Google ebookstore "success"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hmm. Wonder what this says about all the other indie authors and indie bookseller sites that we're told are the wave of the future? Blurred lines and all that.

That line is being blurred by the author of that blog, who represents a small press that publishes mostly non-fiction, which is not what e-books are about. Yet. As far as pulling "all its programmers off the eBookstore," as reported by "primary sources," that should have nothing to do with the operation of the eBookstore. Programmers don't do that.

Before drawing conclusions, I'd look in this guy's garage for an ax that needs grinding. If Google is downplaying its e-books business, it's more likely because they have been unsuccessful at competing with amazon, et al. You come to the party late, you drink the dregs.

Well, whatever the reason the Google bookstore isn't working, it's not working. I don't know why Google is downplaying its ebooks business, but if Google doesn't think they can do it, then why would anyone else?

LC wrote:

Well, whatever the reason the Google bookstore isn't working, it's not working. I don't know why Google is downplaying its ebooks business, but if Google doesn't think they can do it, then why would anyone else?

Because it's obviously working for amazon.

..

Mmmm ... I don't know what's going on but something isn't quite right. I added Mr. Planemaker's Flying Machine to the Book Partner Programme years ago, Just a few days ago, I uploaded copies of the two anthologies, Forever Friends and Forever Travels, and a copy of The Power of Persuasion. All three books are now listed for ebook sales and I've seen previews of how the books will look in a reader. The books look exactly the way they do in print without any formatting from me. It's the easiest way ever to publish ebooks. These are the pages in the programme:

Forever Friends: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Forever Travels: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The Power of Persuasion: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Amazon's going to have a lot of problems, too.

“It’s maddening. The logic of ‘the market will decide’ is flawed. How many customers have to be ripped off by shoddy content that adds no value before someone leaves a bad review? There’s no option to report a book as spam, and people can get away with rubbish content which dilutes the offering for good authors. I’ll continue to carry out tests until Amazon looks into this.” (Amazon did not respond to our request for comment.)"

Sounds like wishful thinking from an author or publisher of traditional print edition books who sees market share slipping away.

Shoddy content isn't an e-book exclusive. It's just that the e-publishing model is an anarchy, new and unregulated, and that it provides a doorway to producers of shoddy content, many of whom don't know their work is shoddy.

"Many ebook vendors don’t check copyright on works that are submitted..."

The implication of the placement of this statement is that amazon is one of those that doesn't check copyrights. Not so. (A good example of how shoddy journalism works.) I had to provide proof to amazon that I hold the copyrights and publishing rights to two of my works for which I had received a reversion of rights from the publisher. For the others I had only to provide an assurance.

Plagiarism is a not an issue. At least not a new one. Amazon does what all publisher's do. The contract puts it on the author's shoulders.

None of this signals the end of the e-book paradigm, or even its decline. The article's last sentence says it all: "Things need to change."

But remember. Amazon is not a publisher. It is a bookstore. Do you think Books-A-Million has someone reading every book they sell to ensure that no one has plagiarized anyone else?

Amazon's positioning itself as a publisher now, isn't it?

Something else this article made me realize is how misleading that recent news about how ebooks now outsell printed books on Amazon may be. If all those garbage .99c ebooks were counted, of course ebooks now outsell them. So what?

LC wrote:

Amazon's positioning itself as a publisher now, isn't it?

They're setting up a publishing operation. And I expect that getting them to publish a book might be more traditional than the upload-and-click model of their Createspace and Kindle Direct Publishing operations.

LC wrote:

Something else this article made me realize is how misleading that recent news about how ebooks now outsell printed books on Amazon may be. If all those garbage .99c ebooks were counted, of course ebooks now outsell them. So what?

I don't know whether the article makes people "realize" that or simply reinforces their wish to believe it.

But sellers don't care about quality when quantities keep profits up. Of course you'll sell more copies of Heidi Fleish's memoirs than you will of "The Shaping of the Modern Mind." There's nothing new about that.

And price point is a traditional economic factor. They can sell and profit from $.99 e-books simply because it doesn't cost $.99 to produce, warehouse, and distribute them and because 1000 e-books at $.99 makes a lot more profit than 10 printed books at $39.

The only reason any e-book is more than a couple of dollars is because authors are greedy and publishers are trying to hold at bay the e-book juggernaut to keep it from devouring their industry. Nothing sells more slowly than a vacant warehouse. Except a warehouse filled with unwanted books.

I had to verify my right to add Alice's book to Kindle.

LC, the long tail of cheap books do not make the most sales. Customers are flexing their muscles on the Amazon forums, demanding that indie authors should not be allowed to promote their books on the "customer" discussion boards. This is not the way to quality assurance. An aggressive marketer will always outsell a reluctant salesperson and find alternative avenues to promote and sell their books. That doesn't mean that the cream will rise to the top; it means that those who work the hardest and use the best sales techniques will push their products to the top and the rest will sink to the bottom.

Al and Shelagh, did you read the comments after that article? Self-published authors are expressing frustration that the spammers are ruining it for them. The spammers are flooding Amazon with garbage books. These "best marketing techniques" are not in the best interest of readers or authors.

Al -comparing Heidi Fleiss books to more highbrow books is not what this is about.

I read the comments. But only two were by people identifying themselves as writers, one complaining that people were returning his e-books for refund and one who hasn't tried publishing an e-book yet. The others were a balanced mix of folks who agreed with and disagreed with the conclusions and predictions that the article provides.

It's a rapidly changing and as-yet unregulated business model. There is no way to accurately predict where it will go. But folks will try who think that they can form some well-placed self-fulfilling prophesies and thereby influence things to turn out their way.

Heidi and Brinton are not unreasonable analogies for shoddy and not shabby. You can shift to arguing the analogies if you prefer, but I'd prefer to stay on point.

I just checked out the Fleiss book. Do you mean "Pandering?" If so, yes, it appears it's a junk book. But it also looks self-published under a made-up name ("One Hour Entertainment"). Which supports the larger argument that self-published books (which are often ebooks) are garbage.

I thought I was going to find a commercially published book about her, a memoir or something, something along Howard Stern's very low-brow (but very funny) "Private Parts.

LC, the "garbage" ebooks have to be allowed onto the market because there is no vetting service. When I invited contributors to submit to the first anthology, I did not select on the basis of quality writing. Had I done so, very few of the contributors would have done anything at all to promote the book. Just like you, they would have expected their publisher (me) to do the work of marketing and promoting. The success of the book relied upon the contributors buying and selling/gifting the book to friends and family. It was impossible to know at the onset who would and who would not help the book to succeed, so it was one in, all in. It's the same with ebooks. It is impossible to predict the books that will succeed. Just as it is impossible for publishers to predict bestsellers.

Yes, I know that commercial publishers have gate-keepers to maintain standards -- they can afford to do this because they have bestsellers on their list. Self-publishing, by its very name, does not work that way. The successful self-publishers do not prop up the failures.

Quote :

the "garbage" ebooks have to be allowed onto the market because there is no vetting service.

I'm not following. Are you saying there should be a vetting service? Or that it's better not to have a vetting service? Are you defending not having vetting services because then promotion will be harder? I don't understand your post.

Quote :

When I invited contributors to submit to the first anthology, I did not select on the basis of quality writing. Had I done so, very few of the contributors would have done anything at all to promote the book. Just like you, they would have expected their publisher (me) to do the work of marketing and promoting. The success of the book relied upon the contributors buying and selling/gifting the book to friends and family.

So what was the point and purpose of this book? A feel-good thing for the contributors? Sincere question -I'm not being snarky or anything. And why do you think that if chose contributors on quality they wouldn't have made an effort to sell the book? Do your contributors know you don't think their writing is very good, or do they know it's not very good, or what?

LC wrote:

Quote :

the "garbage" ebooks have to be allowed onto the market because there is no vetting service.

I'm not following. Are you saying there should be a vetting service? Or that it's better not to have a vetting service? Are you defending not having vetting services because then promotion will be harder? I don't understand your post.

I'm saying that there isn't a vetting service. Self-publishing companies such as Lulu do not exert any form of quality control on the written material or the covers (for print and ebook distribution). The business model relies upon people's desire to see their work in print. If you tried to reduce the number of writers who should be allowed to self-publish, Lulu would go out of business.

LC wrote:

Quote :

When I invited contributors to submit to the first anthology, I did not select on the basis of quality writing. Had I done so, very few of the contributors would have done anything at all to promote the book. Just like you, they would have expected their publisher (me) to do the work of marketing and promoting. The success of the book relied upon the contributors buying and selling/gifting the book to friends and family.

So what was the point and purpose of this book? A feel-good thing for the contributors? Sincere question - I'm not being snarky or anything. And why do you think that if chose contributors on quality they wouldn't have made an effort to sell the book? Do your contributors know you don't think their writing is very good, or do they know it's not very good, or what?

The suggestion came from one of the members here, and I offered to publish an anthology of poems and short stories. Some contributors did not buy a single copy. Others bought more than ten copies. The target was for each contributor to make ten sales (47 contributors). We did not make the target. If I had excluded some of the contributions, the book would have made even fewer sales. When I said that I did not accept on the basis of quality, that doesn't mean the quality wasn't there. It means that I did not have to consider whether a submission was good enough or not.