
they're the ones saying "do it!"...

but let me pose some questions,
not for you, or joe, personally,
but for everyone to think over...

questions that go beyond the
issue of "maximum profits"...

how much money do you need?
really.  a very big handful of you
will make over a million dollars
in the next year from e-books.
a million dollars!  in one year!
from a newly-blossomed flower!

a few of you will even make 2!

i know it is an exciting thought.
believe me, i know it very well...

but...

when does it become "enough"?

at 3 million?  at 6 million?  at 10?

when do you stop thinking about
extracting more cash from the
marketplace?  and start thinking
about stuff like your creativity?
and elevating the human race?
and your legacy as an _artist_?
and safeguarding your integrity?
and saving the world from evil?

when do _those_ matters gain
some priority in your mindshare?

because you _are_ artists!
and not investment bankers.

and you are now receiving a
_huge_ blessing which artists
have been deeply longing for,
since the beginning of time --
full monetary support from an
adoring populace which makes
very few demands upon you...
you're the luckiest artists who
have ever lived on the planet...

and again, i know it's exciting!

but far too many of you seem
-- to me, at least, and i hope
i am not being unfair to you --
to be scrooge mcducks who are
chuckling over your money bags,
trying to scheme to get _more_,
instead of fully comprehending
the magnitude of your blessing,
and the responsibility which it
puts squarely on your shoulders.

i'm not trying to make anyone
feel bad...  and who gives a shit
what bowerbird thinks anyway?

but the world is on its way to
ruin, due to investment bankers,
and we sure could use some
artists to put things right again.

feet don't fail me now...

-bowerbird


















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/02/list-hits-kindle-top-100.html

joe said:
>   Now, the automatic reaction 
>   to this might be, "Wow, 
>   cheap prices=more money! 
>   I've got to lower the price of
>   all my ebooks to 99 cents!" But
>   that assumption is incorrect.

wrong.

you do not know whether that
"assumption" is incorrect or not.

the current data-point suggests
it is actually _quite_correct_...

surely we don't have any trouble
interpreting the 12-fold increase
in the numbers moved, do we?
and twice as much cash profit?


>   By guesstimate, if I have 
>   novels ranked over #1000, 
>   it stands to reason that 
>   I should drop them from 
>   $2.99 to 99 cents. But for 
>   novels ranked lower that 
>   #1000, it is too big a gamble, 
>   so I should leave those 
>   at $2.99

i would disagree with that...

put your best books forward,
man, not your weakest ones...

you want the people to buy
your weakest books _last_,
so they do the least damage.


>   So either The List sucks, 
>   people are buying it 
>   but not reading it, or 
>   our assumption about 
>   new fans buying 
>   other titles isn't correct.

let's use our head on this, ok?

have you followed the number
of reviews given to the book?

i have.

you've sold thousands of units
since the price drop, enough to
move up 1000 ranking places.

that's a lot of new copies out.

but the book has only received
2 additional reviews since then.
(it had 82 before, and 84 now;
both new reviews are 4-stars.)

so, no, most people have not
even read the book yet.  sorry.
but they will.  it just takes time.

how much time?, you ask...

until the book has double the
number of reviews it had when
you started out, at least twice,
you won't see auxiliary effects.

***

thomas said:
>   Once it's leveled off, you 
>   could then raise the price 
>   (and also raise 
>   your royalties substantially).

that's incorrect.

the royalty _rate_ will change,
from 35% to 70%, yes, but the
_amount_ of "royalties raised"
will depend on the number of
units moved at the higher price.

based on the results thus far,
we'd have to assume that his
total royalties will _decrease_
if he raises his price back up.

let's see how big his balls are.

-bowerbird











joe said:
>   All of my work 
>   is my best work. 

why doesn't it all sell as well?

luck?

i'm pretty sure you knew exactly
what i meant.  and that everyone
else reading along knew it too...

so, do i have to spell it out?

because i'll be happy to do so.


>   Wrong.

oh gee, i guess some of us _do_
have some trouble interpreting
a 12-fold increase in sold units
and twice as much cash in-hand.


>   You certainly have 
>   a lot of strong opinions 
>   considering you have 
>   no skin in this game.

why don't you see if the data
supports my strong opinions?


>   The data point suggests 
>   I can sell 533 ebooks 
>   a day at 99 cents. 
>   Not that every ebook 
>   I lower the price on 
>   will start selling 
>   12x as many copies.

i will repeat -- once again! --
that i'm not suggesting that
you or anyone else should
lower your prices, because
(a) i don't care how much
your books cost, really, and
(b) i think amazon's "royalty"
rate of 35% is _unfair_, and
(c) you can do what you like,
and (d) you undoubtedly will.

but overwhelming evidence
(evidence!) informs us that
lower prices mean big sales.

that's no big secret, though.
economists have know that
for a very, _very_ long time.
heck, they even call it "a law".

the big news for us is that
e-book sales often increase
to the point where they even
offset the huge handicap that
amazon places on low prices.


>   If I sold 533 copies 
>   of Trapped, I'd lose 
>   a lot of money.

you might "fail" to make
_more_ money (or you
might not), but you  still
would not "lose" a penny,
because your variable cost
remains absolutely nothing.

i might have said that before.
i'll probably have to repeat it
again, and again, and again.

i won't make any prediction
because i don't really have
a "strong opinion" about it,
but my _guess_ would be
that if "trapped" is _really_
your best work, and so is
"the list", then "trapped" will
climb up as high as "the list"
in the charts, and it might
even climb higher, since it
started from a higher perch.


>   Hence my reluctance.

do what you like.  i care not.

and i am most certainly not
trying to sway you in any way.

i'm just stating my "opinions".


>   However, it makes sense to
>   try it with a book that isn't 
>   selling as well as Trapped.

it should work on just about
any book that you try it on...

but i suspect the best strategy
is to have customers read your
best work before the rest of it.

oh right, all your stuff is "best".

-bowerbird









neil said:
>   I cannot wait to see 
>   how the market shapes up 
>   with $99 Kindles.

well, then, you just might pee 
your pants when you read this.

>   http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2011/02/free_kindle_thi.php

november is 8 months away...

-bowerbird








joe said:
>   I can't predict 
>   what will happen. 
>   And neither can you. 

except i've been very accurate
when i have predicted anything
-- the skin i have in this game.

why did you do an "experiment"
if you're just gonna turn around
and ignore your own results?

maybe one reason is that you
just enticed everyone here into
helping you jump your profits
by $100 a day on a stuck book.

so now let's move another one!

tom sawyer whitewashes fence.
and profits big in the process...


>   But you still keep spouting 
>   the sharpshooter fallacy, 
>   over and over.

what i am saying is _obvious._

so bloody obvious that i can't
believe i even have to say it!

but hey, it really seems i do.

and i must _repeat_ it often!

but that's ok, i guess, because
that's why my record is so good.

-bowerbird









neil said:
>   If that 'free' Kindle is 
>   a cell phone subsidized 
>   by a contract... then we'll 
>   have a 'free' Kindle

did you actually read the post?

the thinking there goes that 
amazon prime subscribers 
would get a kindle free, like
they get streamed movies free.
and their shipping gets waived.

so no "contract" will be involved,
just a once-yearly cost of $79...

-bowerbird












robin said:
>   I personally think Joe is 
>   a good enough writer 
>   that people will pay $4.95 
>   for his titles and would 
>   love for him to take Trapped 
>   to that level and 
>   see what happens. 

i would love to see that too.

since it would surely make for
a more fascinating experiment.

and who knows?  joe might
end up making more profit
with that higher price-point.

he won't know if he never tries.

of course, everyone who didn't
want to believe _those_ results
would write a comment about
how it was just one book from
one writer at one point in time,
and how everyone is different...

and all the people who _did_
want to believe such results
would say "see, i told you so!"

might as well be religious nuts.

-bowerbird







of course, a promotional push
announcing a new higher price
probably will not work so well.

-bowerbird






so, joe, was "shot of tequila"
ranked at #2523, having sold
453 copies, as you said first?

or #1405, having sold 483,
as you reported as of 5:30 pm,
presumably sunday the 27th?

or both?

if so, it appears that those
30 sales alone jumped you
up over 1000 rank-places...

i guess those sales came
from people who wanted
to get the "higher-quality"
version of the book at $2.99,
not the bargain version $.99.

"you get what you pay for!"

either way, just 48 hours later,
the book has hit rank #777...

predictability of higher sales
with lower prices is boring...

-bowerbird








after lingering just outside of
the top 50 for the past 3 days,
"the list" broke into it today
-- march 4th (march forth!) --
ensconced at #47 right now.

remember when joe thought
that it was "stuck in the 300s"
and he was "losing money"?

remember when joe thought
that it wouldn't reach #180?

we're about 2.5 weeks in to
the experiment at this time,
in case you lost track of that,
so these are still short-term
effects.  but ain't they grand?

***

meanwhile, part 2 of this
"experiment" shows that
"shot of tequila" is today
just outside the top 500.
this is its highest point,
but it has fluctuated wildly,
as it moves generally up...

-bowerbird






3pm on saturday, march 5th,
and "the list" is now at #36...

and all of a sudden, there
seems to be no discussion.

and no _need_ for discussion.

-bowerbird




































http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/02/guest-post-by-blake-crouch.html

blake said:
>   I thought it was probably 
>   the best thing I'd written

so some of your stuff is
better than the rest of it?

wow.  imagine that.     ;+)

-bowerbird





joe said:
>   "Blake, this is the best thing 
>   you've ever written."

and even joe agrees.  wow.    ;+)

-bowerbird







joe said:
>   He's young.

_and_ he has big balls.

he's also good-looking...

plus, from all that i can tell,
it seems like he's gonna have
a bestselling book on his hands
very soon now.  a huge one...

just don't ruin the momentum on
the thing, kid, and you'll do fine.

so, that's my "strong opinion",
folks, a big bestseller for blake.

and you know i'm never wrong.

-bowerbird











no no no no no no no!

don't introduce yourself!

not yet!  this is a _great_
double-blind test for us.

the possibility of collecting
data like this is _very_ rare.

so keep yourself anonymous!

joe will be able to grab some
identifying information on you
that will enable him to verify
that you are the same person
when you later step forward
and identify yourself fully...

for now, though, let us allow
the experiment to proceed...

oh, and do _not_ promote
the other book.  just let it be
found by the public at large,
or not, as the case might be.

do absolutely nothing at all!

we can identify it later, and
_then_ push it, if need be,
but let's give the people a
fair and fighting chance first.

so do nothing!  not until your
paper-book has come and
gone from the bookstores,
and dropped off any lists...
and then we can compare...

if your e-book needs a push
at that time, a bunch of us can
help to give whatever it needs.
we'll lift it to _top_ the charts.
we ain't gonna let a new york
tree-killer get an edge on us!
you'll get paid for that e-book.

also let's see if the gang here
can identify the paper book
which the publisher bought.
we know it got a big deal,
and it's from a new author,
so we have that head start.

oh gee, this will be _fun_...

so much fun!  thank you!

-bowerbird





and meanwhile, hey, all you
writers who have _not_ been
offered a 7-figure contract
from a new york publisher,
jump in the self-pub pool...

heck, even _jon_f._merz_ is
paddling around here happy,
$3000 richer than last month.
(minus however much that joe
charged him for the consult.)

the water's _fine_, and there
is room in here for everyone...

-bowerbird












blake said:
>   Would you consider 
>   emailing me a link 
>   to your Amazon book?

no!  don't do it, anonymous!

keep your identity hidden...
and your e-book unidentified.

_totally_.  to _everyone_.

your e-book will be found.

sooner or later, and most
definitely it will _eventually_.
(we will make it a bestseller,
then, if it's humanly possible.
so you will not lack for sales,
or profit.  you _will_ be paid.)

but for now, keep silent!

and keep it unidentified!

you might need to price it
at $.99, if it's not already,
but that's the _only_ thing
that you should do.  really!

keep this experiment pure!

-bowerbird







livia said:
>   While I do agree that 
>   an experiment is fun

well, yes, it _is_ fun...

but it's so much more,
on top of that, as well.

it's a rare opportunity
to be able to do a test
like this particular one.

there aren't many deals
for "close-to-7-figures"
happening these days,
and most certainly not 
with a first-time author.

and this one is eager --
not just willing, but eager
-- to do the experiment,
to the point that he has
set up the thing himself.

this is 100 times better
than any test that joe
could set up, and we
have seen how valuable
his experiments can be.

so let's not squander this.

especially just to satisfy
a desire to know a secret.


>   keep in mind that 
>   everything Anonymous 
>   is *not* doing to 
>   help sell his book is 
>   costing him real money. 

oh please.  there's no way
we can _know_ if that is a
truth or a shibboleth unless
we put it to an acid test...

besides, our "anonymous"
just signed a huge deal with
a corporate publisher, so
he ain't hurtin' for money.


>   I wouldn't feel very 
>   comfortable asking him 
>   to forego hundreds or 
>   thousands of dollars 
>   in potential sales a month 
>   to satisfy our curiosity. 

he won't lose any sales...

not over the long run...

because if the general public
does not find this book itself,
we will introduce it to them,
at the end of the experiment.
(which might run a few years,
so you'll have to be patient.)

but by the year 2020, he will
have matched sales either way,
so it won't make any difference.

and that's where all of you
self-promotion promoters
get it wrong.  in the long run,
_none_ of the considerable
time and energy that you
spend doing self-promotion
makes one bit of difference.

the book will sell the _same_
number of copies, _eventually,_
whether you promote it or not.

i can't "prove" that to you now.

but i have observed situations
that are exactly like this one,
and that's how it always ends,
with self-promotion being a 
big waste of time and energy.
(and often money as well.)

any particular book _will_ sell
as many copies as it _should_,
and ain't nothing you can do
that's ever gonna change that.


>   And I don't think improving
>   his cover copy/cover 
>   (if it needs improving, 
>   maybe it doesn't) would 
>   taint the experiment. 

i agree, it probably wouldn't.
if he decides to do that, fine.

but keep the identity secret,
because if you let it out, even
to some "trusted individual",
you'll always have to wonder
whether it went elsewhere,
and how far it went if it did,
and what the ramifications are.

so crap, who needs that bother?


>   There's nothing interesting 
>   about an experiment in which 
>   the self pubbed ebook does
>   worse because it had 
>   an unappealing cover.

in the long run, word-of-mouth
is the thing that sells the book.
it's the only thing that will sell a
book in tomorrow's digital world.

(although "word-of-mouth" will
become so supercharged that
you might not recognize it, but
that's what it'll be, underneath.)

your cover does not matter,
no matter how "unappealing".

you can believe that, or not,
and i know you probably won't,
because all of your "evidence"
says that a cover does matter,
but that's because all of your
"evidence" is short-term and
unreflective of the world that
will be the cyberspace future.

indeed, i hope this book has
an ugly cover, so you will see
that it makes no difference...

if it's a good book, and we do
believe that it is, because its
author got signed to a big deal,
then that's all that will matter...

and ya'll need to _learn_ that...

so let the experiment proceed.

-bowerbird







livia said:
>   Apologies if my 
>   earlier comment was rude.

it wasn't even close to "rude".

(if you were trying to be rude,
you better notch it up...  a lot.
i've learned to have thick skin.)

you expressed your opinion.

just like i express mine...       :+)

(well, not _exactly_ like i do,
and thank goodness for that!,
but the concept was the same.)

there are a lot of topics here
that must be discussed frankly.

no time to stand on ceremony...

-bowerbird


























http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/guest-post-by-jon-f-merz.html

jon-

you wanted joe to do it for you.

but doesn't it feel much better
that you did it for yourself?

and recall you weren't gonna
"believe" it until joe proved it?

but now that you have 
proven it to yourself, 
you _have_to_ believe it.

***

joe said:
>   You just need to keep at it 
>   until you get lucky.

it wasn't "luck"...  it was the
sequence of actions jon took.

just because that sequence
won't _always_ pay off does
_not_ mean it doesn't matter.

sex doesn't _always_ cause
pregnancy, but you cannot
get pregnant without sex...

and you can certainly _try_
to get pregnant and "fail".

and you can try all you want,
and you'll never "succeed" if
you are a male, not a female.

so it's complex, and that will
sometimes make it seem that
"luck" has decided the matter,
but that's usually not the case.

(luck _is_ a factor sometimes,
however, to a degree, with an
example here being the fact
that jon's book was featured
in that b&n e-mail promo...
but even that might've been
due to the reworking he gave
his cover, so that it appealed
to the person who was making
the promo, and not just luck.)

so...  the bottom-line is that
you won't "get lucky" if you
sit around and wait for "luck"
to strike you, like lightning...

_do_something_.

if you want some "luck"
lower your price to $.99,
like jon did with parallax.

-bowerbird







jduncan said:
>   I pay ten bucks to 
>   sit for two hours 
>   in a movie theatre 
>   to see/hear a story. 

you can drive yourself crazy
doing comparisons like this.

i realize that that particular
perspective helps you to
make the point you intend.

but i can also tell you that
an $8 netflix subscription
will give me all the movies
i can watch for a month...

do you catch my drift?

in the end, it boils down to
whatever people will pay...

if you get 'em to pay more,
then more power to you...

otherwise, deal with reality.

***

nicholas said:
>   If books are 
>   so expensive to make 
>   that publishers literally 
>   can't break even 
>   without charging $25 
>   out the gate 
>   with a new hardcover

and here's the other side.

if you're doing hard-copy,
and selling in bookstores,
then yeah, you really do
have to charge $25 for
a hardcover "out the gate".

especially if you're paying
for lots of vice-presidents,
and a gleaming skyscraper.

have you priced gas lately?
lifted a box of books to see
just how much they weigh?

publishing is rough trade...
there are good reasons why
only the greediest survived.

-bowerbird












http://amandahocking.blogspot.com/2011/02/misinformation-corrections.html

amanda-

thanks for clearing the air!  although it was 
kinda fun to witness all the misinformation...      :+)

austin, minneapolis is cooler than austin, texas.
_much_ cooler...  and i mean that quite literally...
nine degrees, my iphone tells me, right now.  9!
hey, you stay inside, you get some writing done.

my iphone also says there are 8 austins in the u.s.
who knew?  plus "austinburg", in ohio.  my word.

anyway, do please tell us when it's a million, ok?
so we can let all that speculation come to a close.

-bowerbird
















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/monetizing-your-intellectual-property.html

jenna said:
>   One thing about this - 
>   you have to be sure to 
>   label everything correctly

that's very good advice...

but it's not enough.

requiring customers to
pore over your labeling
to avoid getting burned
is not a good thing to do.


>   and always offer some 
>   level of new content, 
>   otherwise you're going 
>   to piss customers off! 

again, that's good advice...

but...

...it cuts both ways.  if you 
make a customer "re-buy" 
stuff they already bought
just to get the new content,
that will piss them off too...

***

there are lots of ways that
you can "trick" readers now.

but i'll remind everyone
yet another time that
a dissatisfied customer
can be very dangerous
in this day and age of
instant communication
with the entire world...

you'll be much better off
asking your true fans to
give you extra money --
they will do so, happily!
-- than trying to "trick" it
out of average customers.

i put "trick" in quotes here
because i know that's not
the _intention_ of any of
the _suggestions_ here,
so i am _not_ making any
_accusations_, mind you,
(and i will _slug_ anyone
who jumps to that stupid
misattribution regardless),
but it _might_ be the way
that customers _interpret_
what happened to them...

-bowerbird









ya know, it's funny, because
i was gonna post a comment
saying "everyone here should
read bob lefsetz regularly..."

lefsetz is an astute observer
of the music business, who
goes back a long ways but
also has a very clear vision
of what the future will be,
and his writings are useful
for anyone who wants to
operate in this new world...

so i'm out taking a walk and
i check my e-mail and heck,
whaddaya think i find there?

bob has just written a post
about amanda hocking...

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2011/03/03/amanda-hocking/

anyone who thinks that you
need a traditional publisher
to become "famous" is gonna
be proven wrong _again_ by
ms. hocking.  she's blowing up,
and making the news all over,
and it is precisely _because_
she has no corporate muscle
behind her pulling the strings.
she's the man who bit the dog.

you go, girl!

-bowerbird













"anonymous" said:
>   I have a series of 
>   six historicals, which 
>   between them sold 
>   over half a million copies. 
>
>   If they were unpublished, 
>   I wouldn't hesitate, but 
>   is there ebook life 
>   in a backlist like this?

is there commercial possibility
in content which has proven that
it has commercial possibility?

i'd guess the answer is "yes, yes, 
over-half-a-million times yes!"

***

cameron said:
>   I have a novella 
>   that will be published 
>   in a couple of weeks.
>
>   I also have 
>   a short story 
>   that's ready to go.
>
>   I'm trying to figure out 
>   a) how to price them, and 
>   b) which one I should 
>   post first.
>
>   Any general advice 
>   on those questions?

combine them.

-bowerbird




"anonymous" said:
>   You need to carefully separate 
>   people's complaints from how 
>   they vote with their dollars. 
>   They are rarely in sync. 

i would agree with most of that.

instead of "rarely", i woulda said
"often not", but close enough...


>   Listen to the sales data 
>   and not the vocal minority.

i'd disagree almost completely.

unless that "vocal minority"
is tiny (i.e., less than 10%),
it is your _warning_signal_
that "you're doing it wrong."

so you should listen to it...

and even if it _is_ tiny, you
still might wanna listen to it.

i'm not necessarily saying that
you should _bow_down_ to it,
or even appease it, but you
most definitely should _listen_.

in days of old, you could afford
to ignore unhappy customers,
but as too many corporations
have learned already, today's
unhappy consumers go viral,
and that can cause problems,
big hard-to-solve problems,
problems to avoid if you can.

and listening is a cheap way
to avoid those big problems.

it's all about the relationship.

-bowerbird









jenna said:
>   this is what differentiates 
>   fans and readers.

i agree with you.  thing is,
if you're selling e-books --
at under 5 bucks a pop --
you're selling to _readers_.

you must find another way
to get money from _fans_,
since fans want to give you
_lots_and_lots_ of money,
not just a few bucks, and
_not_ for something that
anyone else can buy cheap.

that's why i had mentioned
bob lefsetz up above, since
this is a big point of his, but
i forgot to do the follow-up.

bob made observations that
people get pissed off when
the ticket-price for concerts
skyrockets.  but the people
who are the most satisfied
are the fans who paid extra
(and it's a very big amount)
to meet the band back-stage.

don't charge everyone extra
for the basic product, in the
feeble hope fans won't mind.

because that doesn't make
_anyone_ happy, most of all
the non-fans who you need
to fill all those empty seats.
but also not the fans either;
they want something special
the other people don't have.

charge as little as you can
for the basic product, to
try to get as many people
in the tent as possible, so
you can convert as many
as you can into true fans,
who'll _want_ to pay more.


>   For instance: 1994 - 
>   I was a HUGE 
>   Smashing Pumpkins fan

i really enjoyed your story.     :+)

it's nice and fun to hear a fan
talking about the entity of
their affection...  touching...

but here's the thing, jenna.

none of that ephemera stuff
applies in the digital world...

you were collecting _stuff_.
great...  it's cool to collect...

however, an e-book has _no_
"collector value", because it's
easily reproduced by people...

my copy of "the list" is the
exact same as your copy...
and either one of us could
make countless other copies,
which are all the exact same.
so there's nothing to "collect".

if your fans want to create a
"bundle", they have the pieces
so they can do it themselves.

you want to sell your fans
something they don't have,
something that they cannot
do themselves.  for thinking
along these lines, you should
read the blog of kevin kelly...
>   http://www.kk.org

-bowerbird







j.a. said:
>   Seems some people 
>   in the comments 
>   don't like bundling at all. 
>   Yet, it works. 

it "works" from _some_
standpoints.  but not all.


>   Bundling works in music. 

it does, does it?

most people agree that
napster took off like it did
because the music-buyers
hated the record industry.

why?

most observers say that
those buyers felt that the
industry had cheated them,
thus felt zero compunction
about "cheating" in return.

and the number-1 reason
music-buyers felt cheated?

because they'd been forced
to buy albums composed of
a couple good songs mixed
in with a big bunch of "filler".

and they had had no choice
but to accept this "bundling",
and buy the entire package
to get the pieces they wanted.

so yes, this "vocal minority"
kept purchasing even while it
bitched to anyone listening...

but once it got the chance to
_strike_back_, it seized on the
opportunity without hesitation.

and the rest, as the saying goes,
is history...

-bowerbird








"anonymous" said:
>   unlike someone who has 
>   20 years experience 
>   making media that has 
>   sold millions of copies 
>   to cricitical acclaim

um, i don't think you get to
trumpet your track record
when you come in here as
one of the "anonymous" tribe.


>   the buying public is 
>   rarely the best judge of 
>   what's good for the product 
>   and the market.

that must be why you experts
have such a bad track-record
in predicting what we will buy,
so the only way you could get
"millions of copies sold" was to
ram it down our throats, using
the "cricitical (sic) acclaim" in
the media which _you_ operate.

but we don't pay attention to
your "payola" game any more.

-bowerbird





























http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/list-experiment-update.html

robin said:
>   so it seems as though 
>   there is some precedent 
>   for using $0.99 
>   to get on the list 
>   then adjust your price 
>   to maximize profit.

i have a few thoughts on that.


>   so it seems as though 
>   there is some precedent 

except i would not be looking
to those legacy publishers for
any "precedent" for us to follow.


>   for using $0.99 
>   to get on the list 
>   then adjust your price 
>   to maximize profit.

ok, first of all, joe has found
the way "to maximize profit".

if you are under an illusion
that "the list" will _stay_ on
the top-seller lists for _any_
appreciable length of time
if he raises the price back up,
then i would like him to try...

and if you think this is some
yo-yo, that you can continually
bob up and down, at will, then
i'd need to see even more data.

this tactic strikes me as the very
_essence_ of a slash-and-burn,
where your relationship with
customers means almost zilch,
because you are (1) desperate,
and (2) halfway out the door...

that's why it doesn't surprise me
that the legacy guys tried it...

i can't think of many things that
would piss off a customer more
than to let them get the feeling
you're jerking them around with
price to squeeze 'em maximally.

we're getting way too much of
that at gas pumps these days;
we don't need it at a bookstore.

-bowerbird








robin said:
>   Once you hit the list a
>   and the Amazon machine 
>   starts recommending you etc 
>   why not 
>   maximize the revenue? 

as i said, the lower price is
precisely the thing that _is_
"maximizing the revenue"...

so you want joe to change
the very aspect that is doing
what you're saying you want.

you seem to presume that
the sales will remain static,
even if he raises his price,
but that's the same kind of
thinking that _ruined_ the
business of legacy publishing.

they thought that demand
was inelastic, so they could
charge higher prices and still
get the same number of sales,
so they kept raising the price
until the bubble burst on them.

now they cannot retrieve those
buyers that they'd chased away.

based on their e-book prices,
they don't even seem to have
noticed that the bubble burst!

and you want us to make
that very same mistake?


>   Neither you or I know 
>   for certain if a rise in price 
>   will make him fall off the list. 

your capacity for denial is
certainly quite tenacious...

but let me play along, ok?

no, neither you nor i "know"
that will happen "for certain".

but my best reasoning says
that it would, and i am quite
confident that that reasoning
is accurate in this case...  so
i would make a _prediction_
to that effect, and also a bet.

but let us examine the caveat.

as i have said, repeatedly now,
it is the long-term effects that
really matter, not short-term.

in 3 weeks, joe has made out.

but who knows what'll happen
if he keeps $.99 for 3 months?

that's the _real_ question here.

the book might drop to #100.
or #200.  or even go up to #9.

whatever it does after 3 months,
_that_ is the result of this little
"experiment", and not what has
happened at the 3-week mark,
just like joe was premature to
worry about it all after 3 days.

after letting it be for 3 months,
if joe were to raise it to $2.99,
after _another_ 3 months, we
would see the results of _that_.

remember that these e-books
are long-term products, _not_
things that are on the shelves
for 2 months and have to make
a mark in that time or vanish...
we're new-school, not old-time.

***

all of this is _not_, by the way,
to say that i expect the effect
of raising the price would take
very long to manifest itself...

on the contrary, i would say
that the trend would start to
appear within a week, and be
extremely clear within 3 weeks,
just like that of the price-drop.

so, do you wanna bet, robin?

i'd consider it a sucker-bet, but 
heck, i will take your money...

come on, you're a poker player!

but you're the one who has to
persuade joe to raise his price.
try "in the name of science..."


>   Let's Look at 
>   Julianne MacLean's 
>   The Color of Heaven

got dates and time-frames?

because short-term stuff
won't give us any answers.

the $.99 price might've taken
that particular book to #1,
and kept it there for a year,
and got her a big movie deal.

and she gave all of that up,
just to get $2 more per book,
even though that meant that
she made _less_ total profit!

and you cannot _deny_ that,
robin, since neither you nor i
_know_for_certain_.  do we?

-bowerbird








david said:
>   I don't think price changes 
>   piss off the average customer.

one price change, certainly not.
two, probably not, or not much.

but if they get the feeling that
you're continually experimenting
on them by changing the price,
and thus removing that variable
from the range of their control,
on book after book, _look_out_.

but i do not care if you agree
or not.  because you're the one
who'll suffer the consequences.
so believe whatever you like...


>   Most customers don't 
>   track prices of books 
>   they intend to buy. 
>   They discover a book and 
>   buy it. Or they don't buy it.

i might know more "shoppers"
than you do, david, or maybe
more poor people, or perhaps
just more "frugal" people, but
i think if we ask around here,
we'll find that people generally
visit a book's page on amazon
a couple times before buying it,
where they might read reviews,
then grab the sample to read
-- maybe days or weeks later --
and only _then_ come to buy...

also, i distinctly remember,
when this experiment was
announced and discussed,
quite a few people here said
"i've been meaning to buy it,
but hadn't gotten around to it,
so i took advantage of $.99",
which gives some indication
that people do indeed devote
attention to their purchases,
and are observant on prices.

especially once they have built
a backlog of unread e-books...

i don't even think $.99 e-books
are "impulse purchases", which
seems to be the common belief
around here.  i believe they are
considered purchases, albeit not
so seriously.  but again, maybe
it's just the people who i know.

-bowerbird










"anonymous" said:
>   Are you an 
>   independent author? 

i've written books, yes.

but call it a mere hobby.


>   Or an author or editor 
>   with the Big 6?

i have edited books, yes.
and copy-edited them...
desktop-published them,
and magazines, catalogs,
and the entire gamut...

i have rolled my share of
output from a linotronic.

i've done some work for
well-known houses that
were probably owned by
big6 parents, i'm not sure,
but i am mostly a slacker
(and a performance poet!)
who doesn't want any job
and hates corporations...

i'm lucky.  angels love me.


>   You seem to know alot 
>   about this industry 

you can learn many things
if you merely pay attention.

i started following e-books
in _1985_ (when we had to
define what an e-book was),
when i saw how valuable it'd
be to store all of the books
in the world "on the computer"
so they could be accessed by
everyone at virtually no cost.

(and all of the music and all
of the movies and all of the
photos and all of the art and...)

unfortunately, the capitalists
let their greed get in the way.

but i'm a computer guy too, so
i've programmed e-book apps
ever since those days in 1987,
and nudged e-books all along.

that was why i paid attention...


>   yet you aren't pushing 
>   your books 

i have been exposed to
so much self-promotion
in my life that i've come to
hate it with a pure passion.

so i never do it myself...

instead, i speak against it.

so i'd ruin my credibility
if i did any of it myself...

besides, i've found that it
often doesn't work anyway.
and sometimes backfires...

in my old age, i now believe
i know how i coulda done it
in a way that woulda worked,
and taken me farther, that i
coulda felt comfortable with;
but i can't be sure...  besides,
i got "far enough" anyway...
my legacy is secure for the
next ~500 years, assuming
that humans survive so long,
without a break dividing us
from 20th-century culture...


>   yet you aren't pushing 
>   your books because you 
>   don't identify yourself.

well, you have it backwards.
you didn't "identify yourself".

but i sign every post i make,
and make them all under the
same identification log-in...

"bowerbird intelligentleman"
started as my poetry name,
but i quickly came to use it
for all my creative purposes.
(so for just about everything.)

people know me across a
wide range of cyberspace;
some love me, some hate me.
it all comes with the territory.


>   One more thing - please 
>   use proper capitalization. 

no thanks.         :+)


>   I know some peopel use 
>   all small letters when 
>   they type on phones

i've been using all-lowercase
since before people had even
thought of "typing on phones".

before there even was "a web".


>   In fact, I used to just 
>   skip over your responses

that's perfectly ok with me...
doesn't bother me one bit...
i understand it quite well,
and wouldn't want you to do
anything else if you dislike it.


>   because I've found that 
>   usually people who don't 
>   write and captialize properly 
>   add little to a discussion, 
>   especially a literary one.

again, that's perfectly ok...

i've found that people who
spell it as "alot" and who
spell it as "peopel" and who
spell it as "captialize" and
even a mistaken "fdoing"
often cause me some upset,
since i hate me the typos, but
i try not to make it personal.

but yes, i'm quite astounded
that so many "writers" here
don't seem to know how to
spell, or craft a sentence...

-bowerbird





evilphilip said:
>   Who is this "us" 
>   you are speaking about? 

the people reading robin's post.


>   If you aren't an indie author, 
>   you don't have 
>   a horse in this race.

oh please.  take it and shove it.
then shove it up even farther...

i have been working hard for
the cause of electronic-books
for over 25 years now, my son.

but even if i didn't have that,
do you believe this is some
thing that was handed to you,
and you alone?  think again...

the miracle of cyberspace is
a gift for all the human race.

it ain't just your handy-dandy
little personal cash-register...

and any one of us might well
become "an indie author" at
any time, or the _customer_
for one of the "indie authors."

now, shove it up even farther.

-bowerbird






robin said:
>   But since that conflicts with 
>   your lower must be better 
>   you'll close your eyes and ears 
>   to it just as you did when I 
>   presented my own figures 
>   during my $99 experiement.

i noticed you failed to say
if you want to take the bet.

i will pay close attention to
the book at which you point,
i will, for the next 3 months,
and report back frequently...

but any "effects" that surface
within the first few days of a
change are super-short-term,
and deserve to be ignored...

-bowerbird

p.s.  by the way, here is a
comment which i cannot get
to "stick" over in the thread
on sam torode's "dirty parts":

>   http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-sam-torode.html

here's another update...

in mid-february, sam said:
>   After raising the price 
>   to $2.99, it gradually 
>   dropped from #50 to #200 
>   over the course of 2 weeks. 
>   The income for a $2.99 book 
>   at #200 was still greater than 
>   for a 99 cent book at #50

today -- march 6th -- the rank
for "dirty parts" is now at #471.
(it was at #378 on march 4th.)

i'm not sure how the profit on
a $2.99 unit at #471 compares
to a $.99 unit at #50, but i'd be
extremely worried by the trend.

you're either moving up or down,
and only one direction is good...

-bowerbird









evilphilip said:
>   You seem a little sensitive 
>   to the idea that 
>   you aren't an author

"sensitive" is telling you
to shove it?

you must come from 
a different part of the 
world  than i do...       :+)

besides, i'm a poet, dude.
we're superior to authors.
which is why it's called
"poets and authors"...

you do know what
"top billing" means,
don't you?


>   Break out of your shell 
>   and challenge yourself 
>   to accomplish something 
>   like the rest of us.

i'm happy with what 
i have accomplished.

and i hope you are too.

so please, mr. evil,
have a nice day, ok?

-bowerbird






evilphilip said:
>   Yes, it is that spot that will 
>   forever be out of your reach.

says the "indie author"
whose own 99-center
now ranks #383,214...

-bowerbird







kevin said:
>   I get the impression that you
>   support a $0.99 price point 
>   as opposed to $2.99

ok, i've said this a lot of times,
but maybe you're new here, so
i'll say it one more time, kevin.

i don't support any price-point.

i don't care what price you use,
your neighbor uses, or anyone
else uses.  do whatever you like.
it's your life; you gotta live it...

i am also not under the illusion
anybody, let alone the market,
cares what price-point i desire,
even if i had any preferences...

i also can't change the weather.

i firmly believe that the "royalty"
percentage that amazon pays on
sub-$2.99 books is very unfair...
there's no way it deserves 65%.

there are several reasons why
amazon might have decided on
that rate, and kept it even when
it matched apple's 70% "royalty"
on prices from $2.99 to $9.99.

but at this time, it is unfair, so
i beseech amazon to change it.

i asked joe to speak to amazon
about changing its rate when he
did a deal with amazon encore,
but i never heard anything back.

if i was amanda hocking's agent,
you can bet i would be swinging
some big bats at amazon to give
that young lady a better share...
it is criminal how much money
amazon makes at her expense...

but like i said, i cannot change
the weather, either, you know...

so, what do i recommend?

i recommend that authors _not_
use $.99, to inform amazon that
you _object_ to that unfair rate.

since the bottom-line, however,
is often better when using $.99,
and the readership is increased,
i think it's inevitable that prices
ultimate-gravitate to that place.

authors like money and readers,
and if $.99 gives them _both_,
then that's how they will decide.

so i can whistle in the wind with
a boycott-unfair-rate campaign,
but it ain't gonna make a dent...


>   I'm thinking that 
>   a Da Vinci Code 
>   could ride the bestseller list 
>   at whatever price point. 

i'd think you're right about that.

yet p-bookstores nonetheless
gave the book a steep discount.

just like harry potter p-books.

and the twilight series as well...

the used 'em as loss-leaders...

strange, isn't it?


>   Also, if there was 
>   a new Stieg Larsson title 
>   surely a $0.99 price point 
>   would be crazy? 

if a dead man wrote a book,
i would think that you could
charge a _lot_ of money for
that thing.  a _lot_...       :+)


>   So, my question is: 
>   how do we factor in 
>   reader desire or 
>   cultural phenomenon 
>   into a sale price?

but seriously, even a steig
_might_ get a 16-fold jump
in sales from a price-drop
to $.99.  it's not impossible.
we don't know until we try.

it's certainly possible, too,
that demand for some books
is so high that there really is
no elasticity, and thus a drop
in the price will not cause any
more sales...  we don't know.

one more thing that i've said
often is that you should never
drop a price to less than half.

(the $2.99 to $.99 drop is
the exception, because of
the weird "royalty" situation,
but generally avoid a cut of
greater than 50%, because
that creates befuddlement
in the customer's mindset.)

conversely, you should never
raise a price more than 100%.

in general, cutting a price
in half should give you
4 times as many sales...
if you don't get 4x, then
you should raise it back...

likewise, raising a price to
_double_ should result in
4 times fewer sales, so if
the fall-off is less than that,
consider keeping that price.

(yes, of course we should
do experiments with raises,
because it's all brand new,
and we need to _explore_.)

but of course, the important
thing is the bottom-line, so
pay that the greatest heed...

-bowerbird





joe said:
>   It's best to ignore bowerbird. 

it's best to listen to joe...


>   He's in love with 
>   the sound of his own voice. 

it's best to listen to joe...

because he's not in love with 
the sound of his own voice...

-bowerbird












"the color of heaven" was #17
yesterday afternoon, march 6th.

it is #26 today, march 7th...

-bowerbird







and now, 1:52pm pacific,
on tuesday, march 8th,
"the color of heaven" is #37.

coincidentally -- or not --
"the list" is right now #36.

the irony will be apparent.

-bowerbird












after it rattled around the #30s
for the last 5 days, here today,
wednesday, march 9th, "the list"
made a big leap into the 20s...

it started at 29, but notched it
one number better at an hourly
pace, or it seems, now sitting
at #24, at 2:16pm on march 9th.
recall that exactly 1 month ago,
it was stuck in mud at #1078...

that's right, it wasn't even in the
top-1000 list.  and now it's #24...

konrath is selling 720+ a day,
which is _18-times_ as many,
for _3_times_ as much profit.

and as far as we can tell, yes,
this book is _still_climbing_...

watch out.

***

but "the color of heaven"...
well, gee, not quite so good.

it's now ranked at #42...

(funny, with #24 and #42.)

not good.

from #17 to #42 in a few days.

a big fall down the mountain...

***

one of these books is priced
at $.99, the other at $2.99...

one is rising, the other falling.

can you guess which is which?

-bowerbird








our "color of heaven" watch
has a report today registering
a highly symbolic moment...

just now, noon pacific time,
on thursday, march 10th,
"the color of heaven"
dropped down to #46.

that might not _seem_
like a "symbolic" number,
until you also learn that
the book now occupying
#45 is "follow the stone",
which just happens to be
the _worst_ ranking for
_any_ of the 7 k-books by
john locke, including the
one he released last week.
(which now sits at #30!)

that's right, john locke
now has all 7 of his books
in the top #45, all of 'em
now ranking better than
"the color of heaven"...

of course, the notable fact
about john locke's 7 books
is that each costs just $.99.

but "the color of heaven",
at $2.99, continues falling.

so this symbolic leapfrog of
all _7_ john locke k-books
over "the color of heaven"
dramatically represents the 
_dynamic_takeover_ of the
kindle top-100 bestseller list
by low-priced $.99 e-books,
even against the $2.99 price.

adding to this symbolic moment,
"the list" has just hit the top-20,
and now sits at position #19...

i'd like to thank robin for
exhorting us to focus on
this interesting interplay...

-bowerbird

p.s. also, in related news,
sam torode had raised the
$.99 price for his e-book
"the dirty parts of the bible"
to $2.99, so as to cash in on
its #50 status in the top-100,
only to see it fall out of that,
dropping under rank #200,
then #300, then #400, and
ultimately lower than #500.
(it sunk to #592 on march 6.)
it was a spectacular free-fall.
however, he's put the price
back at $.99, and the book
is rebounding, up to #368...
however, i wonder how long
authors can manipulate the
rankings is such a manner
before customers catch on
and punish such behavior...
no customer wants to be the
guinea pig in an experiment.










more symbolic events today,
as of noon, friday, march 11th.

first, "the list" is dancing around
the #20 mark, right now at #20.

recall that just four weeks ago,
at $2.99, it was at rank #1078.

now, at $.99, it's in the top-20.
so a bestseller was languishing,
because it was "overpriced" at
$2.99...  who woulda thunk it?

now it probably sells 840 copies
every day, which is _21_times_
what it was selling before, and
it brings in 3.5 times the profit.

so much for the often-unstated
assumption that the 70% royalty
automatically gives more profit.

it's making _more_money_ at
$.99, despite that unfair 35%,
_because_more_people_buy_it._
that means more readers, and
-- if the book is worth its salt --
that means _more_fans_too_...

more money, readers, fans,
and attention from the world;
that's something to attend to.

but there's _more_ symbolism!

because that newest k-book by
john locke, the one which has
only been out for about a week,
just yesterday hitting rank #30?

it is now sitting at rank #16...

that's right, it positively vaulted
over "the list"...  john locke now
has _4_ books in the top-16...
(and 3 of 'em are in the top-9.)

so konrath moved his one book
to the top-20 with a $.99 price,
but john locke has moved _4_
books to the top-16 using $.99.

so while konrath was trying to
use one $.99-inexpensive book
to sway buyers to purchase his
other $2.99-inexpensive books,
a tactic that didn't really work,
at least not like he'd expected,
john locke was pricing all of his
7 books as $.99-inexpensive and
they're all pushing one another,
in a brilliant cross-selling move.

oh yeah, "heaven" is now at #45,
below #44 "follow the stone" --
john locke's worst-ranked book.

-bowerbird








and... bingo!

as of 9pm pacific,
on friday march 11,
john locke now has
4 books in the top-10.

amazing.  just amazing.

-bowerbird







here's your update report for
monday, march 14th, at 9am.

"the color of heaven" has now
fallen from the top-50, at #53,
continuing its downward trek...

"follow the stone" is now #45,
meaning john locke now has
all 7 of his books in the top-45.

his newest has jumped to #5,
and he has 4 books in the top-9.

"the list" is standing at #17,
and joe informs us that it is
selling 36 times as many units
as it sold a month ago at $2.99,
making 6 times as much profit.
that's right.  six times as much.

the message seems very clear...

$.99 books move up the list,
and $2.99 books move down.

again, i thank robin for pointing
this little experiment out to us.

-bowerbird







it's tuesday, march 15th, 11am,
another highly symbolic day...

"the color of heaven" is #71,
continuing its gradual decay.

but that's not what's "symbolic".

no, that would be the fact that
amazon is now including games
in the best-seller list, and they
are infesting the list big-time...

7 of the entities on the top-14
are games -- scrabble, sudoku,
crosswords -- rather than books.

i would think they'd want to do
two different lists, but i am not
running the place, obviously...

meanwhile, "the list" (the book)
is still holding on at rank #20...

-bowerbird









as of march 16th at 1pm,
"the color of heaven" has
continued to fall, at #78...

"the list" is still bouncing
around the top-20, at #23.

-bowerbird





as of march 17th at 1pm,
"the color of heaven" has
surged back to rank #68...

"the list" is now priced at
$2.99, so we'll mark the
transition at this point...

"the list" now sits at #31,
down 8 from yesterday...

-bowerbird






as of march 18th at 4pm,
"the color of heaven" is #79,
down 11 ranks from yesterday.

and "the list" is now at #38,
down 7 ranks from yesterday.

-bowerbird




as of now, march 20th, at noon,
two days since our last report,
"the color of heaven" is at #83,
down 4 spots in the last 2 days.

"the list" is at #39, down just
one spot in the last 2 days,
meaning joe is getting _rich_.

pay attention, folks, time to
price your books at $.99 and
move them up the rankings,
so you can then switch back 
to $2.99 and get rich like joe!

-bowerbird

















http://rnash.com/article/an-open-letter-to-cursor/

some writers are selling kindle e-books
in _huge_ amounts over at amazon.com,
and at the apple and b&n e-bookstores...

the rocket lifted off the pad in january,
when the christmas-presents kicked in.

the leader of the pack, amanda hocking,
sold 10,000 e-books total in november,
100,000 in december, 400,00 in january.

it's not uncommon that books which have
zero marketing put into them can outsell
books whose authors constantly flog 'em.

just as it was in the past, word-of-mouth
is the thing that will sell most books, with
the new twists these days being the free
sample customers can get on each book,
combined with plentiful online reviews,
and amazon's collaborative filter engine,
that "people who bought this book also
bought this other book", which is a boon
for buyers precisely because it is difficult
for the self-promoting author to game...

hype is quickly becoming historic artifact.

-bowerbird














http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/ebooks-aint-bubble.html

joe said:
>   Actually, I think we're 
>   becoming tolerant of errors 
>   because they are so prevalent 
>   in the increasing way we 
>   communicate through 
>   the written word.

wrong.

the people who cannot spell
cannot even recognize typos,
since.. well... they can't spell.
so they always were "tolerant".

but those of us who _can_ spell?
typos continue to irritate us,
a lot, and the fact that there 
are more of them now than ever
just means we're more irritated,
not that we're "more tolerant"...

so don't try to convince yourself
that "it doesn't matter"...  to us,
it _does_ matter, it really does.

we suggest you use spellcheck.

seriously.  it's not that difficult.

-bowerbird








"anonymous" said:
>   I agree with you about 
>   spelling and typos. 
>   I just wish you 
>   felt the same way 
>   about capitalization.

i am acutely aware 
of the irony...     :+)

and that is specifically
why i encourage people
to skip my posts rather
than be irritated by them.

***

nancy beck said:
>   I'm anal that way ;-), and 
>   I'm not about to change. 

well, i _wish_ i could change.

i don't like to get irritated,
especially by something so
small and insignificant, but
i just can't help noticing it.

luckily, i am able to keep it
somewhat in perspective...

i just didn't want anyone to
get the impression that it is
now ok to ignore spelling,
since we're "more tolerant".

if you write "patients" for
"patience", or vice versa.
then i am _not_ "tolerant"
of your ignorance of words,
and i think less of you as
a writer, and i'm less likely
to enjoy your book, and
to remain your customer.


>   And I'd suggest 
>   not to depend entirely 
>   on spellcheck.

i agree.  but i would be
happy if some people
used it as a first step or
even as a bare minimum.

when i see typos which
woulda been flagged by
spellcheck, that tells me
the author doesn't care.
not even the slightest bit.


>   Have someone else 
>   look at it, or use the 
>   Read Out Loud function 
>   in Adobe Reader.

yes!  i can vouch that using
text-to-speech is a most
_excellent_ way to proof.

it also helps point out
clunkiness in phrasing.

i recommend it _highly_.

-bowerbird










selena said:
>   The truth is most people 
>   don't even SEE the typos. 
>   Those that do, 
>   if they enjoy the story, 
>   overlook them.

this attitude amuses me.
go ahead and believe it...


>   "I cnduo't bvleiee taht 
>   I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd 
>   waht I was rdnaieg.

selena, i dare you to format
your future books this way...

i'll write the program to do
the scrambles automatically
if you say that you'll use it.

put your money where your
mouth is; then i'll believe you.

***

j.d. rhoades said:
>   a typo is like a mental pothole

that's the best description ever!

(some people don't even
_notice_ the potholes...)

-bowerbird



















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/guest-post-by-john-locke.html

john locke said:
>   I'm not writing for the masses, 
>   I'm writing to 
>   a specific audience. 
>   My audience likes my humor, 
>   understands my quirks, 
>   accepts my mistakes. 
>   They're my closest friends. 
>   What better friends on earth 
>   can a person have than the 
>   people who love your books? 
>   I love--deeply and profoundly 
>   love--my readers, and 
>   I hope they love me, too. 
>   And Donovan Creed, 
>   despite our faults. I think 
>   they know our hearts 
>   are in the right place.

boom!  that is the loud sound
of the old world crashing down.

in the p-book gatekeeper age,
masses had to be the major aim.

if you aim at _everyone_, then
you know you'll hit _someone_,
so it won't be a total washout,
and you'll recover _some_ costs.

but we can now change the aim,
what with one's production cost
pared down to the writing time
plus a thousand bucks (or less),
and variable costs that are nil...

when you cook something that
you want the masses to enjoy,
your dish has to be _good_, yes,
but it also ends up... "ordinary"
(for lack of a better descriptor)
in the sense that it's not gonna
make any particular subset of
the masses stand up and shout.

in the very same way that
the jack of all trades will 
be the master of none...

the corporations had to play
the game that way because
their media machine is one
that's geared to the masses.

but if you _aim_ at one subset,
you can make something spicy,
tailoring it to their taste-buds,
so they _rave_ about your dish.

and that _passion_ which they
deliver will serve to lift up your
dish, or your book, to the top.

this is how cyberspace can/will
_liberate_ artists, and i am so
very glad that an exemplar of
such liberation already exists...

-bowerbird









john locke said:
>   You guys are hearing it live! 
>   My new book, "A Girl Like You" 
>   is #96 on the Amazon/Kindle 
>   Best Seller's List, which means 
>   all 7 books are in the top 100 
>   at the same time.

wow.  quite an accomplishment.

your fans are very quick to buy...
they know they want it, and act.

and that means you'd be able to
disintermediate that middleman 
who is taking 2/3 of what those
fans are paying for your books...

just direct 'em to your own site.

in other words, lose the leeches.
that's what "independent" means.

at some point, everyone needs to
acknowledge that they are _your_
customers, and not _amazon's_...

until amazon understands that
it could lose its _entire_ share,
it will happily take a percentage
that's so big it's patently unfair.

i am not being unreasonable...
i recognize what amazon brings
to the table, and i believe that
it should be compensated for it.
50% of a $.99 sale is fair for all.

amazon bills me 6 cents a month
for some s3 storage space i use,
so i know amazon _can_ manage
very small transactions profitably.

everyone thinks apple is being
"too greedy" for demanding 30%,
and here amazon is taking 65%.

but if you _let_ amazon do it...

-bowerbird















sven said:
>   Divide by six books and 
>   he's made $20,416/book
...
>   or $14/hr

sven, that new baby must be
keeping you up nights and -- 
since you're short on sleep --
you can't see a forest because
your view is blocked by a tree!

locke has made $20,000+ on
each one of 6 books in just
the last 2 months, which is
more than most authors got
for an advance in the old days.

and locke is just getting started!

with _7_ books in the top-100,
each of 'em pushing all the rest,
he's gonna make a ton of money.

and amazon will make two tons.

really, sven, get some sleep!    ;+)

-bowerbird









chris said:
>   The problem with going solo 
>   and redirecting customers 
>   to your own site is the 
>   1-click and the instant access.

that's not the half of it.

amazon does a whole lot more,
for both sellers _and_ buyers...

it takes the money, which is a
big deal when out-of-country.

it handles customer complaints,
including pain-in-butt returns.

it does fulfillment, to multiple
devices, and multiple downloads.

it maintains the buyer's catalog,
over time, so angst like loss or
theft of a machine is minimized.

it gives authors daily accounting.

it manages lending of the books.

it runs a collaborative filtering
recommendation engine, which
benefits both buyers and sellers.

it gives authors web-presence.

it hosts reviews, and ratings.

it runs a ton of best-seller lists.

it manages a sampling process.

it helps customers remember
what they viewed in the past,
and what they have purchased.
(brick-and-mortar bookstores
will happily sell you the same
book over and over and over.)

amazon does _a_lot_ of stuff...

and all these things are _huge_.

most people probably will never
realize how difficult it can be to
implement all of these things...

but _i_ know how hard it is...

and i appreciate it.  fully.  i do.

still...

does any of this, or even _all_
of it together, justify taking
2/3 of the price of an e-book
offered at less than $2.99?

no.  that percentage is unfair.

and we could argue all day
about what would be "fair",
but i think 50% is just right.

it makes it clear that amazon
and authors are _partners_,
and _equal_ partners at that.

i firmly believe that amazon
will come around on the rate.
they're not a greedy business.

they were caught by surprise
with the huge success of you
independent authors selling
works at such a cheap price...
and i'd say they'll adjust soon.

but in the meantime, i will be
repeating that "unfair is unfair".

-bowerbird







i said:
>   but in the meantime,
>   i will be repeating that 
>   "unfair is unfair".

i should have also mentioned
the big elephant in the room...

amazon gives you access to its
huge base of good book-buyers.

and that is why most of you will
ignore my campaign telling you
that you shouldn't sell at $.99...

why would you sacrifice profit
and readership just to register
a protest against an injustice?

and, to be frank, most of you
are getting the best end of it,
even at 35% "royalty", precisely
because of that huge audience.

but someone like john locke?

he brings his own customers.

oh sure, amazon brought 'em in
for the first book, and maybe
the second, and third, but now?

now they're coming _because_
they _know_ they like his stuff.

so when amazon gives him that
paltry 35%, it's patently unfair.

so what can he do?

let me tell you.  (and him.)

he can package up his books.

create bundles of _4_ books,
every possible combination,
and sell them for $3 each...

that way his customers get
a "bonus" book for every $3.

they were gonna buy 'em all
anyway, so it's convenient!

and john locke himself nets
$2 out of that $3 purchase,
not $1.40 on 4 at $.99 each. 

the only party who ends up
with less is amazon.  good!

he can, of course, continue
to offer each book separately
at the $.99 price-point, but
_fans_ will know what to do.

and amazon will most likely
get the message too.     :+)

-bowerbird







if you were amazed when
john locke discovered that
all 7 of his books are in the
kindle top-100 bestseller list,
then prepare yourself to be
_doubly-amazed_ right now.

john locke's newest k-book,
published a mere instant ago,
hit #50 on the bestseller-list.

five zero. 50. count 'em.

and now all 7 of john locke's
books are in the top-50 list...

can you smell a sensation?

and really, we should all be
_quadruply-amazed_, since
up toward the top of the list,
competition gets more fierce.

but let's just call it "double"...
heck, we can go straight by the
numbers, no need to hype this.

now in light of this development,
consider this, which john said:
>   People laughed at me, saying, 
>   "Why are you writing two more 
>   when you can't sell the three
>   you've already written?" I said, 
>   "When my audience 
>   finds me, 
>   they're going to want 
>   five books, not three."

right on, john locke. write on.

-bowerbird

p.s. oh yeah, that new book,
most recent from john locke?
the one that's been out 2 days?
it didn't stop when it hit #50.
at 1:47pm, it now sits at #45,
after hop-skipping its cousin
-- "follow the stone" -- at #48
(improving on its recent #51).










as i have just commented
in another related thread,
the newest john locke book
had just hit #30 in the list.
(and it since went to #29.)

>   http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/list-experiment-update.html?showComment=1299787930679#c4588386730731367251

it's also the case that the
_worst_ ranking for a book
by john locke is now #45,
so he now has all 7 books
in the top-45 bestsellers,
with 6 of 'em in the top-30.

quite an accomplishment...

-bowerbird









and... bingo!

as of 9pm pacific,
on friday march 11,
john locke now has
4 books in the top-10.

amazing.  just amazing.

-bowerbird









an "anonymous" ass said:
>   You mean, this is 
>   the end of literature? 
>   Of great literature, 
>   in particular? 
>   Hacks like John Locke 
>   and Amanda Hocking 
>   are the end-game? 

you are an ass.

and a cowardly ass, to boot.

furthermore, you are stupid.

oh sure, you like to put on airs
about how you are so erudite,
painting yourself as a staunch
defender of "great literature".

but the truth is that you don't
know jack shit about what it is
that even constitutes great art.

nor do you seem to know why
humans should value literature.
among a wide array of things,
it's because it makes us better
_thinkers_, a skill that you lack,
indicating it didn't work on you.


>   Of course, one can blame 
>   a facile readership 
>   for their success. 
>   But, why boast of it? 
>   Why be so smug about it?

your elitist crap is insufferable.

it's also totally beside the point,
which you have missed entirely.

we're not celebrating success
by one or two specific writers,
or one or two dozen of them,
or even one or two hundred...

what we are celebrating here is
the newfound ability for writers
to connect directly with readers,
and receive a big percentage of
all money paid by those readers.

this situation ultimately benefits
every writer, no matter how big
or tiny their audience might be.
because an absence of skimming
by middlemen might well mean
that an artist can live off of the
gifts from even a tiny audience,
particularly if it is passionate...

what we celebrate is the new
independence of writers from
the old gatekeepers, who were
not concerned in the slightest
with "great literature", but with
a mundane "what can we sell?"

in other words, the gatekeepers
who were totally caught up with
"facile readership", to the extent
they _created_ that very entity,
built to swallow the hype whole.

so "great literature" was just one
of _many_ things that had been
totally outside the purview of
former gatekeepers, meaning
that "great literature" will be 
one big beneficiary of this new 
ability for writers and readers to 
bond directly with each other.

so readers of "great literature",
like you, mr. anonymous ass,
can now support your writers
honestly, with your own money,
instead of making them beg for 
handouts from the government.

and you can lift your authors
out of the obscurity corner and
exalt them at the _top_ of the
bestseller lists, assuming that
they can outsell the "hacks"...

art has been freed from the
bondage of the gatekeeper.

artists of all types are rejoicing.

and fans of art will rejoice too...

-bowerbird














"anonymous" said:
>   You are a thug

oh please.  you wear a mask
and call other writers "hacks".

and _i_ am "a thug"?  right...

i call an asshole an asshole,
that's what i do, you asshole.


>   certainly not a "class act." 

when you wrestle with a pig,
you get muddy.  and the pig
likes it.  that's what they say.


>   So, call me an "elitist." 

what i actually said was that
your elitism is insufferable...

there are good kinds of elitism,
which strive for a higher plane.
but your kind is the ugly kind.


>   My bones are intact from 
>   decades of name-calling

i'm not "calling you names".
you _are_ an asshole, and
you are a _cowardly_ asshole,
and you are _stupid_ too, and
all of this can be determined
from what you have said, the
mask you wore while saying it.
and the way that you said it...

>   and having the gatekeeper 
>   slam the gate in my face. 

that doesn't surprise me...
you can't think a solid thought.


>   Victor Hugo, Dostoyevsky, 
>   Rand, Rostand, Rattigan, 
>   Stevenson, and so many 
>   more giants and near-giants 
>   -- these Locke and Hocking 
>   couldn't hold a candle to. 

i haven't read amanda or locke,
so i cannot say, but even if they
"cannot fill" those huge shoes
-- mostly, except for _rand_,
another insufferable elitist --
so what?  john locke himself
said $.99 is "the right price"
for the books that he writes,
as they are quick breezy reads.
and what is wrong with that?
if it finds an audience, then
it must be filling some need,
and more power to mr. locke.


>   Yet someone writes 
>   an encomium 

practicing the word of the day,
are we?


>   touting them as 
>   the end-all and be-all 

when you continue to twist
your spin -- despite a firm
denial -- you show just how
desperate your assault is.

the only fight you can win
is with an ugly straw-man.


>   to "celebrate" their successes, 
>   when they are Tin Pan Alley 
>   composers compared to say, 
>   Mozart and Rachmaninoff. 

again with insufferable stuff...

now we diss all composers who
don't happen to be mozart, eh?

shove it, mr. anonymous ass,
shove it as far up as you can...


>   I get very worried when 
>   people begin elevating 
>   mediocrity, with the aim
>   of razing all the shrines. 

oh yes, because you are oh so
_cultured_, and the shrines are
oh so _delicate_, and people
are such untrustworthy _thugs_.

great art fears not lesser stuff.


>   My novels are 
>   on ebook, too, 
>   but, being 
>   an "anonymous ass," 
>   I'll let you search for them. 

i can tell from the paragraphs
you've written here that i'd be
thoroughly bored by your work.
i doubt i could suffer a chapter.

so you would do me a favor
by telling me your name, so
i'd know what to _skip,_ but
i'm sure you know that, and
have known it all along, and
that's why you're anonymous.


>   If you're hungry enough 
>   for something that isn't 
>   trite and transient, for 
>   something that would give 
>   you emotional fuel to 
>   face the world

oh please.  shove it up your
butt, you insufferable ass...

-bowerbird























http://awriterreads.blogspot.com/2011/03/great-e-book-experiment-results.html

your books are stuck.

you need to do something
that will get them unstuck.

you can try "marketing"...
might work.  (might not.)

but until you've tried
pricing all your books
at $.99, not just one
unrepresentative one,
you haven't really tried
to get 'em unstuck at all.

-bowerbird

p.s.  $1.99 is no-man's land.
buyers search $.99 and $2.99.
















http://amandahocking.blogspot.com/2011/03/some-things-that-need-to-be-said.html

>   With all of that said, Bryan sells less books than I do.
...
>   more people will sell less than 100 copies of their
>   books self-publishing than will sell 10,000 books.

a good part of the burden of editing can be eased by
learning the rules and writing it right (i.e., correctly).

when you're talking about _numbers_, you use "fewer"
instead of "less".  i've had to learn that, because i make
the same mistake all the time.  so internalize that rule...

-bowerbird

>   http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/less-versus-fewer.aspx

















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/guest-post-by-ann-voss-peterson.html

jude said:
>   Things are changing rapidly, 
>   Moses. I was sort of 
>   caught in the middle.

things _are_ changing rapidly.

but you weren't exactly
"caught in the middle", 
not as i recall it all...

you chose your path, and
chose it quite consciously,
plus you threw a lot of rocks
at the work of many people
who had chosen differently.

and now you're encountering
some of the poison oak on that 
path which you chose, which 
we'd explicitly warned about,
and you are acting surprised
and frustrated by that fact...

buck up and be a man and
accept the consequences
that follow from your action.

do not rewrite the history,
or you won't learn its lesson.

i'm glad you are smarter now.
but only if you really _are_...

***

moses said:
>   It should be no biggie 
>   in the big scheme.

well, in "the big scheme",
very little of this matters.

but in the world of jude,
having that book be in
the hands of someone else,
someone who doesn't seem
to care about its welfare,
is going to _sting_, _badly_,
for a very long time, if my
experience tells me anything.

especially since it's his first.
a first-born child is special.

-bowerbird









jude said:
>   In a previous post, Joe said: 
>   "It's best to ignore bowerbird. 
>   He's in love with 
>   the sound of his own voice."
>   I think that 
>   sums it up perfectly.

nonetheless, i told you so.     :+)

nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa!

and joe wants people to
"ignore" me so they won't
realize he just repeats what
i say, except i said it earlier.

but hey, that's ok with me,
as long as people _listen_,
i don't care who gets "credit".

indeed, i started _saving_
all the comments i write
-- because some bloggers
would delete them, really! --
and i'm gonna release them,
probably as a kindle-book,
and joe has gifted me with
the _perfect_ title for that:
"in love with the sound of
my own voice".  thanks, joe!

oh, and jude, i really did
mean what i said about
me being glad that you
are smarter now.  i'm not
happy that you had to
learn things the hard way,
but i'm glad you did learn.

now maybe your comments
will reflect that smarter,
more experienced person.

and that'd be a good thing.

-bowerbird

















http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/03/future-of-publishers.html

hey mac, remember me?           :+)

i've stayed away because i was censored here,
and because y'all are increasingly out of touch.
(and yes, you've fallen into the trap, mac; sorry.)

hocking is _not_ particularly self-aware about
what she represents, mostly because she has
no experience with the publishing industry...
(except that it couldn't find any place for her,
which one would think is all that she'd need.)

amanda's right, of course, that not every writer
who self-publishes will make a million bucks,
especially not in their first year outta the gate;
but that is hardly "big surprising news", is it?

you'd get a much more lucid take on all this
if you read joe konrath's blog instead, since
he does have experience with the old guard.
but you ain't gonna like what he is saying...

or you could just cut all the lines to the past, 
without passing "go" or collecting $200, and
skip directly to a study of _john_locke_, who
you'll find topping the kindle best-seller list.
he has a keen grasp of the world that will be.

self-publishing writers are running away
with your lunch, and your allowance too.
while you are busy holding conferences...

and yeah, editing is extremely important,
and self-publishing writers need it badly,
but publishers don't have a lock on editing.
heck, you're firing more editors than you're
hiring these days...  you could look it up...

-bowerbird

p.s.  that was particularly cruel of all of you
to make mike hendrickson write that post on
"the future of the book" without telling him
that it's a topic that has been covered yearly
for over a decade now.  yet it still seems new!
cruel, i tell you, cruel...  and unspeakably so.
















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/guest-post-by-zoe-winters.html

joe said:
>   I was correct.  Back then, 
>   it _was_ a bad idea.
>   But Zoe firmly believed 
>   I was mistaken

you were "correct" according to
your agenda, which was money.

but even in those former times,
zoe was correct for her agenda,
which was aimed at control of
the artistic output and product.

she was also more farsighted in
knowing both sides would merge
to the same agenda eventually.

you do get points for changing
your mind when it was required.

but again, you might want to
remind yourself that you _fell_
into self-publishing accidentally.

it was a happy accident for you,
and for your money agenda too,
and i'm _glad_ that it happened,
because you've been a good loud
spokesperson for self-publishing.

but it _was_ one big accident...

***

question for zoe:  are all of your
stories on beautiful characters,
like those in that "save" trailer?

-bowerbird












my two favorite book-trailers:

>   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9fc-crEFDw

>   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxschLOAr-s

-bowerbird

























http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/1846-and-1762.html

lee goldberg said:
>   So paper isn't 
>   entirely dead yet :-)

paper-books will never die...

but hearing you say that, lee,
reminds me of that funny scene
in monty python's "holy grail"
where the townspeople are
told to "bring out your dead!",
and this one guy carries out
his grandfather slung over his
shoulder, and the grandfather
emits an "i'm not dead yet...",
whereupon the guy clunks him
over the head, thus killing him.

but no, lee, print will not die...

when _your_ grandchildren have
greatgrandchildren of their own,
_they_ will use print-on-demand
for hard-copy of beloved books.

-bowerbird










shaun said:
>   I just found this article, 
>   6 days old [Mar 7, 2011], 
>   by Blake Crouch, on the 
>   economics of self-publishing 
>   an eBook... 
>   http://thenextweb.com/media/2011/03/07/the-economics-of-self-publishing-an-ebook/

thanks for the pointer, shaun.

i was quite amused that blake 
is reported there to think that
"the 99 cent authors are not 
only devaluing their own work, 
but other ebooks as well."

it's almost as if blake fails to
recognize that the big6 and
the other corporate publishers
make the same charge about
_blake_ and the other authors
who charge $2.99 for e-books,
instead of $9.99 or $12.99...

***

robin wants authors to price
e-books at $4.99 or $5.99,
because she knows that she can
kick your ass at that price...

john locke wants you to price
your e-books at just $.99,
because he knows he can
kick your ass at that price...

the corporate houses want you
to price e-books at $9.99 up,
because they know they can
kick your ass at that price...

and yes, blake wants you to
price your e-books at $2.99,
because he knows that he can
kick your ass at that price...

i suggest you find the price
where your audience ends up
providing the best possible
support for you, in artistic
and creative and psychological
_and_ financial terms, and
you price your e-books there,
so you can kick ass as yourself.

-bowerbird










joe said:
>   The List is holding steady 
>   at #17, and selling 
>   1500 copies a day.
>   That's $525 daily, 
>   for those keeping score.

and to do the comparison 
once again against the price 
when it was $2.99, and the 
book sold 40 copies every day,
which was a mere month ago,
that's over _36_times_ the sales
 and _6_ times as much profit, 
even with the lower (and unfair,
as i've discussed) 35% royalty...
(imagine if the royalty was 70%,
or even just 50%...  staggering!)

such is the immense power 
which the $.99 price-point 
_can_ bring to your book...

there are no _guarantees_,
of course, but this is still
one strikingly vivid example.

36 times as many sales...
_6_ times as much profit...

-bowerbird

















blake said:
>   I like the $2.99 pricepoint 
>   because I think with 
>   the 70% royalty rate, 
>   it gives WRITERS 
>   the best chance at 
>   selling and being paid fairly 
>   for their work.

so you believe those publishers
who say that you're "devaluing"
the worth of your own products
-- and their products as well --
with your $2.99 price are wrong?

but meanwhile you are levying
the exact same charge toward
people using the $.99 price?

that is very curious, if not
downright inconsistent and
maybe even hypocritical...

and it surely seems to indicate
to me that you have a whole
_lot_ of confidence that your
position is the correct one...

but i don't see your evidence...

joe has made _6_times_ the
_profit_ by lowering his price
on "this list"...  not to mention
moving 36 times as many copies.

a "royalty" rate, in and of itself,
doesn't mean fairness or profit,
nor does any particular price...

you must determine the sum of
price-point times "royalty" times
number of units moved to get to
the true bottom line.  any focus
on one of the things in isolation
is bound to mislead you badly...

you are your own boss, boss,
free to make your own mistakes,
so i'm not _criticizing_ you here.
just saying i don't see your logic,
especially on the finger-pointing.

-bowerbird









blake said:
>   most writers are 
>   not going to make a living 
>   with a single book 
>   (or even 2 or 3) 
>   priced at $.99 cents.

i think the notion that you could
"make a living" off a single book,
or even 2 or 3, borders on silly.

nobody in the world of "legacy"
publishing could count on that,
certainly, and i don't think that
we should create false hopes...

we don't know how this k-game
will play out, not now, not yet,
so let's keep things realistic, ok?

the average book will likely sell
a modest number of copies...

but what the data also tells us
is that you're gonna sell _more_
copies at $.99 than at $2.99,
and it might well be the case
that you will actually sell more
than _6_ times as many copies,
and thus make _more_money_
at the lower price-point despite
the fact the royalty is lower too.

a dime is more than a nickel
-- double! -- even though it
is smaller and weighs far less.

focus on the correct variable.

-bowerbird









neil said:
>   Top 20?!? Do you really 
>   want to increase the price 
>   and risk pushing it off 
>   the 1st page? If it has 
>   half a chance of making it 
>   into the top 10... Its worth 
>   a fortune getting to get onto 
>   the Amazon sidebar. :)

it would be tough for "the list"
to make it into the top-10...

there are two upcoming films
in front of it, not to mention
the john locke juggernaut,
a big handful of big6 books,
including a patterson and one
of the "hunger games" books,
a game, two newspapers, an
amanda book, and "killer" too
(which is a very fast riser now),
and of course one good ol' stieg.

i'm not saying it's _impossible_
for "the list" to move into that,
but it would be very difficult...

besides, this experiment has
now answered the question that
stimulated it in the first place.
the hope was for the top-100,
let alone the top-20 (or top-10).

and a _price-raise_ experiment
would be very informative now.

but i do believe that joe will
keep the $.99 price anyway...

he might think he'll change it
(or he might just be bluffing),
but a close look at the free-fall
of "shot of tequila" now that he
switched the tag back to $2.99
should be very illuminating...

after climbing from down under
up to the #500 mark, the book
has _fallen_back_ to its original
starting point, in just four days.
it now stands at #2345.  rough.

here's the story, and the data...

***

"shot of tequila" shot up fast,
from way down in the rankings
(#2523 or #1405, reports vary)
steadily up to the #700s, when
it started wobbling a little bit...

$.99 and moving wrong:
2011/03/01, 07:30pm, #0773
2011/03/02, 06:00pm, #0794
2011/03/02, 06:30pm, #0886
2011/03/03, 02:00am, #1003

$.99 and moving right:
2011/03/03, 01:00pm, #0825
2011/03/03, 10:30pm, #0918
(and then a big jump overnight)
2011/03/04, 11:30am, #0507
2011/03/04, 02:00pm, #0467

$.99 and moving wrong:
2011/03/04, 04:00pm, #0514
2011/03/05, 02:00am, #0693
2011/03/06, 05:30am, #0810

$.99 and moving right:
2011/03/06, 03:00pm, #0770
2011/03/08, 01:00pm, #0720

...and then, back to $2.99...

$2.99, and moving wrong, fast:
2011/03/10, 04:00pm, #0793
2011/03/10, 05:30pm, #0849
2011/03/10, 08:00pm, #0970
2011/03/11, 08:30am, #1264
2011/03/11, 02:00pm, #1348
2011/03/12, 05:00pm, #2069
2011/03/13, 01:00pm, #1998
2011/03/14, 01:00am, #2704
2011/03/14, 11:30am, #2345

so that experiment did no good.

-bowerbird











tom said:
>   what will happen to 
>   indie authors when 
>   the big brand authors 
>   and publishers finally 
>   do wake up (which 
>   they surely will do 
>   eventually) and start 
>   pricing their books at 
>   $4.99, $3.99, $2.99 
>   and so on?

the old publishers cannot
do e-books at those prices.

with a price that low, they
couldn't pay their overhead
-- not without rearranging
their accounting structure,
which is far too "creative"
even as it currently stands.

and further, even if that one
achilles' heel wasn't enough,
there's a second one as well.

if they cut their price in half,
their sales would quadruple...

but they don't _want_ that...

"why wouldn't they?", you ask.

think it through, and you will
find the answer very quickly...

at present, the royalties which
they pay for e-book sales are
_puny_, "because e-books are
just a tiny part of the market".

ok, that will make sense to the
authors whom they say that to.

but if e-book sales rocketed,
the royalties would _remain_
puny, because the royalty is
25% of net, or 17.5% of gross,
on the _cut-in-half_ new price.

the author will see that the
publisher is making money,
lots more, on increased sales,
while the author is standing
outside, with hat in hand,
receiving an unfair share on
a now-lower-priced product.

once the e-book numbers get
big, authors will be stunned
that their pay is still _small_.

and authors will then start to
compare the 17.5% they get
from the old house with the
70% they'd get from amazon,
and the exodus will accelerate.
it'll be the end for old houses.

if a house gives amazon 30%,
and 50% (say) to the author,
as the barest of minimums,
they'd have to settle for 20%.
greedy traditional publishers
ain't gonna settle for just 20%.

the only way the old houses
can keep their authors, and
keep signing new authors to
their horrendous royalties, is
to pretend the revolution still
has not yet begun to happen.

because once authors sense
that the tide has fully turned,
they will turn their backs on
the greedy traditional houses.

-bowerbird












tara said:
>   bowerbird, what about
>   Joe's other $.99 books? 

i dunno...  what about 'em?
(is there a question there?)


>   I think Joe has a point 
>   about not having anywhere 
>   to go for a sale price if 
>   the normal price is $.99. 

you don't need a "sale" when
your "normal" price is $.99...


>   I bought The List when it was
>   $.99 because it was on sale, 
>   but I haven't read it yet, 
>   because I have other books 
>   in front. It was on my TBR list 
>   even before I bought it, and 
>   if I had reached the point 
>   where I was ready to read it, 
>   I would have paid $5 for it. In 
>   fact, I still pay anything under 
>   $10 for books I really want, 
>   and I read the more expensive 
>   books first, I must admit.

oh dear, my poor dear tara...

you sound thoroughly confused,
and totally unable to evaluate
the worth of a book these days.

but i can help you.  just do this:

1.  via paypal, send joe $13.95
-- the cost of the p-book -- so
you know it's important to you.

2.  get the book at your library.
you _might_ have to request it
via interlibrary loan.  if so, do.

3.  take that library p-book and
place it gently on a nightstand.

4.  then read your digital copy.

5.  once you are done reading,
return the p-book to the library.

6.  enter your review at amazon.
be honest; tell the whole truth.

7.  have friends read the review,
so they can tell you how much
you like the book.  if you like it,
then it was worth all you paid...
if not, then complain to joe and
never buy a book of his again...

-bowerbird












tara said:
>   Is better for the author
>   to charge $5 but wait 
>   two more months for a sale, 
>   or charge $1 and sell now?

well, if you're the only buyer,
it's better to wait, of course...

(but -- practically speaking --
sometimes "two more months"
never ever actually _arrives_,
for one reason or another, and
you end up with _zilch..._  but
let us pretend that we _know_
that it will indeed come then.)

still, if you're the only buyer,
it won't matter much, will it?

the questions really should be:

is it good to give my real fans
a _gift_, by offering them a $5
e-book for the bargain of $1,
and in the process catch many
buyers i wouldn't get otherwise?

or should i just _soak_ my "fans"
and charge whatever they'll pay,
without ever expanding my base?

-bowerbird










blake said:
>   Dear Bowerbird...
>   somehow_I will survive
>   the knowledge_that you_
>   don't accept my logic. 

it's not that i don't "accept" it.
i simply don't understand it...

but there's no need for you
to try to explain it any more.

konrath will do my work
on you, and be effective.


>   It will be tough_but_I
>   will soldier on.

i'm quite sure that you will.

what's with the bizarre use
of the underscores, anyway?

i use them for _emphasis_,
in accordance with the rules
of light markup.  you do not.
you seem to think it's arbitrary.


>   Meanwhile, why don't_you
>   post_a link to your_
>   performance_poetry_

everything ain't on the web.
i perform on a regular basis,
roughly weekly for the past
25 years, putting my work
in front of live audiences...

let me know when you are
coming through los angeles,
and i'll be sure to invite you.


>   and get some_skin_in_
>   the game. 

"skin" is the very reason
why i like to perform live.


>   Your first_name
>   would_be_appreciated_too.

that would be "bowerbird"...


>   Absent_your_compliance_
>   with_this_request_I_will
>   _never respond to any post
>   you make again.

_somehow,_ i will survive...
it might be _tough_, but
i _will_ soldier on...        :+)

***

jason said:
>   Would you consider 
>   changing your format

i might "consider" it, but
i won't _change_ it, jason.


>   If not I'll just continue 
>   to scroll past

so be it, jason, so be it.
scroll with my blessing...

-bowerbird













i never authorized internet video
of any of my performances, but
(unless the audio stinks, which is
the flaw with most poetry video)
i certainly don't care if it exists.

even if someone says it made me
"look bad"; i can take it...  i have
oodles of good press, thick skin,
and a very big sense of humor...

and i can do live poetry. and do.
regularly.  and my fans love me.

so if there is a link to my stuff,
i would certainly like to see it...
and i don't care if anyone else
sees it too...  take it or leave it.
i get paid the same either way.

(but off-topic stuff does get old;
why can't we just stay on-topic?)

-bowerbird









jtplayer said:
>   It's a legitimate video 
>   on a legitimate website 
>   that can be found by doing 
>   a simple internet search.

as far as i know, there is
no video of me on the net.

i could be wrong, but i think
you might well be mistaken...

-bowerbird










jon f. merz said:
>   I put it on sale for three days 
>   at that price, sold 224 copies 
>   on the Kindle and 52 copies 
>   on the Nook during the sale, 
>   earning me about $90 total. 

as per joe's "tequila" escapade,
3 days isn't nearly enough time
for the real effects to kick in...


>   It also got me further up some 
>   lists, which has resulted 
>   in some good visibility.

again, that's a superficial effect.

if it works for your purposes,
fine.  but it's not the real deal.


>   That's where I think 
>   the 99 cent price point 
>   for novels could be good - 
>   as a tool to increase visibility, 
>   but maybe not 
>   a long-term thing.

gee, i would say the opposite.

maybe even the exact opposite.

if you're not going to _commit_
to the low price-point, then you
probably shouldn't even use it,
especially not for a few _days_,
because you're only converting
the fence-sitters who might've
bit eventually at a higher price.

-bowerbird








robin said:
>   bowerbird - 
>   Your math 
>   is screwed up 

[heavy sigh]          ;+)

it's not "my" math, robin.

it's the accounting used
by the corporate houses.

but first, let me say that
the accounting that _you_
gave was straightforward
and makes perfect sense.

now if only the publishers
operated the same way...

but there are "reasons"
why they do not...

to wit...

>   if they make 
>   6x more profit 

ok, the very first thing
you need to know is that
you _never_ start at the
"profit" end of the beast.

indeed, the goal of the
corporate accountant
is to never let "profit"
be generated at all,
except if it's needed
for a quarterly report.

the main reason is that
profits get _taxed_ and
the aim is to avoid taxes.

but also, all kinds of
ugly escalator clauses
get kicked in as well
if there are "profits",
so you try to avoid 'em
until they are too big to
pretend they don't exist.
as in harry-potter big...
or twilight-big...  got it?

that's why _most_ books
"fail" to earn out...

the accountants stacked
the deck to hide profits...


>   if they make 
>   6x more profit 
>   (36x as many sales) 
>   they have more income 
>   to cover their expenses. 

yes, it makes perfect sense.

at least it would, in a world
that wasn't _intentionally_
transformed to be bizarre...
(i.e., the world of publishing.)


>   The expenses 
>   do not increase 
>   the more books are sold 
>   - it is the same 
>   whether they sell 
>   1 book or 100,000.

here's where you start to
reveal a few cracks, robin.

what you've just said there
is absolutely true, yes, but
_only_ for a digital product.

the variable cost for each
additional unit of a digital
product is absolutely zip...

and if the corporations had
built their business model
for _digital_ products, then
that model would reflect it.

but their business model is
geared to _physical_ products.

and physical products have
a cost-structure that's almost
_the_complete_opposite_...

the fixed-cost for a physical
product typically makes up
a good chunk of its costs,
but their _variable-costs_
are often just as significant,
and at times even more so.

publishing is one such case.

each copy has to be handled.
it has to be printed&bound,
and trucked to a bookstore,
and placed on a shelf, and
rung up on a cash-register.
and all of this costs money.

so, if we are in the world of
physical books, it makes a
_huge_ difference whether
we sell 1 book or 100,000.

due to those variable costs.

so the publishers created
a business model that can
absorb such variable costs,
a model where each copy
dedicates a portion of its
income to the "overhead",
even if all the "overhead"
has already been paid for.

so that's how corporations
structured their business,
and wrote their contracts,
and trained their minds...

so it's close to impossible
for them to turn it around
and restructure and rewrite
and think now in a way that
is _completely_ different...

-bowerbird



















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/lol-nyt.html

jussi said:
>   The only really meaningful list 
>   these days would be one that 
>   accounts the dollars (or where 
>   I'm from, euros) collected. 

once the utter ridiculousness of
excluding self-published books
entirely becomes obvious to all,
the corporate publishers will try
to have bestseller lists weighted
by the cost of the books sold...
(akin to movie "box office" lists.)

still, the fact of the matter is...
some of the biggest bestsellers
are sold at loss-leader prices...
so that weighting will backfire.

but until you buy ads from the
new york times, they're likely to
continue to ignore your success.
i suggest you laugh on your way
to the bank; it's very liberating.

-bowerbird











jussi said:
>   Just to make myself clear, 
>   I also think it is ridiculous.

i got that.  and your suggestion
for a money-weighted list makes
perfect sense in a lot of ways...

but that's not why the old guard
wants it...  they need it to try to
juice their dying business model.

but it will not accomplish that...

so even if they do try to use it,
it will be a temporary stop-gap.
the writing is on the wall...

people are laughing out loud
at the new york times.  imagine!

-bowerbird








"anonymous" said:
>   Movie box office results 
>   do not take into account 
>   how much a movie costs. 
>   Not at all.

hey!  pay more attention!

do not say moronic stuff!

-bowerbird









"anonymous" said:
>   If you did mean that 
>   box office results factor in 
>   what a movie "costs" 
>   to make, you're wrong. 

of course i didn't mean _that._
what an idiotic thing to say!

you try to put those words in 
my mouth, then "correct" me.

i didn't bother to "deny" that
i'd said such an idiotic thing,
because i shouldn't have to...

because only an idiot would've
misinterpreted things that way.

yet here you are, coming at me
again, with the same lame shit.

get a clue, anonymous.  really!

if you had paid any attention
-- any at all! -- to the thread,
you'd know the suggestion is
that the bestseller lists could
be weighted by the unit-cost
of the book, where "unit-cost"
refers to the price of the book,
i.e., how much it costs a buyer.

so a $20 book will be weighted
20 times more than a $1 book.

in other words, you would count
the dollars coming in the door...

which is how the movie industry
counts things -- the box office...

so a $14 ticket bought in l.a.
counts twice as much as the
$7 ticket bought in ames, iowa.

and book retailers _could_ make
their "bestseller" lists that way...

but then they would _not_ be
"bestseller lists", they would be
"biggest buyer ripoff" lists or
"biggest middlemen dreams"
lists.  because "bestseller" has
always meant "most buyers"...

and besides, like i said above,
the book industry engages in
too much pricing hypocrisy
to count the _real_ dollars...

they have the "list price" and
then they have the "amazon"
price, and then they have
the "bookstore" price, and
the "chain bookstore" price,
and the "walmart" price and
the "remainder table" price
and the "used-book" price...

and then there are all the
kickbacks and "comps" and
coop payments, which will
also have to be computed,
and most of those are still
top-secret need-to-know
type items.  so no, any type
of "weighted list" will fail...
just like corporate houses...

-bowerbird

p.s.  and besides, it won't be
all _that_ long before those
low-priced e-books bring in
_more_actual_dollars_ and
not merely more unit-sales...

















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/list-experiment-update_15.html

this will backfire on you.

that's my prediction...

-bowerbird







j.a. marlow said:
>   Shot of Tequila stalled out? 
>   Interesting how one book 
>   shot up, but another doesn't.

um, first of all, "shot of tequila"
most definitely didn't "stall out".

it was in the process of climbing.
but a climb isn't just straight up.

even climbing mountains, where
"straight up" is the desired path,
you occasionally have to jog off.

and climbing a bestseller list is
way more complicated, because
you are interacting with _many_
books in your direct vicinity that
exert influence on any progress.

because the bestseller list _is_
a zero-sum game, by definition.

"tequila" climbed to the top-500,
where it started being buffeted,
but it was under two weeks into
its journey from #1500/#2000
so that shoulda been expected...

especially since all the attention
was still focused on "the list"...

why did joe bail?  good question.

***

glenn mccreedy said:
>   Will the shakeout be 
>   a business model that 
>   ultimately is based on 
>   free product while driving 
>   other revenue streams 
>   as a result? 

um, no.

there will be lots of free e-books
down the line...  heck, there are
lots of free e-books right now...

but the answer to "monetizing"
the internet is to capture a very
_small_ amount of money from
a very _big_ number of people.

that is what is happening here...
it's a miracle gift from amazon...

let the price of a book fall to $1.
so you can make a million bucks
by selling it to a million people.
or $350,000 as the case may be.

but unless you don't care about
making money, don't go to free.

but do sell copies to the library,
so any folks who need to read it
for free have an option for that.

-bowerbird

p.s.  it's ok to not care about
making money.  it ain't a sin.

p.p.s.  even better is an artist
saying "my art is a _gift_ to you,
but sure, i need money to live,
so if you wanna give me _back_ 
a gift of money, i'd be happy to
get that from you, with thanks."
because _those_ are the artists
who'll create tomorrow's world;
you cannot usurp their power...
they will be the guerilla artists.












"anonymous" said:
>   1500(.99) .35 
>   = $519.75/day 
>   ($189,000/year)
>
>   1500(8.99) .25 
>   = $3,371.25/day
>   ($1,230,000/year)

you will never see a better
example of the assumption
that demand is totally static.

but, back in the real world,
you will find that it is much,
much, much more difficult to 
sell 1500 copies daily of an 
$8.99 book than a $.99 book.

it's also the case that the 25%
"royalty" from "legacy" houses
is computed _after_ amazon
has extracted its 30% share,
so that's overstated as well...

no wonder that "anonymous"
didn't want to put his name
on such a garbage comment.

-bowerbird









"anonymous" said:
>   As iTunes may have been 
>   the final nail in the coffin 
>   for the millionaire rock star, 
>   so Amazon and the 
>   e-reader revolution may 
>   spell the end of 
>   rock star authors 
>   like King and Patterson.

great! let's kill _all_ the stars!

it's far better for the ecosystem
if more writers make a _living_
and fewer writers make a killing.

-bowerbird
















joe said:
>   Even though Amazon 
>   is at $2.99 again, it may 
>   spot the Kobo price and 
>   lower it to 99 cents again 
>   to match it. If so, Amazon 
>   would still pay me 35% of 
>   $2.99, which is $1.05.

that's not how i read it...

amazon will pay 70% of the
sales price, which would be
70% of $.99.  which would be
a nice way to get 70% on a
$.99 book, which would be
sweet.  except most people
observe that amazon will
_not_ match such a price,
likely for that very reason.


>   If I had to guess, I'd say 
>   The List will earn more from 
>   now until the end of March 
>   than it did for the first 16 days 
>   of March.
>   Place your bets...

i was unsure how to explain
your course of action, but i 
do believe that this clears up
the ambiguity of the situation.

i'd bet you are _correct_...

i would also bet that things
are a bit more complicated
than that, in the long run...

-bowerbird










joe said:
>   Having a platform is helpful, 
>   and having some notoriety 
>   is helpful, but people who 
>   visit my blog aren't the ones 
>   making me rich.

"i'm rich!  i'm rich!  i'm so rich!"

(sorry, joe, couldn't resist.)   ;+)

i agree with you, but it _is_
the case that the readership
for this blog (mostly writers)
can help immensely with the
matter of word-spreading...

for instance, the retweets on
the "list" experiment were huge.

that's why it shot up so fast...
the word went out big, and fast.

i'm tracking "dirty parts" now,
and it's trending up now that
its price has been reduced,
but the going is rather slow...
no rocketship to the top there.

you can't separate out the
effects of "platform" and
"notoriety" and acknowledge
them, yet then deny the blog
has any effect.  it matters...

other authors need to know
that they won't get _nearly_
the effects that you got in
the same time you got 'em.

anyone who thinks _they_
can rocket to the top-100
from rank #1078 _without_
"notoriety" and a "platform"
is gonna be sadly mistaken.


>   On a whim, perhaps 
>   because it is St. Patty's Day 
>   and I'm already drinking, 
>   I raised Disturb 
>   (now ranked #280) 
>   back to $2.99, and 
>   dropped Origin to 99 cents.

a whim?  a _whim_?

perhaps.  but i doubt it.

i'd guess that it's probably
because "disturb" showed
no signs of going up at all,
once it hit the #250 range.

it was #251 when you posted
in late afternoon on tuesday,
dropped to #286 overnight,
crawled back to #251 by 1pm
yesterday, and is #272 now,
at 10am, even though it is
still listed at the $.99 price.

(10am pacific, not central,
where joe is, so don't worry
because he's drinking in the
morning...  besides, it _is_
st. patrick's day, you fools.)

of course, this is _natural_.

(the wobble in the rankings,
i mean, not drinking at noon.)

it can take a while to make
the climb up the lists, even
if you have "notoriety" and
a "platform", but joe konrath
is looking for a quick effect.

you know those rich people.
they can be very impatient...


>   Disturb and Tequila 
>   went down in rank when 
>   I dropped their prices

well, first, "disturb" is still
listed at $.99, so it didn't
"go down" because of price.
it's just the natural wobble.

"tequila" did go down, and
it fell like a rock in a vacuum;
it's now where it was before
you lowered the price on it,
so all those low-priced sales
created little long-term value.


>   they didn't seem to move 
>   as quickly as The List did. 

no, because "the list" was
a novel experiment where
many people did not seem
to know what the outcome
would be, and were curious.

it appeared -- to _some_ --
that you were "taking a risk".

once they knew the results,
their curiosity was quenched.

and now they know it works,
so your further attempts to
exploit it seem manipulative.
your heart is no longer pure.

so they aren't gonna retweet
and spread the word in the
same way they did before...

-bowerbird









ok, now "disturb" is #263...
it was #272 a half-hour ago.
that's how the wobble works.

and "origin", which joe said
was #291 early this morning,
was #331 at 3am wednesday,
and is #277 at 10:30am now.

which might lead you to
believe that the price-drop
has caused it to jump 65
ranks within just 36 hours.

wow!  what a strong effect!

except that the price has
not yet actually dropped.
it's still listed at $2.99...

but all the links to the page
led people to go visit there,
and some of them bought
(perhaps not noticing that
the price hadn't gone down
yet, or maybe not caring)...

this is the kind of stuff
that can happen within
a compressed time-frame,
which is why you have to
let the thing sit for a while
-- meaning _months_ --
if you want to know the
actual long-term effects.

-bowerbird













robin said:
>   When ebooks 
>   totally dominate print 
>   (We aer stil only at 
>   8% - 25% ratios atm)
>   then they can and will 
>   use the $0.99 
>   and beat indies.

well, robin, i carefully explained
why your argument doesn't work
in another thread...  but i guess
you will just keep repeating it in
new threads as they come along.

if a corporate publishing house
uses the $.99 price-point and
gives the author 35% "royalties"
and gives amazon its 65% cut,
how does the publisher make
any money -- any money at all?

and if a corporate publisher
doesn't give an author 35%,
why would any authors sign?
especially since the publisher
no longer has deep pockets
with which to lure authors?

now watch robin ignore these
questions, even as she goes on
to another thread to repeat the
same point that she made here.

-bowerbird





















kendall said:
>   u repeatedly 
>   get annoyed 
>   when people 
>   don't remember 
>   your previous 
>   comments

we know that
robin reads
my comments,
because she
replies to 'em.

she just ignores
the parts that
don't support
her position...

***

sheri leigh said:
>   broken lines

i would guess
that you are
reading the
comments in
a window that
says "post a
comment on:"
at the top of it,
with a brown
background...

if so, then
you can click
on the orange
header at the
top of the page
giving the title
of the post...

that will take
you to a page
where the
comments are
displayed in
a column that
is a bit wider,
and where
my comments
do not "break"
inappropriately.

this other page
has a blue
background
up top, and
joe's picture.

and of course,
it's totally fine
with me if you
still skip over
my comments.

-bowerbird

p.s. in this
comment,
i made it so
the lines
will break
correctly
even on
the "post
a comment"
page, but as
you can see,
this makes
the lines of
the comment
very narrow.












joe said:
>   In the past 24 hours, 
>   The List has earned 
>   over $1700.

well, at that rate, you should
surpass your $.99 proceeds
for the last month in 4 days.

that's the good news, for you.

the bad news, for everyone,
is that now, lots of authors
will try to game the system
in a similar manner, meaning
that anything _not_ priced 
at $.99 has very little chance
of making the list at all, or
staying on the list if it does.

c'est la vie...  c'est la guerre...

-bowerbird








tara said:
>   Why is that bad news? 
>   I thought you advocated 
>   a $.99 price point

ok, now i know you're just
messing with me, to see if
i will repeat _again_ that i
don't care what you charge.

i don't care what you charge!

charge 99 _dollars_ a book --
it makes no difference to me.

-bowerbird








chris said:
>   But it makes a difference 
>   to Tara obviously, which is 
>   why she asked for your take
>   And she asked 
>   without venom or malice.

hi chris.  tara is a regular here,
and she reads the threads and
my comments, so i'm fairly sure
she knows quite well that i am
_not_ an "advocate" of the $.99.

she was just poking me, for fun,
because she knew she would get
reaction, so i gave her reaction.

i woulda put a smiley on it, but
that woulda ruined the subtlety...

she was also giving me a setup
to explain _why_ i said that this
strategy was "a bad thing", but
it was late and i didn't feel like
writing up that part of the post.
but i did appreciate the prompt.

so, at any rate, my reply was
"without venom or malice" too.

***

rebecca said:
>   bowerbird, I always 
>   read your comments 
>   and your "style" bothers me 
>   not in the least...it's almost 
>   like a weird kind of poetry...:-)

yes, but we know you're looney,
rebecca, so it figures...    ;+)

***

j.e. medrick said:
>   I love reading your comments. 
>   It reminds me of my college 
>   days when I participated 
>   (and only won once - there 
>   was some tough competition!) 
>   in Poetry Slam. Ah, youth.

oh gee, all the loonies are out!
batten down the hatches...    ;+)

-bowerbird











the references to poetry
are interesting, because
it is precisely my history
helping to create the art
of performance poetry
for the 21st century that
gives me experience in
the self-publishing realm.

the whole process of taking
something that was seen
as "worthless" and trying
to obtain the attention
of an audience is one
with which i am familiar.

i've seen a lot of people
trying a lot of different
tactics to get a leg up...

so i know which ones
work, and which ones
don't work, and which
ones backfire on you...

i have had "skin" in this
"game" for a long time...

-bowerbird













as for the $.99 price-point...

lower prices are inevitable...

because supply will outrun
demand.  it is that simple...

but just because low prices
are "inevitable" doesn't mean
that you have to jump to 'em,
especially not immediately...

now, in particular, given the
unfair "royalty" from amazon,
it's stupid to jump to $.99...

but writers want readers and
any "royalty" beats none, and
customers love low prices, so
the die on this has been cast.

but i don't "advocate" $.99...

yes, i sometimes make fun of
the writers who try to tell us
that "i lowered my price and
my sales went down" and that
"customers don't mind paying
higher prices" and "i will not
devalue my product" and all
of that wishful thinking crap...

sure, you'll find some people
who "don't mind" high prices.
but if you think that _your_
product is so special that it
defies general economics,
you are deluding yourself...

$.99 _will_ sell lots of books.

but that doesn't mean that
it's the "right" price, and i
certainly don't "advocate" it.

because i simply don't care
how you price yer darn book,
since i ain't buying it anyway.
put that in a pipe.  smoke it.

***

as for gaming the system...

yes, i think it's a bad idea...

i think it's a _terrible_ idea!

but not because it won't work.
it will work.  and spectacularly.
that's a big part of the problem.

thanks to a suggestion from
robin, i've been tracking the
ranking for "color of heaven",
which used its $.99 price to
get in the top-100 and then
raised the price up to $2.99...

because of the higher price,
its ranking has been falling,
but it has taken a full 12 days
to drop from #17 to #74...

>   2011/03/06, 04pm, #17 
>   2011/03/07, 05pm, #26 
>   2011/03/08, 05pm, #38 
>   2011/03/09, 02pm, #42 
>   2011/03/10, 05pm, #46 
>   2011/03/14, 04pm, #54 
>   2011/03/15, 02am, #62 
>   2011/03/16, 01am, #76 
>   2011/03/16, 04pm, #74 
>   2011/03/17, 01pm, #68 
>   2011/03/18, 10am, #74

it might take another 9 days
-- or more, who knows? --
to drop out of the top-100,
so it has made _boatloads_
of cash after its price-raise.

and "the list" will do the same.

(and it's not like either will
_stop_ making money after
they fall out of the top-100.)

so this "strategy" does work,
in the sense that it delivers
a bunch of cash to a writer...

the unintended side-effect,
however, is that it also ruins
the usefulness of the engine
that does recommendations,
and the value of the top-100.

readers depend on those
systems to cull through the
massive amount of e-books
being offered these days!

and every writer, including
konrath and other authors
who are gaming the system,
wants to -- _needs_ to! --
_make_use_ of those same
recommendation systems,
and thus depends on them
to be healthy and work right.

that's how your work can be
_found_, for crying out loud!

so gaming those systems is
like shitting where you eat...

now, hopefully amazon will
realize that it, too, depends
on having a healthy system,
and it will make rules that
prevent any such "gaming".

(it will be easy enough to
have a rule that says that
you lose your ranking if
you raise your price and
you have to start over...
or maybe you would just
forfeit 200 ranking slots,
or whatever does the job.)

in regard to the point that
authors have been gaming
the system for months now,
that might well be true, but
when joe konrath uses a trick,
his transparency means that
a big bunch of people will be
using that trick from now on.

so the issue is now serious...

-bowerbird









sam's "dirty parts of the bible"
experience is a very telling one.

he rocketed up to rank #50
on the basis of the $.99 price,
thanks to some leverage from
the amazon recommendations
based on "water for elephants".

then he raised his price, and
his ranking fell.  precipitously.
the book fell as low as #592...

he put the price back to $.99,
and has been crawling back, as
the rocket is not quite as fast
the second time up the charts.

here are his numbers:

>   2011/03/06, 06pm, #592
>   
>   switch from $2.99 to $.99
>   
>   2011/03/09, 07pm, #436
>   2011/03/09, 11pm, #350
>   
>   2011/03/10, 09am, #363
>   2011/03/10, 04pm, #353
>   2011/03/10, 08pm, #312
>   
>   2011/03/11, 08am, #301
>   2011/03/11, 01pm, #325
>   2011/03/11, 02pm, #310
>   
>   2011/03/12, 05pm, #424
>   
>   2011/03/13, 01pm, #323
>   
>   2011/03/14, 01am, #284
>   2011/03/14, 04pm, #282
>   2011/03/14, 08pm, #320
>   
>   2011/03/15, 02am, #285
>   
>   2011/03/16, 01am, #256
>   2011/03/16, 04pm, #272
>   
>   2011/03/17, 11am, #268
>   2011/03/17, 01pm, #294

as you can see, the trend is
clearly upward, but there are
obvious wobbles throughout,
and the rise is not so speedy.

so this does not appear to be
a trick you can use repeatedly
on one book in a short time...

-bowerbird







sam said:
>   (hoping Amazon will then 
>   strike it down to 99 cents)

you do know amazon 
can hear you.  right?          ;+)

tricking customers is one thing.
(there's a lot of them, and most
of 'em aren't probably listening.)

fooling amazon is quite another.
(you can bet amazon's listening.)

-bowerbird







maybe i shouldn't have been 
quite so flippant there...      :+)

i'm _glad_ that sam is open
about what he is doing, and
i think joe has done writers
a _tremendous_ service with
how transparent he has been.

so when i talk about matters
like "gaming the system" and
rail against them, don't mistake
any of that as condemnation...

joe has done nothing "wrong",
any more than a kid who takes
apart an alarm-clock to see
how it works is doing "wrong",
even if it ends with the thing
not working correctly when he
puts it all back together again.

even when joe's heart is not
completely pure, his openness 
buys him a lot of forgiveness...

just so we're all clear on that...

and i think sam should do the
price-matching experiment...

but he should also grok that
amazon is probably listening.
i would be, if i were amazon.

***

mark said:
>   I'd think that in the terms 
>   writers agree to when 
>   publishing at Amazon, 
>   Amazon reserves the right 
>   to price-match, and 
>   if the price drops down 
>   into the 35% royalty rate, 
>   that is what Amazon will pay

i woulda sworn that that's what
those terms used to say, but
when i checked just yesterday,
when the subject came up here,
i discovered that amazon pays
70% on a price-matched book
with a normal price of $2.99...

so now i am a bit confused...

because it's also the case that
amazon has a "favored nation"
clause that prohibits you from
selling a book at a lower price
_as_list_price_ at another site...

so i guess if you list a book at
the kobo site as $2.99, _but_
kobo itself slashes the price,
then amazon will still pay 70%
if it _matches_the_price_...

which is what john is saying.

but john was not specific that
amazon _will_ actually match
a $.99 price on another site...

in the past, i recall reports
that amazon would _not_
price-match below $2.99...

so, again...  more confusion.

so hey!, do the experiment!

the worst that can happen is
amazon sandbags your book
-- stops selling it completely.

-bowerbird






yes, but simon, you've been
doing this for a lotta years...

you thought you were gonna
pass yourself off as a newbie?

some of us know you goin'
way way back, brother...    ;+)

say hello to simon haynes,
everybody...

-bowerbird










tara said:
>   I'm sure bowerbird 
>   knew I meant no harm.

of course!  we're cool, tara!      :+)

and my previous offer to format
your e-book for free still stands.


>   I still don't agree, however (I 
>   think) that changing the price 
>   somehow accrues bad karma

well then clearly you are in 
a state of complete denial...     :+)

because this is bait-and-switch,
and is almost a classic case of it.

at a price of $2.99, the rank for
"the list" was down at #1078...
after years, it'd stabilized there.

priced at $.99, it went to #15.

different prices, different ranks.
that's _fair_; it reflects reality.

that was the bait.

the switch was the price-change,
back up to $2.99.  but the rank
stayed the same, in the top-20,
where it now had huge visibility,
visibility it'd _obtained_ at $.99,
but which it is now _exploiting_
at the price of $2.99.  _unfair._

the reality is that it made it to
the list using the price of $.99.

at $2.99, it doesn't deserve to
be seen as a top-20 bestseller...
it should go back to rank #1078.


>   I don't see why you should 
>   suddenly not deserve the 
>   good reviews of your book
>   if the price changes.

hold it...  i never said it should
lose its _reviews_...  those will,
at least largely, be independent
of the purchase-price, i'd think.

same with the star-ratings...

but the top-100 bestseller list?
that shouldn't be available to
books that got onto the list at
the lower price and then had
their prices jacked up.  unfair.

and the recommendations of
"people who bought this book
also bought this other book..."
have a clear relationship with
the price of the books, as you
can see just by looking at 'em.

low-priced books are linked to
other low-priced books, and
high-priced books are linked
to other high-priced books...

it's a breach of the trust that
customers place in the system
to be abusing that relationship.

are authors gonna do it anyway?

probably, which is why amazon
should disallow the practice...

nobody will benefit long-term if
the recommendation engines are
sabatoged by gamesmanship...


>   It's not bad, at least from 
>   the consumer's point of view, 
>   to have turnover 
>   in the top 100 books.

but there won't be any diversity
once all the bestseller lists are
polluted by the books which are
priced at a higher level than the
one that got them _on_ the list.

moreover, eventually customers
will "route around the damage"
by _refusing_ to buy any book
in the top-100 which is priced at
a level above $.99, because they
will assume it is gamesmanship.

the trick will eventually die out,
when books immediately fall off
the list once prices get raised...

plus it will become more difficult
for any book to get _on_ the list
unless it's priced at $.99, either
temporarily or permanently...

because every book will have
to compete against not just
the permanent-price $.99ers,
but also those books which are
using that price "temporarily"
just to make the bestseller list.

a book that's _honestly_ priced
at $2.99 won't stand a chance.

and let me be perfectly clear...

this affects _much_ more than 
just the top-100 bestseller list.

all the "temporary" $.99 books
will create a massive jam-up
at the top of the rank system,
and _every_ book underneath
will suffer from the traffic-jam.

again, downward pressure on
pricing is _inevitable_, but this
will serve to supercharge the
surge of "race to the bottom".

but since the trick works now,
and works well, and means
big cash for the authors who
choose to use it, it will be used.

so i hope amazon steps in...

-bowerbird









robert said:
>   I think you owe 
>   our host an apology.

i appreciate your input, robert.

but when i consider the totality
of what i have said, i disagree...

i won't "apologize", because
i never leveled any charges
specifically against konrath.

in fact, i specifically excluded
joe from charges, because of
the transparency of his tests.
did you catch that part, robert?

i made my points about a
particular tactical strategy,
not any one specific person,
a strategy which i do believe
is a "bait-and-switch", and
if that label isn't appropriate,
then you can attach another.

but it's also the case this is
a "self-correcting" problem,
in the sense that the books
fall out of the top-100 list,
due to the raised-up price,
just like they got _on_ to
the list with the lower price.
i'm in the process now of
documenting that side of it.

i'm also documenting that
it's not that easy to move
the book into a position
where you can benefit from
the price-raising strategy.

still, deep to its core, it is
a _dishonest_ tactic, and
if we cannot agree on that,
then surely we could agree
that it's "gaming the system".

i give konrath props, because
i'm someone who appreciates
the cleverness of somebody
who can find a way to do that,
because it illuminates the holes
in the system.  but then those
holes need to be _plugged_...

i think amazon will do that...

and if it doesn't, it'll be because
amazon likes the $.99 k-books,
because it takes a 65% share...

but in the long run, this tactic
will harm the recommendation
engines that authors depend on,
and which readers also rely on.

now i am a social psychologist,
so i know that in this situation,
people are gonna follow their
selfish inclinations instead of
protecting their group interest.

so even though i give everyone
the _general_ argument about
why this is counterproductive,
to raise up their consciousness,
i fully expect that authors will
"follow the money" anyway...

so that's why i've taken the tack
of encouraging them to do so...

the sooner you all try to work
this angle, the sooner everyone
will find out that it will not work
once everyone is trying to do it,
and _you_yourselves_ will soon
demand that amazon call a halt,
to protect yourselves from your
own worst part of yourselves...

because of all of these things,
i can be very zen about all this.
you'll learn this all yourselves;
there's nothing i need to teach.

so i'm aiming at a bigger picture;
joe is just the main exemplar...

and he's tough...  he can take it.

so no, there will be no "apology".
this tactic is counterproductive,
long-term, and it needs to die.
and y'all will see that, so it will.

-bowerbird



























http://www.thebookdesigner.com/2011/03/marathon-ebook-design-in-a-grand-tradition-of-bookmaking/

joel said:
>   I'd love to see outstanding examples of Kindle books. 
>   Do you know anyone who has posted them?

how do you define "outstanding"?  that's the issue.

you've made a start here, by pointing to one book
that you think is well-done, but that's only a start.

what you need to do is be much more specific on
how you want certain structures to be rendered,
so that people making authoring-tools can know
what you want the finished product to look like...

odds are that we can give it to you, or tell you
why it can't be done, but only if we actually know
what it is that you want.  you need to be specific.

i'm here listening, but you're not telling me
what i need to know.  it's really that simple.

-bowerbird









rick-

thanks for the input.  here's my vantage-point...

i program e-book apps, including authoring-tools.

my approach is to use a form of light-markup
(which i invented, called "zen markup language")
and convert it to .html, .pdf, .epub, and .mobi...

single-source master-file.  no need for indesign.
the self-publishers of tomorrow are gonna love me.

and yes, the .mobi conversion is dumbed-down,
and that cannot be helped, because it's primitive,
but that's also why it's not a big concern to me...

my .pdf output is very good, if i do say so myself.

my .html is fine.  i find that, for all of the formats,
there is a great preponderance of end-user options
which need to be taken into consideration, such as
straight-quotes versus curly, double-dash or em-dash,
p-book paragraph-indents or internet-block-paragraphs,
font, size, colors, margins, leading, pagesize, and so on.
these are the variables that take up most of my focus,
rather than the format-conversions themselves, oddly.

.epub makes me roll my eyes.  it's a crap format,
first of all, and i have been saying that all along...

second, it's now plagued by viewer-inconsistencies,
and it appears there will be no quick solution to this...

third, the corporate houses which "own" the standard
seem to be doing all they can to sabotage e-books...

fourth, the techies who "maintain" the standard are
bent on making it even more convoluted than it is,
which will mean even more viewer-app-inconsistencies,
which will unfortunately gum up the works even more...

so i've decided i'm not going to pursue .epub very much.
because, frankly, i'm not sure it has much of a future,
and i'd rather continue inventing its _successor_, so...

anyway, rick, i'd like to see your book, but i'm allergic
to paying $9.99 and/or $12.99 just to look at _design_,
(my apps are cost-free), so i guess i'm stuck...          ;+)

-bowerbird






rick-

thanks! i already viewed the kindle sample.
so now i'll go take a look at the ibooks one...

-bowerbird








rick-

both versions look very good.  congratulations!     :+)

i don't have a designer esthetic, so i've had to try to
teach myself some of the main principles, and i might
have gotten some things wrong...  but there remains
a bunch of stuff in these versions that still make me
cringe, most of which are simply outside your control,
and which reflect quite poorly on the viewer-programs.
a real designer like yourself is probably bothered by
these things even more than i am, so you have my
empathy and sympathy.  that's all for the _product._

as for the _process_, it seems rather convoluted to me.
the writer does some markup while writing, most of which
you strip away when you put it into indesign...  then you
do a bunch of work in indesign to make a print-ready .pdf.

(is there available the .pdf matching the sample books?
i'd love to see what this book is "supposed to" appear,
as represented by the way the p-book actually looks.)

then you take the work _out_ of indesign and rework it
in bbedit.  i fully realize that this is the workflow which
the world has handed you, so it's not really your "fault"
that it's so clumsy, but it _is_ clumsy.  and convoluted...

-bowerbird







joel said:
>   It's no secret what I want: 
>   ebooks with great typography

joel, like i said, i don't really have
a designer esthetic in my head,
so i need to see some examples...

you might implicitly know what
"good typography" is, but i don't.


>   in which the extent to which 
>   the user can change the display 
>   is determined by the designer.

and there, you swerve into philosophy.

and, i might add, questionable philosophy.

my intent is to give the end-user the
_ultimate_ in control, if they want it,
and to free 'em from worrying about it
if _that_ is what they'd prefer to have...

i'm not adverse to giving the designer
the ability to specify default rendering.
indeed, i think that would be ideal...

but in terms of preventing the user from
changing that rendering?  no way, jose...

i've never seen a designer use anything
except curly-quotes, but i know that users
often _prefer_ straight-quotes, and i am
not going to deny them that preference...

rick's book prevents the user from changing
the font, short of going in and changing the
stylesheet, and i find that completely appalling.

i also observe that most p-books full-justify
their text, but rick's book used ragged-right,
even when i tell ibooks to turn on justification.
so i'm a bit perplexed by that.  to me, that alone
makes it such that it doesn't "look like a p-book".

i am also bothered by things that you cannot
control, but which the viewer-programs should,
like controlling for widows and orphans, and
making sure that the page-bottoms balance...

so, as you see, i have a mish-mash of reaction.     :+)

-bowerbird







anybody else have anything else?

-bowerbird








allan said:
>   manuals of classical typography

i didn't mean to imply that i haven't done my homework...
i've pored over bringhurst, and read lots of other stuff too.


>   you may also find practices worth 
>   preserving in the digital future.

yes, it is precisely because i recognize that the paper-book
is such a highly-developed and exquisitely-functional tool
that i wish to imbue its electronic-equivalent with much of
the same high-powered capability, so i study the old ways,
and try to engage today's typographers in a useful dialog...


>   Your Zen Markup Language sounds fascinating.

yes and no.  on the one hand, it's just a small part
of a tool-chain encompassing the entire workflow...

on the other hand, it represents the philosophy that
it's easy to make it clear enough to a well-coded app
exactly what the structural aspects of a document are,
thus precluding any need for clumsy-to-apply markup.
given the fact that .html has made so many people feel
that markup is "necessary", this is indeed a revolution...

but after the revolution has occurred, people will wonder
why they ever believed that markup was a necessity...
the youngsters will roll their eyes at such ridiculousness.


>   Is it, or will it be, generally available?

allan, after years of answering such questions one-off,
your questions have convinced me that it's time for me
to create the f.a.q. page for z.m.l.  thanks for the push!    :+)

>   http://z-m-l.com/zml-faq.html

it's just a placeholder now.  but at least it _is_ in place...

-bowerbird













ok, then i think we have reached the end
of the productive part of this "discussion".

i'd like to thank all of you for what has been
both an enlightening and amusing thread...

and now i have a page to which i can point
whenever any other programmers have an
inkling that they'd like to consult designers.

i'm now off to peddle my heroin and crack...

-bowerbird







colleen said:
>   bowerbird -- ...and perhaps lay off the coffee.

i'm sorry, i don't understand that comment...

-bowerbird









ok, well, i guess colleen is just too busy to answer my question.
perhaps she's working on her new book design/e-book/art blog.

-bowerbird










colleen said:
>   You just seemed pretty wound up.

nope... pretty mellow, actually,
undoubtedly from all of the pot...      :+)

and i didn't even really get going...
i've been doing e-book stuff since
the middle of the 1980s, so i can
pull a lot of stuff out of the closets.

-bowerbird




















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/another-update-on-list-experiment.html

um, joe, that headache is from
all that green beer you drank...

-bowerbird





m3mnoch said:
>   it's called "penetration pricing"

because the buyer gets reamed.

-bowerbird









let's look at a couple books...

"the dirty parts of the bible"
got a price-drop  march 10th,
and began to climb the chart,
up to #282 by march 14th...

konrath's "origin" was #368
when its price was reduced
to $.99; that was march 14th.

so "dirty parts" had passed
"origin" around march 14th,
due to its temporary price...

with its own temporary cut,
"origin" returned the favor,
and is now lodged around
rank #190 (#187 yesterday),
while "dirty parts is #325...
(it was at #275 yesterday.)

both of these books will be
"re-priced" once they reach
the top-100 bestseller list,
so neither of them is being
"honestly" priced at $.99...
it's just a trick to move up,
to try to capitalize on rank.

and it's a nice trick, indeed,
until lots of authors use it...

then the rest of the authors
will be forced to use it, or
suffer the consequence of
being bounced farther back.

it would be one thing if the
$.99 prices were _honest_...
that's just the marketplace,
doing what it's supposed to.

but this is _trickery_.  it's
_gamesmanship_, and it's
not a good thing to be doing.

but, as shown here, it has
the effect of self-correction.

both of these books are
making it more difficult
for the other to move up.

that's the good news.

the bad news is that they
are also hurting a lot of
innocent books as well...

an example of that is
blake's "run", which is
honestly priced at $2.99.
it's moving up, to #445
at the current time, but
who knows how many
artificially-priced $.99
books stand in its way?

and meanwhile, the
recommendation engine
-- which is based on
the data from sales --
is being badly gummed,
which hurts everyone,
badly, in the long run.

amazon will undoubtedly
fix this problem eventually.

but maybe not too quickly,
because -- remember? --
it takes 65% of $.99 sales.
so it will just let all of you
cut your throats for a while,
as it builds up a warchest
to defeat any competitors
who might creep up on it.

-bowerbird







thanks to a suggestion by
robin, i have been tracking
"the color of heaven" since
the price was raised on it
from $.99 to $2.99, way
back around march 6th,
when it was ranked #17.

you can see the progress:
>   http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/list-experiment-update.html

it's now ranked at #83,
so it has fallen 66 ranks,
but that's taken 14 days.

the latest update there
is not sticking, however,
so i'll post it here instead.

***

as of now, march 20th, at noon,
two days since our last report,
"the color of heaven" is at #83,
down 4 spots in the last 2 days.

"the list" is at #39, down just
one rank in the last 2 days,
meaning joe is getting _rich_.

pay attention, folks!  time to
price your books at $.99 and
move them up the rankings,
so you can then switch back 
to $2.99 and get rich like joe!

-bowerbird




tara said:
>   I think bowerbird is 
>   still disapproving

well, ok, but first of all, 
who cares what i think?

second of all, look at that!
joe's making $1700+ a day!
on a book that used to be
making a mere $80 per day.
that's over 20 times as much!

and all that _recognition_
which joe is getting?  great!
his visibility might now be
higher than it has ever been!

and all of those new readers!
surely some will become fans.

so...

why not go for what he got?

all of the marketeers here
label the move as "brilliant".

so why are you people here
reading this here blog if ya
ain't gonna learn the lessons?

what good does it do for
joe to be so transparent
if nobody pays attention?

don't let other authors
beat you to the punch!

lower your price _today!_

over 20 times as much money!
what more evidence do ya need?

-bowerbird








robert said:
>   That $1.69 loss per sale 
>   is, in effect, 
>   an advertising investment 
>   that folks like Joe pay to 
>   get their book into 
>   the Top 100, where it will 
>   get much greater visibility. 
>   In other words: He's 
>   buying advertising space.

well, that's a novel take;
kudos for the cleverness.

thankfully, the history was
recorded at the time, so we
don't have to rewrite it now.

joe traded away profit to get
volume for less than 10 days.

by february 24th, at rank #123,
he was making the same profit
that he'd been making at $2.99.

>   http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/02/list-experiment-update.html

in addition, however, he now
had greatly increased volume,
in the form of more readers...

6 times as many readers, every
day, and this was even before
he had reached the top-100,
when, yes, it all ballooned up.

by the time he hit the top-100,
that "advertising" which he had
"bought" essentially cost nada.

even his "failed" experiments,
which nobody seems to notice,
would've given joe a boost of
at least 6 times as many sales
if he'd stuck it out with them.
but joe wants very fast results.

-bowerbird












joe said:
>   I'm making 
>   $73 an hour 
>   on The List.

joe's getting rich!  rich!

***

tara said...
>   I still can't quite tell 
>   if you are objecting 
>   because you think 
>   keeping the $.99 price 
>   longer would make more 
>   profit in the long run, or 
>   because you object to 
>   the idea of profit itself, 
>   as a matter of principle. 
>   Either position is fine, but 
>   conflating them is confusing.

you should stop trying to
psychoanalyze my position;
simply take me at my word.

i'm not "objecting" to anything.

profit is a beautiful thing.

joe is getting rich.  quick.

so go and do what joe did.

all of you.  just do it.  go!

you know you want to.
so just go do it...  now!

the longer you wait,
the longer will be that
big line in front of you.

-bowerbird









christy said:
>   Joe is creating 
>   a "loss leader," 
>   just like 
>   any other retailer. 

except it's not "a loss leader"
because joe never took a loss.

when a retailer pays more for
a product-unit than it sells for,
_that_ is taking a loss.  but joe
didn't pay anything for each
additional unit which he sold.

every penny on every sale was
_profit..._  totally pure profit...

i'm also always perplexed why
people here -- not only christy,
but everyone -- seem to want
to equate digital markets with
physical stores of yesterday...

they are completely different,
and it's smarter to figure out
those differences, and exploit
them, than to try to artificially
find points of similarity, when
those points rarely match up...

the _total_ absence of _any_
variable costs is the hallmark
of the new digital environment
-- its most significant aspect --
and that _never_ occurs with
physical products in the world.

-bowerbird











and here's today's report on
the price-switch experiment.

as of now, march 21st, at noon,
"the color of heaven" is at #85,
down 2 spots since yesterday.

"the list" is currently at #44,
down 5 spots since yesterday,
but still making tons of money!

time to lower your price, folks,
so you can get in the top-100,
then raise your price back up,
and make a killing just like joe!

you know other authors are
doing it.  don't let them push
your books out of the race...

-bowerbird









it might also be instructive
to look at "origin", which is
joe's latest attempt to move
a book of his into the top-100.

>   2011/03/17, 1pm, #284
>   2011/03/18, 2am, #202
>   2011/03/18, 9pm, #187
>   2011/03/19, 1pm, #190
>   2011/03/20, 2pm, #195
>   2011/03/21, 1am, #196
>   2011/03/21, 1pm, #200

after a big immediate jump,
the book has been "stalled"
for four days around #195...

will joe wait out this plateau,
or is he just too impatient?

-bowerbird











and here's today's report on
the price-switch experiment.

as of now, march 22nd, 9:40am,
"the color of heaven" is at #87,
down 2 spots since yesterday,
down 70 spots since i started
watching, at #17 on march 6th,
an average fall of 4 spots a day.

"the list" is currently at #47,
down 3 spots since yesterday,
down 24 spots since its price
was raised back up to $2.99,
when it was #23 on march 16th,
an average fall of 4 spots a day.

-bowerbird





in the last 2 hours, another
interesting thing happened...

"run", from blake crouch,
has been "honestly" priced
at $2.99 all along, and has
steadily moved up the charts.

"dirty parts of the bible"
has jumped from $.99 to
$2.99 and back again and
back again and back again
and now is priced at $2.99.
all that price-switching has
caused it to bounce around
between #250 and #500...

what has just happened is
that "run" has now eclipsed
"dirty parts".  (run is #372,
and dirty parts is at #419.)

i think the feeling among
some people here is that
you can use price-changes
to yo-yo your book up and
down at will, but the reality
might be that that ends up
being counterproductive,
as opposed to a firm price.

-bowerbird












today's price-switch report
is an absolute shocker, folks!

as of march 23rd, 10am pacific,
"the color of heaven" dropped
from rank #87 yesterday to
rank #106 right now, which is
a stunning fall of _19_spots_...

i would normally just call that
an extraordinary wobble, and
expect it to bounce back near
to where it had been before...

but this is a special situation,
since the book has fallen out
of the top-100 bestseller list,
and thus now lacks the very
visibility it got from the list...
which handicaps it greatly in
terms of climbing back there...

it still has the word-of-mouth
it had yesterday and last week,
and the star-rating and reviews,
so i'm not writing it off entirely,
but it has suffered a _big_ blow.

further, even if the book _does_
manage to stage a comeback
of sorts, the overall downward
trend it's been on is very clear:
the price-switch up to $2.99
basically knocked it off the list.

in other news...

"the list" is currently at #46,
_up_ 1 spot since yesterday...
perhaps all of those people
coming here to joe's blog is
more effective at selling books
than joe professes to realize...

-bowerbird










in today's price-switch report,
on march 24th at 11am pacific,
"the color of heaven" continues
its dramatic free-fall, dropping
to rank #125 as of this moment.
it's lost 38 spots in just 2 days!
barring a price-drop back to 
the $.99 point, odds are slim
that it will regain the top-100.

robin advised us to watch this
book because she hoped that
it would maintain its position
even after its price went up,
but the book has been steadily
losing ground ever since then.

it has still managed to pile up
a bunch of cash as the lethargy
of the list dynamics let it stay
in the top-100, even when it
no longer deserved to remain,
and that pile of cash certainly
will serve as a lure to authors
who will try to repeat the trick,
but at least those of us who see
this "tactic" as exploitation can
rest easier knowing that it's one
which eventually self-corrects.

"the list" is currently at #51,
down 5 spots since yesterday.
aside from the symbolism of
dropping out of the top-50,
another mental marker today
is that "the list" has just today
been a crossing ship with the
worst-ranked john locke book,
"follow the stone", which is
now lodged at position #47...
this means all _7_ of the books
by john locke (all $.99) are now
firmly within the top-50, with
6 of the 7 lodged in the top-25.
so it seems that you can _visit_
the top of the list with a "sale"
at the $.99 price-point, but you
can _reside_ there if you make
the $.99 price your steady one.

-bowerbird









yet another milestone today...

at one time, there was some
speculation that many of the
people who bought "the list"
hadn't yet read it, and thus
it wouldn't impact the sales
of other konrath books yet.
this speculation was based
on people's own self-reports
that they hadn't read it yet...

i made the suggestion that
we could assume it was true
until the number of reviews
for "the list" had _doubled_
from the 80 it had when the
"experiment" was undertaken.
objective measures are nice...

just now, the total number of
reviews hit 110, meaning that
the book has gotten 30 more
since the experiment began...
not nearly the 80, not yet, but
the total is growing, steadily...

so, if you're looking for effects
which are _immediate_, you're
probably gonna miss a bunch...

-bowerbird











the john locke juggernaut
continues to astound us...

as of 3pm on march 24th,
6 of his 7 books are now
listed in the kindle top-20.

-bowerbird









as of now, march 25th, at noon,
"the color of heaven" is at #148,
accelerating its traumatic spiral,
down 23 spots since yesterday,
losing 61 spots the last 3 days.

and "the list" is currently at #57,
down 6 spots since yesterday...

-bowerbird








as of march 26th, at 11:30am,
"the color of heaven" is at #178,
down 30 spots since yesterday,
losing 91 spots the last 4 days.

and "the list" is currently at #59,
down 2 spots since yesterday...

-bowerbird












as of march 27th, at 12:30pm,
"the color of heaven" is at #178,
_unchanged_ since yesterday,
a refreshing change-of-pace...

and "the list" is currently at #57,
2 spots _better_ than yesterday.

-bowerbird









as of march 28th, noon pacific,
"the color of heaven" is at #185,
down 7 spots since yesterday...

and "the list" is currently at #58,
2 spots worse than yesterday...

-bowerbird











as of march 29th, noon pacific,
"the color of heaven" is at #203,
18 spots worse than yesterday...

and "the list" is currently at #60,
1 spot worse than yesterday...

-bowerbird







it's march 30th, noon pacific,
and "the color of heaven" has
bounced 14 spots up to #189.

"the list" is currently at #63,
3 spots worse than yesterday.

-bowerbir










another notable moment...

joe hasn't made a big deal
about his price-reduction
to $.99 for his book "origin",
but it has been constantly
moving up the chart, albeit
in a rather wobbly fashion...

nonetheless, it's now at #99,
marking its first appearance
in the top-100 list.  it might
continue to wobble, certainly,
or its presence on that list
might help it remain there,
but either way, joe now has
2 books in the top-100 list.
so watch out, john locke!     :+)

-bowerbird

p.s.  here are some of the
origin wobbles during its
2-week trip to the top-100:

#284, 2011/3/17, 2pm
#202, 2011/3/18, 2am
#187, 2011/3/18, 11pm
#190, 2011/3/19, 12pm
#195, 2011/3/20, 3pm
#200, 2011/3/21, 1pm
#176, 2011/3/21, 8pm
#190, 2011/3/22, 9am
#177, 2011/3/22, 11am
#169, 2011/3/23, 9am
#173, 2011/3/23, 3pm
#159, 2011/3/24, 1am
#169, 2011/3/24, 8am
#181, 2011/3/24, 3pm
#156, 2011/3/25, 1am
#166, 2011/3/25, 1pm
#161, 2011/3/26, 2am
#147, 2011/3/26, 11pm
#138, 2011/3/27, 11am
#146, 2011/3/27, 7pm
#141, 2011/3/28, 7am
#125, 2011/3/29, 1am
#132, 2011/3/29, 11am
#138, 2011/3/29, 8pm
#149, 2011/3/30, 1am
#099, 2011/3/30, 5pm
















http://www.amazon.com/tag/kindle/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdMsgNo=3077&cdPage=124&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2MAUD5RXTJF4C&displayType=tagsDetail&cdMsgID=Mx16LPCK8W2VWWT#Mx16LPCK8W2VWWT







here's why i'm visiting you fine people...

i suppose you've heard of that j.a. konrath fellow...

there's a lot of things i like about him, sincerely...

this one new thing, though, has me wondering...

he lowered the price of one of his books -- "the list" --
to $.99 and it got onto the top-100 bestseller list...
(kinda funny, eh, that "the list" is on the bestseller list.)

the book reached as high as #15 on the overall chart.

so far, so good. give the people a bargain, yay!

but now that it's on the bestseller list, and linked to
a bunch of books in amazon's recommendation engine,
he has raised the price to $2.99... so all the suckers...
i'm sorry... "customers" who think that the book made
its way onto the top-100 list at the now-current $2.99
-- and who might be buying it solely on that basis! --
are being misled. (back when it was priced at $2.99,
before his "experiment" with the $.99 pricing, the book
was ranked #1078; not too much visibility at that rank.)

i'm sure the book will fall off the top-100 list eventually,
but meanwhile, konrath laughs all the way to the bank.

he made money by pushing the book up the charts with
the low price, and he made more money when it poked
in the top-20, and now he will make _boatloads_ through
a skillful exploitation at the $2.99 price (70% royalty) for
the entire time it manages to remain on the top-100 list.

and he's gonna try to duplicate the trick with other books.

seems to me that this is "gaming the system", and yes,
i know some of that is always going to happen, but still,
do we want to encourage that type of thing? because
konrath has a very large following of self-publishers, so
if he gets away with it, they will all be using this tactic,
and the bestseller list and the recommendation engine
will soon come to be totally untrustworthy, which is not
something that will benefit kindle customers long-term...

so i'm here to ask if you kindle customers object to this.

-bowerbird







thanks to those of you who
answered my recent question.
i appreciate it... :+)

i will leave you now, to
your drunken massages...

-bowerbird

p.s. when i just came back
to make sure i read 'em all,
i thought i had to read 124
pages to get caught up...
lucky for me it was only 7!












http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/ebooks-and-self-publishing-dialog.html

well, thanks for the interesting
tidbit about eisler's decision...

and the overall summary will
be very useful for any newbies.

but mostly, let us give thanks to
konrath for gifting humans with
the miracle of self-publishing...

maybe a nobel prize is in order?
sainthood?  custom beer-cooler?

but seriously...

when is michael hart gonna get
some of his deserved respect?
(he lives close enough to chicago
that you could call him a local.)
cory doctorow?  heck, jeff bezos?

back-slapping is one thing, but
the myopia is getting a bit old...

not that i don't appreciate the
contribution that you've made,
joe, as i think i've spoken out
on that regard often, but you
were _dissing_ self-publishing
just a couple short years back,
and the chrome on your blog
_still_ makes it sound like the
object of any "real" writer is to
be published by a corporation.

let's tell the _whole_ truth, ok?

rock on; keep up the good work.

-bowerbird





hey, joe, time for a f.a.q. page.

it's great for you how this blog
continually brings in new people,
because those are new buyers,
but it also means you're on this
merry-go-round discussing the
same old topics time after time,
as each crop of newbies comes in.

just like you no longer have time
for interviews, i'd think that you
don't have time to regurgitate,
not if you want to move forward
those people who already get it.

-bowerbird

p.s.  this page would be a start,
but it'd need some serious edits.








newmango said:
>   Assuming one is 
>   a good writer 
>   with a good story, 
>   what are things 
>   they can do 
>   to help them 
>   rise from obscurity?

write six more good stories,
and then post the first four
at $.99 each, and once they
take off, feed the machine
at regular intervals with the
other three, while you are
continuously writing more,
as the machine is voracious...

a.k.a., do what john locke did.

-bowerbird

p.s.  other people will tell you
that you need good covers,
and this, that, and the other,
but if your stories are all good
and tight, that's all you need...
plus time, and a little luck too.










selena said:
>   this Amanda Hocking thing 
>   has me a little befuddled 
>   in light of this amazing post. 
>   Eisler is in legacy publishing 
>   and passes up on half a mil 
>   for a two book deal in order 
>   to self-pub... while Hocking, 
>   who self-pubbed and made 
>   2 million on her own... is 
>   rumored to be signing 
>   a million dollar four-book 
>   series deal with a legacy pub.
>   *scratching head*
>   The grass is always greener?

yes, in a way...  but i'd put it as
"2 pastures are better than 1."

sometimes you just want to see
what the other clubhouse is like.
you don't expect it to be better;
it's just different, and you want
to experience that difference...

it's easy to see what eisler is
doing: moving to the future...

but amanda's motivation isn't
really too difficult to figure out:
she's padding out her resume,
which is an equally good way 
of preparing for _her_ future...

there's still a lot of juice left
in those legacy oranges, and
she's smart to squeeze them.
it's a solid guaranteed payday,
plus she has the upper hand
at the bargaining poker table.
besides, she still has 9 books
online, making good money...
so why not go out on the boat
and try to find a white whale?

i'm amused that anyone sees
any kind of a trend in all this;
it doesn't represent continued
dominance by the corporations,
but rather instead how utterly
desperate they've now become.
they're no longer lampooning
the self-published; they are
now signing them to big deals.

-bowerbird





barry said:
>   I just finished reading 
>   all 200+ comments, even 
>   Marv's and Bowerbird's. 

what?

you mean you've ignored
joe's advice to ignore me?      :+)

surely you know no good 
will come from this.     ;+)

-bowerbird
























http://scripting.com/stories/2011/03/20/whatTwitterAndTheNytHaveIn.html

another thing that twitter and the new york times
have in common is that i don't care about either...

-bowerbird












http://craigmod.com/satellite/nourishing_wake/

very nice piece.  excellent.

-bowerbird














http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/interview-with-my-print-book-creator.html

joe said:
>   "Ebooks will replace print! 
>   Print is dead!" Lots of 
>   people attribute that quote, 
>   and that perspective, to me.

um, joe, i don't believe anyone
said you originated that quote.
do you?

i'd also guess that only the most
retarded among us would fail to
grasp that quote as hyperbole...
do you?

-bowerbird













createspace and l.s.i. have
different customer-bases,
so you _should_ use both...

***

penumbra said:
>   does it really make sense 
>   to devote the required 
>   time and effort to 
>   getting an ebook 
>   into a paper version?

i haven't wanted to interfere
with the promotion of people
who can help a self-publisher
by doing formatting and such,
because i'm sure these people
are _worth_ what they charge,
and take a load off your mind...

but i'm coding an app that will
take your text-file and create
a .pdf you can use for p.o.d.,
_and_ an .epub for the stores
that want that format, _and_
a .mobi for the amazon store,
all with a simple button-click.
there's no need to think of all
of these as different processes.
(in fact, whenever you do that,
it becomes unduly complicated,
because you have to make the
same changes in several places.)

i have a standalone app version,
and i am working on a web-app
as well.  so if you don't feel you
have the money to pay a pro,
don't despair.  help is coming...
not tomorrow, nor next week,
but it will arrive soon enough...

-bowerbird






















http://amandahocking.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-i-can-say-right-now.html

amanda-

congratulations on the big deal!
best of luck, babe...  be happy...

-bowerbird
















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/depression-and-writers.html

joe said:
>   Over the years, I've lost 
>   count of the conversations 
>   I've had with writers who 
>   had similar experiences 
>   to Kiana and me. 
>   Tales of rejection. 
>   Of bad luck and 
>   stupid publisher decisions. 
>   Of getting the shit end of the 
>   stick, over and over and over.

over here in the poets corner,
we're not allowed to touch the
stick, not even the shit end, so
too many of my friends struggle
against the beast of depression.

so i'm very familiar with the drill
and i send my thoughts to kiana,
cheering her self-empowerment.

thank you, amazon, for making
self-publishing a viable option.

***

joe said:
>   I'm asking you to buy a copy

so maybe this blog really can
help sell a few books, eh?     ;+)


>   Let's see how low we can 
>   get her Amazon ranking. 
>   Right now it's #134,555.

even a dozen sales would do
wonders for a rank like that.
and i'd guess you'll get more.


>   I'd really like to see it 
>   crack the Top 1000.

oh ye of little faith...

as soon as i read that, i knew
that it'd crack the top-200,
and sure enough it's already
at #391, and likely climbing.

but i suspected that it would
even crawl into the top-100,
due to the feel-good factor,
and i see no reason to change
my opinion on that matter...


>   Help me spread the word.

i'm sure that this entry will be
retweeted a lot, as it should be.
in its own way, it is even more
important to authors than the
recent dialog with barry eisler.
happiness is better than money.

i've said along that this new
ability for artists to connect
directly with their audience
will help artists make money,
but will be best for artists who
want to make art, not money.

there's nobody saying "no"
any more.  you still have to
work to find "yes", it's true,
but there's nobody out there
saying "no" before you start.

-bowerbird





















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/guest-post-by-mark-coker-creator-of.html

how ironic that
the formatting
is screwed up
on the post on
smashwords...

-bowerbird










maria said:
>   What's a "properly 
>   formatted ebook"? 
>   One that looks perfect 
>   on a particular device, 
>   or one that is readable 
>   on a 100 different devices?

it's one that looks perfect
on 100 different devices...

***

mark, lots of people have
complained about your
meatgrinder, because
(1) they like to complain,
(2) they have something
they can complain about,
(3) they don't understand
the dynamics of the task,
(4) they don't understand
the difficulty of the task, 
and (5) they hold overly
perfectionistic attitudes.

i am not those people...

i can show you a system
that works better than
your meatgrinder, for
_all_ of your purposes...

it will not be cheap, but
you need to ask yourself
how much the meatgrinder
is costing your reputation.

-bowerbird













mark said:
>   When ebook production 
>   becomes free to authors, 
>   as it is now at Smashwords, 
>   it enables some 
>   magical things to happen

mark, when i said that
my formatting system
"wouldn't be cheap",
i meant _for_you_ to
_license_it_ from me...

i didn't mean that you
should pass the costs
along to your users...
(never occurred to me
that you'd think that.)

but it sounds like you
are happy with what
you've already got...

i can understand you
have a lot of sunk costs
in the meatgrinder, and
all of those complaints
have probably made you
bond even tighter to
the meatgrinder... but
i'm not sure that it is
helping you like it could.

so if you'd like to look
at something different,
i could show it to you...

but if you are happy,
that's all that counts.

and i think that you are
doing a _heck_ of a job,
let me be perfectly clear.
your ability to get your
books in so many stores
really helps authors out,
even if they ain't quite as
beautiful as they could be.
(the books, not the authors.
but maybe you could do
something to help _both_?
that would be sweet.)     ;+)

at any rate...

smashwords has been a
very valuable contributor
to the e-book revolution,
one of the _most_ vital...

so best of luck with it all.

-bowerbird











nwrann said:
>   the reason for 
>   crunching these numbers
>   and looking at the 
>   percentages is to determine
>   if, at this time in history,
>   with a great novel in
>   a popular genre is there is

you have one too many "is"
words in that there sentence.


>   a better chance at 
>   spending the time and money 
>   courting a publisher and 
>   getting a $5,000 advance 
>   or is there is a better chance 
>   at getting into that (less than) 
>   1% of self-pubbers making 
>   "good" money (5,000 copies 
>   per year?). 

are you trying to convince
someone here?  or yourself?

because you're not really
coming up with any good
arguments that haven't
already been voiced in
this ongoing discussion
hundreds of times before.
(or thousands?  millions?)

i mean, seriously, i could
give you the standard
counterarguments, and
then you could give the
responses to those, and
we could do all the steps
to this tired dance again.

but nobody really cares...

some people will stay with
the legacy publishers and
be quite happy with that...
and if that's you, then fine!

if someone else wants to
go the self-publishing route,
what do you care?  and why?

the people who will get
filthy rich from writing
are few and far between,
no matter which path...

there will be lots more
who will eke out a living,
no matter which path...

and a great many will
call it a hobby, and be
glad they get paid at all,
no matter which path...
(most ordinary people
have to pay out money
to support their habits.)

the choice is yours...

but there's no need to
come here and try to
rationalize your choice.
nobody cares what you
do, and nobody cares
what your opinion is
about what _they_ do.

but everyone _is_ tired
of doing the old dance.

-bowerbird











bfuniv said:
>   I think it's funny that 
>   comments started with 
>   a bunch of middle school 
>   English teachers. They want 
>   a perfect world that 
>   never existed to return. 
>   They are reacting to 
>   exponential growth 
>   as we reacted to 
>   their red pencils.

i made the very first comment,
and did use the word "perfect"
(in a sarcastic way, and only
to mimic a loaded question)...

so i'm wondering if bfuniv
is referring to me?  because
that would be the first time
i have ever been accused of
being an "english teacher"...


>   Younger generations 
>   are having their 
>   grammar and spelling 
>   shaped by texting, 
>   FB, and Twitter.

perhaps bfuniv thought
that when i used the word
"formatting", i must be
talking about grammar
and spelling.  of course,
that's completely wrong.
(so imagine tons of big
red marks in this section.)


>   They care about story, 
>   not unnecessary rules.

i'm not here to defend any
"unnecessary rules" because
i find them to be unnecessary.
(the joy of a circular argument.)

call me old-fashioned, but
i do believe words should be
spelled correctly in a book...

as for grammar, i regularly
break a whole buncha rules,
necessary and unnecessary,
some i know, most i don't,
so i can't say much about it.

but in terms of _formatting_,
which is what i have been
talking about all along here,
you might get the impression
that "people don't care about"
things like curly-quotes versus
straight-quotes, or indented
versus block paragraphs, just to
mention two issues that were
mentioned here explicitly, but
if you actually give end-users
the ability to _control_ these
variables, you quickly learn that
they _treasure_ that ability to
set preferences as they desire.

(and it's _not_ always the way
that the book designers prefer;
some end-users like straight
quotes, and block paragraphs.)

one of the biggest failings with
current viewer-software is that
it doesn't let the human reader
control all of these preferences.

-bowerbird












jody said:
>   The biggest thing 
>   WE can do to help is to 
>   keep reminding people that 
>   illegally downloading a book 
>   is no different from 
>   walking into a bookstore 
>   and shoplifting 

it's _quite_ different.

it's no different from walking
into a bookstore and browsing 
a book, which might (or might
not) include reading it entirely.

or checking it out from a library.

but people are even more tired
(sick to death) of that dance...

where you and i agree, jody, is
that readers actively _want_ to
support authors, especially the
authors who they enjoy, and
will ensure that those writers
are adequately compensated for
the work which they do, and the
sooner authors realize that fact,
the better off we will all be...

-bowerbird










nwrann said:
>   I'm simply asking a question: 
>   is there a better chance 
>   of getting published or 
>   a better chance of 
>   making similar money 
>   self-pubbing?

the odds of "getting published"
(which you seem to have defined
as having your book picked up
by a publishing company and
being paid a $5,000 advance)
are vanishingly small, and will
require a huge investment of
time and energy from a writer.

do you have the stats on _that_?

or do you just want to count
the money coming in, and
totally dismiss the value of
the resources that are needed
to cause that money to flow in?

what about the emotional cost?


>   It's a valid business question 
>   considering the subject matter 
>   of this blog post. 

what you seem to fail to grasp
is that most of the writers who
are publishing via smashwords
don't have money as an agenda,
in the sense that they do not
_expect_ to make much money
from the endeavor.  therefore,
your "valid business question"
has little applicability to them...

some of them have attempted
to go to legacy publishers, and
they've been rebuffed, so they
turned now to self-publishing.
amanda hocking was one of
the writers in this situation...
and she seemed to do well...

others didn't even bother to
waste any time or energy in
the chase for a publisher...
and some of those have done
quite well for themselves too.

and still others are refugees
from legacy publishers, who
are taking control of their 
destiny into their own hands.
some of these people have
reported that they are now
making more money from
their self-publishing efforts
than they had been making
from their legacy publishers.


>   Mark Coker has the info 
>   available to answer that 
>   question and show us 
>   where the curve is 
>   in the chart that shows 
>   the success of 
>   40,000 titles and 
>   16,000 self-pubbed authors.

mark's data cannot give us
the comparison which you
seem to want us to infer,
which is that writers would
be better off going legacy...

and in order to answer _that_,
we'd need to know how many
writers got mired inside the
slushpile at those publishers.

because even the writers who
made $500 (instead of $5000)
from self-publishing are now
better off than those writers
who got mired in the slushpile.

and not just because of money.
but because their work is now
out in the world, and _alive_...


>   bowerbird, I wouldn't 
>   expect you to have an 
>   answer to that question 
>   so I ignored 
>   the rest of your poem.

as william carlos williams said:
>   It is difficult
>   to get the news from poems
>   yet men die miserably 
>   every day
>   for lack of 
>   what is found there.

i don't expect you to read
this response either, but
that's ok, because others
will read it, and learn from it.

-bowerbird





















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/another-talk-with-ann-voss-peterson.html

$2.99 for a novella?

reminds me of what "they"
are doing in the food biz:
same price for less product.

consumers don't seem to
notice, or so "they" tell us.

of course, out of the other
side of their mouth, we are
told consumers don't mind.

business man speak
with forked tongue...

-bowerbird















david said:
>   I love Jude's pricing structure: 
>   99cent short stories
>   2.99 novellas
>   3.99-4.99 novels.
>
>   I think now is 
>   the perfect time to start 
>   establishing these prices. 
>   They're fair.

the corporate publishers
disagree strongly with you.

all's fair in love and war...

-bowerbird









david said:
>   I was only talking about 
>   self-published, electronic 
>   works.

um, are self-published e-books
worth less than corporate ones?

-bowerbird










david said:
>   Self-published authors 
>   for the most part 
>   have determined 
>   they are worth less and 
>   priced their books accordingly. 

i do believe you are mistaken
as to their general reasoning...

those self-published authors
have just discovered a different
pricing-point on the continuum,
one which corporate publishers
are unable to service today, and
are making it work for them...
john locke is a great example.

it has nothing to do with being
"fair", unless we wanna consider
the 65% extracted by amazon
when an author prices at $.99
as being a rather unfair share.

you can set up a nice little world
at your garden tea party where
the prices are all "fair" and stuff,
but then real life is gonna come
and kick in all your teeth with a
lower price, no matter how fair
or "unfair" that price might be...
that's called "the marketplace".

-bowerbird









david said:
>   John Locke writes dime novels. 
>   He prices them at 99 cents 
>   because he's afraid people 
>   won't pay $2.99 for them. 

that may be what _you_ say...

but i tend to believe john locke
_himself_ when he said that he
feels that $.99 is the right price
for his books. the _right_ price.
from his readers' perspective...
hunh? doesn't he realize that 
he's supposed to rip them off?


>   He may be right. 
>   But if his books sold half 
>   as many copies, he'd make 
>   three times more money.

and yet he's managed to make
_a_quarter_of_a_million_dollars_
in the first quarter of this year,
by my estimates, which means
he's a pretty smart businessman,
as far as i can tell. really smart.


>   He likes having three or 
>   four chairs at the table, 
>   even if it is the kid's table. 
>   He's the king of the kid's 
>   table. It works for him.

some of you characters really
scrape the bottom of the barrel
when it comes to levying insults
-- or _attempting_ to levy them.
i hope you're proud of yourself.


>   Authors have been bitching 
>   for years about low royalties, 
>   and he's happy with 35 cents.

"...and he's happy with a quarter
of a million dollars in 3 months!"

that's discovering the power of
a price-point on the continuum.


>   There's nothing wrong with 
>   that, but it's his valuation. 
>   He's practically 
>   giving his books away.

and becoming a millionaire
in the process of doing so...

it's genius, i tell you. genius.

-bowerbird













david said:
>   I wasn't insulting him, 
>   bowerbird. 
>   I admire the hell out of him. 
>   I say it's the kid's table 
>   compared to the rest.

i don't see how "the kid's table"
can be construed as anything
but a rude insult, but since you
say that's not what you meant,
i will take you at your word...

i haven't read any of his work,
but i admire john locke and
his willingness to leave some
money on the table in order to
give his fans the better price...
not only is it a generous move,
it is also tremendously smart
in this period of hypergrowth
to create fans and not milk 'em.

***

coolkayaker said:
>   I'd much rather spend 
>   $9.99 on a well-edited, 
>   top grade, completely and 
>   thoroughly written, 
>   full-length novel by 
>   a gifted author (e.g. Franzen, 
>   Updike, Mailer, Powers), 
>   for which I can spend 
>   8-10 hours of raptured 
>   word bliss, than I would 
>   spend $2.99 on a novella, 
>   self-pubbed by a newbie 
>   with a website and 
>   a Facebook account 
>   that I can dash through 
>   in 2 hours and feel like I 
>   just ate a Big Mac with 
>   a supersized order of fries 
>   before a triathlon. 

loaded comparison, much?

at any rate, you might well be
a cool kayaker, but it must be
hard for a superior being such
as yourself, with your erudite
intellect and refined taste, to
live on a planet where borders
is going out of business while
mcdonald's has a "restaurant"
up the street from most of us.

still, you must be thankful for
the self-publishers who price
their books under $3, since it
serves as a warning to you and
means you don't waste any of
your precious time on them,
which in turn means you have
plenty of time to come here
to berate those same authors,
over and over and over again.
the burden of noblesse oblige.

oh, good luck on your triathlon.

-bowerbird









david said:
>   You're suggesting then that 
>   anything over 99 cents would
>   be taking advantage of and 
>   milking the reader.

not necessarily.

besides, that's not my decision
to be making in the first place...

the customers themselves will
decide if they got a good price
or if they were fleeced, after
they finish reading the book.

but because his books have
all jumped into the top-60,
with all but one of 'em regularly
inhabiting the top-30, it's easy
to see that john locke has been
giving fans fantastic value, and
making new ones in the process.


>   So anything higher than 99 
>   cents is screwing the reader?

not necessarily.

besides, again, that is _not_
my decision to be making...

(and, for the record, i advise
authors _not_ to use $.99,
because the "royalty" that
amazon pays at that price
is one that i feel is unfair,
since that's half what it pays
for prices of $2.99 and up.)


>   That seems like you're 
>   putting a valuation on him, 
>   or on e-books in general 

art is worth whatever you can
get someone to pay for it...


>   Are you saying that all 
>   e-books should be 99 cents

most definitely not.

charge whatever you like.


>   or that his books are 
>   fairly priced at 99 cents

when it comes to prices,
the notion of "fairness"
is extremely hard to define.
and hardly worth the bother.

if an author wants to charge
an "unfair" price, so be it...
as long as there is no law
requiring me to buy the book,
i'm free to make the decision.

on the other hand, however,
it would be hard for me to
characterize a price of $.99
as being "unfair" or "too much".


>   and anything above that 
>   would be unfair?

you seem to want me to give
some strict definition, but i
just don't see things that way.

if someone wanted to charge
ten thousand bucks for a book,
i'd be completely fine with it...
i wouldn't buy the darn thing,
but that's not the question...

likewise, if the corporations
want to charge $12.99 for
the e-books, i'm fine with it.
i may laugh at their stupidity,
but price however you like...

-bowerbird





















http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/origin-99-ebook-charity-experiment.html

joe said:
>   I'm curious if 
>   a concentrated push 
>   at this late stage 
>   in the game
>   will work to 
>   get it on the list.

as i've just documented
in a comment posted on
another thread, "origin"
has been moving steadily
-- if drunkenly -- up, so
this is a bit disingenuous. 


>   There's a charity 
>   called First Book, 
>   which buys books
>   for children who 
>   don't have any.
>   If ORIGIN does indeed 
>   make it into the Top 100, 
>   I'll donate $500 
>   to First Book.

that's a nice gesture, joe.

of course, if we knew --
like you clearly know --
how much it pays off to
get a book in the top-100,
it might not surprise us
that you're willing to pay
something to get the boost
_today_, instead of waiting
a week to get it naturally...

and since you're looking
for a way to _write_off_
some of the _taxes_ on an
income of several hundred
thousand dollars this year,
it might not surprise us
that you're willing to make
a $500 donation to charity.

but hey, there's nothing like 
the appearance of being
a great humanitarian to
get the retweeters humming,
is there?  we all need a good
feel-good factor these days.

but hey, i have no use for
cynicism; i admire chutzpah.

i'm serious.  i do.

and you got it, joe.  you do.

-bowerbird

p.s.  i wink right back at
those of you who were
clever enough to match
joe's offer if _your_ book
gets moved into the top-100.
kudos to s.j. harris for
offering up his profits
through the end of april
without regard to ranking.










joe will be too noble to
re-post this himself, so
i'll save him the trouble...

***

joe said:
>   It's best to ignore bowerbird. 

it's best to listen to joe...


>   He's in love with 
>   the sound of his own voice. 

it's best to listen to joe...

because he's not in love with 
the sound of his own voice...

-bowerbird











2011/04/01, noon pacific...

god bless you, joe konrath.

best of luck with everything.

-bowerbird


















http://craphound.com/walh/contribute/report-typos

cory-

as noted above, i reported many errors in december:
>   http://z-m-l.com/walha/walh-copy-editing

but i wasn't credited or thanked for the corrections,
which were made much later.  not a big deal, i guess,
but i put a good deal of work into the process, and i
would have expected you to uphold that honorably...

maybe there is something that i'm missing?

-bowerbird












http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2011/03/the_stars_of_10.php

i'd rather have a million "lukewarm fans"
willing to give me one dollar per year...

-bowerbird


















http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2011/03/99_cent_books.php

kevin kelly said:
>   I am not saying this is good news for authors.
>   99 cents is not. It is good news for READERS.

what part of "makes more money bottom-line"
means low prices are "bad news" for authors?
i'm constantly bewildered that smart people
can fail to grasp such a simple connection...

it's not how much you charge for your product;
it's how much you make at the end of the day.

and -- just to update the accounting here --
the book in question eventually went to #17
on the kindle bestseller list, where it moved
_1500_copies_per_day_, which is $500/day...
(even with the exorbitant and unfair 65% share
which amazon claims for books under $2.99.)

that's clearly better than $84/day on 40 sales.

but let us not get caught up in one example...
most especially not that book, or that author,
because he's too good at gaming the system.
(he's now wrapping himself in a cozy blanket
of charity to move his books up the charts.)

the more important fact is that, over the last
6 months, sales of kindle-books skyrocketed,
according to authors from across the board...

a critical mass of e-book buyers now exists...
meaning low prices cumulate to big money...

popular authors make unbelievable money...
john locke, who was totally unknown a mere
3 months ago, pulled $250,000 this quarter,
with 6 of his 7 books in the top-20-sellers list.
(when all of your e-books cost just 99 cents,
people who liked one will snap-buy them all.)

but a wide range of other authors are also
raking in good money on a monthly basis...

these include brand-new authors like locke,
with no existing platform or readership base
-- and even authors who have only one book,
like victorine lieske, whose e-book stayed on
the top-100-sellers list for a full 3 months...
not only did she make some very nice money,
she also grew a good base for future books...

but the biggest break is for mid-list authors,
who have backlist that they can leverage and
a readership from which to build a platform...

since these are the very authors who're being
abandoned by the legacy publishing houses,
the contrast here becomes extremely sharp...

the e-book marketplace has now _exploded,_
and that's a _great_ development for writers...

-bowerbird








my reply seems to have been censored...
		
-bowerbird
		







kevin_kelly said:
>   What were you saying?

in a nutshell...

although unwesen's
argument sounds
as if it could be
plausible, the data
that i have collected
does not support it.

indeed, my data
outright refutes it.

***

so, was my comment
censored, or did it just
fall through a crack?
if it was just a glitch,
or you don't know what
happened, please say so.

-bowerbird






kevin_kelly said:
>   I don't know 
>   what happened.

ok, things happen.

i'm glad it wasn't
intentionally removed.

thanks for clearing
that up with me...

-bowerbird
















http://whatever.scalzi.com/2011/04/03/bill-james-pop-fly

i don't know what things are like in topeka these days...

but here in los angeles, the little league teams have to
send out a player after the bottom of each inning to do
a poetry slam against the opposing player.  it's radical...

-bowerbird

p.s.  the only bad part is the dads who take it too seriously.

















http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/10/the-good-and-and-some-bad-of-toc-frankfurt-coverage.html

well, here we are, just 18 months later,
and just as i was saying, it is _writers_
who are creating the future of publishing,
with big thanks to a huge lift from amazon.

more and more midlist authors are finding
that they can make a ton of money offering
their backlist to kindle customers, and even
some bestselling authors are now jumping
on the e-book self-publishing bandwagon.

moreover, authors now have a taste of the
_control_ that they never had with publishers,
and they like having power over their art and
their destiny, and aren't about to give it up.

they're also using their newfound freedom to
concentrate more on _making_art_ instead of
just _making_money_, and they like that too.

meanwhile, the corporations remain clueless.

-bowerbird













http://www.pigsgourdsandwikis.com/2011/04/overdrive-says-kindle-will-support-epub.html

you can drop an .epub file
on the kindle previewer and
get a .mobi file out, without
all the hassles of kindlegen,
and that's undoubtedly the
method amazon will use,
except save the conversion
as a temporary file instead
of a permanent one, which
is fine for "lending" purpose.

but it's quite a stretch from
that to say that amazon is
"supporting" .epub now...

furthermore...

given all the inconsistencies
across .epub viewer-apps,
which make a joke of any
use of the word "standard",
why would amazon crawl
in that snake-infested pit?

when amazon does change
from the .mobi format, it'll
adopt a _superior_ format,
one which does not carry
excess baggage like .epub.

and it will become the new
"standard", a de facto one...

ironically, the person who
used to give great credence
to the de facto standard of
.pdf -- bill mccoy -- now
is the head of the i.d.p.f.,
and fights a losing battle.

-bowerbird











http://www.thebookdesigner.com/2011/04/fiction-vs-nonfiction-e-book-pricing-in-the-kindle-store/

joel said:
>   What have your experiences with e-book pricing taught you?

"experiences" are one thing.

but there's so much wishful thinking going on in this arena that
it's much more useful to look at some actual _data_...

and the message from the _data_ is clear and unmistakeable,
at least in terms of fiction:  low price sells lots and lots of books.

you can't look at different books, because different books are
inherently different products, with inherently different appeal.

so you have to look at the data for _a_specific_book_, namely
experiments that raise the price or lower the price of the book.

moreover, you have to look at these effects _over_time_, and
not jump to conclusions based upon short-term fluctuations...
you need to give a new price a month to see what effect it has.

but what you will find is crystal-clear:  a price-point of $.99
will steadily move a book toward the top of the charts, and
a higher price will cause it to have relatively lower sales...

every book will "stabilize" at a different ranking depending on
its price...  better rankings are associated with lower prices...

all of this is extremely intuitive.  none of it is surprising, at all.

yet authors continue to want to think that "the law of demand"
does not apply to them.  i'm not sure why this is so, because
it's obviously unwise to shield your eyes from the obvious facts.

i am compiling some striking data on this matter right now, and
i'll be writing it up in a blog post soon.

also, to clear up one factual error, the amazon "royalty" paid on
books priced under $2.99 is 35%.  i believe that is an unfair rate,
and i can see no reason why it shouldn't be 70%, and i have said
that i urge authors to price their books at $2.99 rather than $.99
simply to boycott this unfair rate.  having said that, though, i must
admit that authors can often make more money at the $.99 price.
that's true even though it means they must sell _6_times_as_much_
as they sell at the $2.99 price.  but the fact is that they often do so.

as for nonfiction, enjoy the lack of competition while it lasts, because
the price-of-entry for people who will undercut your profit margins is
the same for them as it was for you: nothing.  they _will_ come at you.

-bowerbird







ok, first of all, the strategy of lowering your price
at another site, so amazon will "match" it, and
still pay you 70%, would be a good one, except
that the terms of your agreement with amazon
stipulate that _you_ will not give any other site
a better price than you give amazon, so you are
technically in violation of those terms, and amazon
just might decide then to delist your book entirely.
so you need to understand there is a risk involved.
("matching" is for when another _site_ drops the
price, as a marketing initiative.  that is different.)

second, use of the term "loss-leader" is inaccurate,
because nobody takes a loss when selling an e-book.
it's all pure profit, and it's good to keep that in mind.
that term is also _inaccurate_, in the sense that
some people _make_more_money_ using $.99...
so all other things equal, $.99 is just the right price.

on the flip side, nobody makes any money off _free_.
it's not even a good marketing move, in my opinion...

if you want to make your books available for free,
do it the right way, by getting a library to buy them.

or do it because you believe books _should_ be free,
and post your book online, for all time, free as a bird...
(people will still buy it; your fans _want_ to support you.)

-bowerbird








judy said:
>   what price should I go for? I thought of 0.99 for 
>   the 6 weeks of my launch promotion competition, 
>   and then raising it to $2.99 and keeping it steady. 
>   But, from what was said above, is it better to price it 
>   at 0.99 and bite the bullet on the loss of royalties in 
>   favour building a bigger fan base for future books?

1.  flip a coin to decide between $.99 and $2.99.
2.  leave the book at that price for 3 months.
3.  see how much money you made at that price.
4.  change the price to the other level.
5.  leave the book at that price for 3 months.
6.  see how much money you made at that price.
7.  adopt the price that made you the most money.

-bowerbird

p.s.  at neither price will there be "a loss of royalties".
the "royalty" on a book that doesn't sell is exactly 0%.







francis said:
>   I started publishing non-fiction e-books in 2004

any experience that predates last october,
when kindle e-books took off like a rocket,
might not be all too useful in today's world.


>   Fiction seems to sell better at $2,99 
>   than it does at 99 cents

i can find absolutely no data for that claim.
if it's true for you, it would be remarkable.
demand curves almost always track down...

-bowerbird




























http://www.subtraction.com/2011/04/28/my-column-on-columns

i especially like how the design of your site,
most particularly with its long single column
-- with approximately 61 characters per line --
leaves the entire right half of my monitor empty.

 .
 .
 .
 .

that white space allows me my meditative quiet.

 .
 .
 .
 .
 .

-bowerbird












http://blog.smashwords.com/2011/05/smashwords-partners-with-scrollmotion.html

congratulations mark!
(although i'd say that
scrollmotion got the
better part of the deal,
if you ask me, anyway.)

and i will add that i am
a great admirer of your
unflagging persistence
and tenacity.  you are a
big champion for writers.

-bowerbird











http://www.thebookdesigner.com/2011/05/book-publishing-questions-now-its-my-turn-to-ask

just for the record, there are a lot of authors
who are selling a surprising number of e-books
without doing any hype or marketing at all...

some people find that the e-books under their
pseudonyms, which they don't hype at all, are
outselling the ones under their "real" names,
for which they are doing constant marketing.

and you can rest assured that amanda hocking
and john locke didn't sell all those books because
they're good at doing the social networking thing.
you can sell hundreds of copies going that route,
and maybe even thousands, but you surely cannot
sell hundreds of thousands.  and if you _can_, then
you should be writing ad copy, my friends, not books.

***

as to the question at hand, it looks like most of joel's
e-mail questions revolve around formatting e-books.

folks should know that sigil does a very good job, and
it is _free_...  (but the programmer does accept cash.)
it creates (and edits!) .epub natively, and you can get
a .mobi by dropping an .epub on the kindle previewer...
>   http://code.google.com/p/sigil/

scrivener isn't free, but it's very cheap, and i understand
that it too creates .epub output and .mobi output as well.
>   http://www.literatureandlatte.com/

and 85 people have now asked for my e-book converter,
and when that number reaches 100, i will release it, and
it's also a cost-free program.  if you want to see it, sign up:
>   http://jaguarps.blogspot.com/2011/04/blog-post_14.html

so don't let poverty hold you back.  turn loose your dreams.
you just might find that they bring cash back to your door...

-bowerbird






the problem with marketing, or networking, or hype,
or whatever you want to call it, is that it takes time.
and energy.  so it raises the cost of your investment.
(because time is money, and energy is money too.)

a big part of the appeal of self-publishing electronically
is that your investment can be very small, which means
that you are not taking much risk, so failure isn't costly.
don't squander that advantage unnecessarily.

besides, you're likely to find that "making it a business"
takes all the fun out of self-publishing.  who needs that?

the other flaw with "communicating with your target" is
that -- since you don't know who might be your target --
you end up trying to "communicate" with _everyone_, and
you turn a lot of people off, and they call you a spammer.

the traditional marketeers shrug their shoulders at this,
and say "it doesn't matter, because they weren't in your
target market to begin with", but in today's connected world,
everybody has the communication power to sabotage you,
so make sure you understand the risks you are taking...

i, for one, hang out with enough self-published authors
that i have become totally allergic to their "marketing".
and that's your end-game, folks.  everyone will ignore you.

***

liz said:
>   ÒIf a young man tells his date sheÕs intelligent, 
>   looks lovely, and is a great conversationalist, 
>   heÕs saying the right things to the right person 
>   and thatÕs marketing. If the young man tells his date 
>   how handsome, smart and successful he is: 
>   thatÕs advertising. If someone else tells 
>   the young woman how handsome, smart and 
>   successful her date is: thatÕs public relations.Ó

let other people tell each other how wonderful your book is.

that's called "word-of-mouth", and it's the _only_ thing that
really works, and has a proven track-record.  and yes siree,
it might take a while for you to build up that word-of-mouth,
but it's worth it.  in the meantime, write your next book, and
make sure that it's good enough that people will talk about it,
and recommend it to their friends.  that's how you sell a million.

-bowerbird









james byrd said:
>   If you really believe:
>   * Marketing is the same thing as spamming
>   * Treating your writing like a business takes the fun out of it
>   * Word-of-mouth is the only marketing that really works
>
>   Then you absolutely *should* just have fun, 
>   throw your stuff out there, and 
>   hope word-of-mouth helps you sell a million books.

good.  i'm glad we agree, for the most part.

but let me just clear up a few confusions you have.

i am most definitely _not_ suggesting that any author
"throw their stuff out there".  that will be a disaster.

i think people should take pride in their work, and
do their best to present it in the best possible way.

stuff should be written and rewritten and rewritten
again, until it sparkles.  it should be edited carefully,
by as many friends as you can find who wanna help.
it should be spellchecked and proofread, and then
spellchecked and proofread again, again and again.
it should be formatted as nicely as possible, and fans
should be used as "beta-readers" and encouraged to
make suggestions for improvement, however small...

none of this implies or demands "making it a business".
it's just the act of making the best art you possibly can.
it certainly won't ruin your fun.  in fact, it will _be_ fun.
(if it ain't fun, maybe you should do something different.)

oh, and also, _nobody_ should "hope" for a million sales...
because that's only going to make you unhappy, long-run.

indeed, you shouldn't _expect_ to make any sales at all.
none at all.  that way, you might be pleasantly surprised.
as long as it doesn't thwart your motivation or your drive,
lowered expectations is the best thing you can give yourself.
(a typical self-published author has unrealistic expectations.)

but whatever you do, don't invest a lot of time or energy
-- or money -- in something that might not ever pay off...
have fun.  do what you enjoy doing.  and forget the rest.

a good rule of thumb is to never spend anything _except_
to reinvest whatever profits you've already made thus far.

-bowerbird

p.s.  if you really believe that you'll be good at selling books,
try selling someone else's book first.  you'll discover it's hard.
and it'll be 3 times as hard to sell your own book, believe me,
because of the contempt people have against self-promoters.















http://www.munseys.com/technosnarl/?p=748

happened to come across this old post.

sony has fallen down, and can't get up.

i was right, and dmccunney was wrong.

-bowerbird













http://mikecanex.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/my-holy-shit-list/

mike said:
>   IÕve been through this list all day. 
>   I still think IÕve left something out.

you left out #8, mikey.

-bowerbird















http://www.thebookdesigner.com/2011/05/mark-coker-of-smashwords-at-baipa-indie-revolution-in-full-swing

smashwords in general is wonderful!

a few parts of it, though, suck.  badly.
and the meatgrinder is one of them...

is it possible to get good-looking e-books
out of the meatgrinder?  of course it is...

but is it easy to do that?  not even close.

notice how mark challenged _you_ to
do the work of preparing your book?

if it were really that easy, he would have
offered to do the work himself, to prove it.

i'm still waiting for my 100 people to sign up,
(i have 88), but when i hit the magic number,
i will be releasing my conversion software...

it's the equivalent of the meatgrinder, in that
it creates .pdf and .html and .epub and .mobi,
but you exercise the control, not smashwords.

and the preparation is much easier, which i can
prove by offering to do your book for you, joel.

just send me your word-processing file, whether
.rtf or ms-word or whatever, and i'll handle it...

because, with my app, it's just that easy...

-bowerbird












http://www.pigsgourdsandwikis.com/2011/05/amazon-will-fully-support-epub-i-think.html

liz said:
> I believe that 
> Amazon's strategy is
> to convert EPUB to Mobi 
> for legacy Kindles 
> and support real EPUB 
> in the next Kindle. 
> I could be wrong, 
> but I don't think I am.

you could be right, but
where is any evidence?

i see absolutely no evidence, 
none in the slightest. sorry.

-bowerbird














http://www.thebookdesigner.com/2011/05/smartphone-e-reader-app-reviews-stanza-by-lexcycle

stanza does most things a reader-app should.
stanza was a very good example.  in its day.

but that day didn't last long, and is now gone.

it's good as a benchmark, mostly to humble
the shoddy current crop of (non-)contenders,
none of which do "most things" they should.

but when you judge smartphone reader-apps,
you cannot just forget the desktop entirely...

if a program won't run on desktop machines,
and lexcycle gave up that ghost as soon as it
was purchased by amazon, it's all over, baby.

so now we're stuck in proprietary-land, where
every bookstore has their own reader-app and
their own bugs and "extended features", and
their own form of d.r.m., so the lock-in is huge.

all the talk about .epub as "an open standard"
is just rubbish denying the reality of the world.

once you put d.r.m. on a file, it's _not_ "open",
and the .epub supporters are so totally stupid
that they fail to acknowledge that basic _fact_.

so now we're making a version of the "standard"
e-book file-format for ibooks, and one for kobo,
and one for the nook, and one for sony reader,
and how in the world can this be a "standard"?

stanza's legacy is that it gave .epub a lifeline
when we should have strangled it in its crib,
rather than let the corporations corrupt it so.

it's ironic that lexcycle then sold out to amazon.

-bowerbird