Kobo throws out self published books

[DeYaKen]

I've just found out that this online supplier of books has cleared its shelves of all self published books. This appears to be on the basis that they read one and didn't like it. I've never dealt with this company. Looks like I never will.

If we let it this could be the thin end of the wedge. If Kobo don't suffer for their decision then sites like Lit could be the only outlet for many writers. So far I have never sought reward for what I do, but for some people self published books provide a small source of income.

I would urge you all to boycott Kobo from this day forth.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I've just found out that this online supplier of books has cleared its shelves of all self published books. This appears to be on the basis that they read one and didn't like it. I've never dealt with this company. Looks like I never will.

Version I'd heard was that they hadn't been screening the self-pubs effectively, people had snuck some stuff through with extreme content ("abuse-themed") that might breach UK laws, and so they took the self-pub books down for a few days until they could vet them.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/18/self-publish-authors-ebook-porn-crackdown
http://kobowritinglife.com/2013/10/15/a-letter-to-our-kwl-authors-and-self-publishing-partners/

I'm reluctant to pass judgement without better info about what they're removing. "Abuse-themed" could mean porn that uses child abuse for titillation or it could mean an abuse survivor's memoirs.

edit: except, the bit where they weren't screening self-pubs until now, THAT is unarguably stupid.

 

[sr71plt]

Hadn't heard any of this yet. Kobo is a high-sales platform. Competes well with Amazon.

 

[PennLady]

Here's an article at the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/books/jacket...d-kobo-20131016,0,5067367.story#axzz2iZ39oP5K

 

[sr71plt]

Good article. Thanks for posting. It may come down to being happy you got a ride for as long as you did (with Amazon being happy that it cashed in as long as it did on being two-faced).

The comment to Kobo, of course, is that it isn't porn just because it's self-published.

Another interesting wrinkle on Amazon and the thought that it's making money hand over fist on books. Today it upped what you have to order (from $25 to $35) to get free shipping on books, complaining it was losing money.

 

[emap]

Amazon makes enough on things besides books they can just ship all book orders free. They weren't losing money on book orders and shipping free, they decided to make it harder to get free shipping.

 

[sr71plt]

And you know this, because? You seem to be good about knowing everything. It's not a strange business model to expect the various elements of the business to carry their own weight--or get changed.

CNN TV news reported that Amazon was upping its minimum on free book postage because it was losing money on that. Believe it or you? Not even close.

 

[R. Richard]

Here's an article at the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/books/jacket...d-kobo-20131016,0,5067367.story#axzz2iZ39oP5K

Informative article, thanks.

 

[DeYaKen]

Here's an article at the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/books/jacket...d-kobo-20131016,0,5067367.story#axzz2iZ39oP5K

Interesting but factually incorrect. The only outcry in the UK has been from all the self published authors who've had their books de-listed. We haven't had a problem with explicit sex in literature since penguin books were prosecuted in the sixties for publishing Lady Chatterly's Lover.

Call it a conspiracy theory if you like but the mainstream publishers are being hit by indie publications and what better way to get their stangle hold back than to lean on retailers offering sweet deals if you eliminate the competition.

Ask yourself how they are going to continue to make a fortune from books like Fifty Shades of Grey when there is a mountain of better written books available at a fraction of the price.

This is an attempt at two things. Censorship, which I am amazed to find a US newspaper seeming to support. and control of the market.

 

[sr71plt]

when a business decides it's not going to carry a product, it's not censorship; it's the business exercising its rights.

Censorship is an official act, not a business decision to not carry a product.

You water down your argument by misusing terms in what's happening. You put a lot of shot in a charge that just fizzles because it's a misuse of the concept. "Censorship" relates to government, ergo citizenship, decisions/rights/responsibilities. This isn't in that realm at all. By invoking it you start off claiming some sort of standing you don't have and all the other side has do to deflate the argument you've chosen to make is to point out that you are blowing smoke on your "rights" in the matter.

If you don't want to just be ineffectually blowing smoke, change the basis of your argumentation. Put it on a business footing.

 

[PennLady]

Interesting but factually incorrect. The only outcry in the UK has been from all the self published authors who've had their books de-listed. We haven't had a problem with explicit sex in literature since penguin books were prosecuted in the sixties for publishing Lady Chatterly's Lover.

I don't see what's factually incorrect. The article just says there was an "outcry in Britain." This is true, although they don't specify who's outcrying about what. That's perhaps vague, but not incorrect.

What amused me as that this group bought this book with a pretty self-explanatory title, then acted like they'd been tricked.

This is an attempt at two things. Censorship, which I am amazed to find a US newspaper seeming to support. and control of the market.

As sr71 pointed out, it's not censorship. I'm saying I agree with the decision, but it's up to a business to decide what it will or will not carry. My Walmart, for example, has a limited space for books. They don't carry erotica, but there's a whole lot else they don't carry, and no one calls that censorship. Same even with a Barnes & Noble -- they may not carry (much) erotic literature on the shelves, but no one cries "Censorship!" there.

 

[ttrfanatic]

I just checked this morning and all my books are still listed with Kobo so I know for a fact that they have not removed all self published ebooks. I think they are just cracking down on what they are letting through. So before we go boycotting anyone, we should have the facts straight.

 

[Boxlicker101]

At least some of my books are listed. This is an incest story and hasn't been de-listed. (Is that actually a word?) http://store.kobobooks.com/en-us/books/Eating-Christine/7KRr36Ic0kyyrdzTcQwXxg

They have removed Aunty Jo, which is also an incest story.

 

[DeYaKen]

I just checked this morning and all my books are still listed with Kobo so I know for a fact that they have not removed all self published ebooks. I think they are just cracking down on what they are letting through. So before we go boycotting anyone, we should have the facts straight.

Kobo USA has not done this it is the UK site. aided and abetted by W H Smith that has taken this action.

Since the excrement hit the ventilating equipment some authors have been re-listed They even took independent children's books off the shelves. Yes you are right we should get the facts straight.
I've just given them to you.
Sad to say we have a history of censorship of literature in the UK.

 

[sr71plt]

Yep, as I think I noted recently, thus far this is hitting the UK market, not the U.S. version of Kobo.

 

[DeYaKen]

I don't see what's factually incorrect. The article just says there was an "outcry in Britain." This is true, although they don't specify who's outcrying about what. That's perhaps vague, but not incorrect.

What amused me as that this group bought this book with a pretty self-explanatory title, then acted like they'd been tricked.



As sr71 pointed out, it's not censorship. I'm saying I agree with the decision, but it's up to a business to decide what it will or will not carry. My Walmart, for example, has a limited space for books. They don't carry erotica, but there's a whole lot else they don't carry, and no one calls that censorship. Same even with a Barnes & Noble -- they may not carry (much) erotic literature on the shelves, but no one cries "Censorship!" there.

Yes it is censorship They are not saying they will not sell erotica, They are not saying they will not sell books with incestuous content. They are not saying they will not sell books containing under age sex. They will sell all of these as long as they come from mainstream publishers. Their censorious attitude applies ONLY to self published books.

Lolita is still on the shelves as is Lady Chatterly and the incredibly juvenile Fifty Shade of Grey

 

[lovecraft68]

Hitting UK B&N as well, but not the US so far.

The hypocrisy here is amazing.

amazon kobo none of these companies bothered screening anything at all, they loved making the money now caught with their pants down its all the self published authors faults.

amazon deliberately didn;t screen, the more people who saw the books the better. The more lurid the cover/title and description the more it sold. Now tens of millions of dollars later its "oh, all these authors broke the rules, we didn't know, we'll fix them

What I wish would get into the mainstream media and make the news is how amazon is telling us we can still write the nastiest content we want, but they want tame covers and misleading descriptions so they can still make some money while pretending they give a shit about people being offended.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes it is censorship They are not saying they will not sell erotica, They are not saying they will not sell books with incestuous content. They are not saying they will not sell books containing under age sex. They will sell all of these as long as they come from mainstream publishers. Their censorious attitude applies ONLY to self published books.

Lolita is still on the shelves as is Lady Chatterly and the incredibly juvenile Fifty Shade of Grey

What part of censorship is an official act predicated on citizenship rights--which don't apply in business rights to sell bolts and not hammers (or "Lolita" and not "Making My Sister a Whore")--don't you understand? Try walking into a B&N store and telling them they have to put your book--any book--on their shelves because its censorship if they don't. I'll be able to hear the horselaugh you get from here.

You have no rights in Kobo/Amazon business decisions to invoke. They know it. So you are blowing ineffectual smoke.

But I guess if you and others want to put all of your argument into something irrelevant, Kobo and Amazon won't mind.

 

[sr71plt]

As far as hypocrisy goes, yes, they are being two faced--they were being two faced all that time you were able to sell books through them when their policy said "no porn." And your response is not to appreciate the ride you got while they were being two faced and to prefer that they blanket apply their policy--and always did?

Now, that interesting. Stupid, but interesting.

 

[lovecraft68]

As far as hypocrisy goes, yes, they are being two faced--they were being two faced all that time you were able to sell books through them when their policy said "no porn." And your response is not to appreciate the ride you got while they were being two faced and to prefer that they blanket apply their policy--and always did?

Now, that interesting. Stupid, but interesting.

Stupid? I don't think that's the word. People go to that site, look what's available and say "okay they accept this, its selling, I can do this as well" then they shut the door-which is their right of course-but with the attitude of "we didn't know?"

Now where you see that attitude is stupid, what I see in your "it was good while it lasted now oh, well." is tucking the tail between the legs good old fashioned lemming/herd mentality

which, by the way is what they want.

But there are tens of thousands of authors who are not willing to do that and I am interested to see where this goes.

recently as you well know amazon has played the "hide the erotica" game. Removing tags, the like this on facebook feature and pushing them behind the mainstream books. Now people bitched about it, but prove it? and that is how amazon got away with it

But this is blatantly ousting I dare say what could add up to hundreds of thousands of books and cutting thousands of people off from income that many used to feed their families-and I am not being dramatic there are people that do need that money- so this may not be as easy as amazon and company think.

Now what is really interesting is to see the two thought processes amongst the sites. Kobo-as you said-was competitive with amazon. So amazon ousts the authors and pisses people off.

If I was the head of Kobo I would say....so....you want to cut all these people and the millions their books are making? Well come on over boys, I'll take the opposite stance and tak all the money.

But, nope, monkey see, monkey do, more spinelessness. And all this over a bunch of articles in UK rags. Right next to the 10k stories of the duchess and her whelp. A reliable source to startt a witch hunt and that is what this is.

But then you have Coker from Smashwords(the same guy who bitch slapped paypal last year when all you people were putting your tails between your legs when that started)

he is proudly stating he will continue to carry whatever the hell he wants.

IUf authors were smart they would embrace a combination of your/my attitude. They would say oh, well to amazon, but they would also do everything they could top get people to know about smashwords and to go spend their money on a site that still supports freedom of expression and freedom of speech and people's right to read/write/purchase what they choose.

Also a site that from day one was moral and business savvy enough to have an adult content filter that no one has ever had a problem with.

Anyway some people will put their tails between their legs, like a lot I see here, and others(and they are here as well) will see what I see" a war of attrition and those who survive thriving more than ever.

In other words, go piss with the pups Pilot, because their are plenty of mad dogs out there like myself who know how to bite back

 

[sr71plt]

Incidentally, I think a "consumer outcry" counter campaign of "you're two-faced and hypocritical and I'm taking my business elsewhere" would be far more effective (but not one of a great chance of success) than the "you are censoring my 'right' to force you to carry my product" lame argument is.

In the meantime, I continue to suggest that those affected, if they want to keep offering this sort of material, make sure they are taking advantage of all of the points of sales that will handle their material and promote where these can be accessed by those interested in buying the material.

Unless of course you are satisfied with just whining ineffectually to the wrong people.

 

[sr71plt]

I've been giving advice to folks on how to maintain sales for days now, LC. (I counseled folks days ago to work on doing what RR. Richard posted concerning Amazon just yesterday.) All you've been doing is whining.

So, stupid? Yep.

A public "you should feel embarrassed to be doing this" slapdown of Amazon and Kobo could be possible (and has been done, in part, before), but not based on the false censorship argument. They have every reason to love that being used to base a counter argument on.

And, yes, I started into publishing erotica with the attitude that it might be short lived. Sorry, but I consider that smart and realistic. But then I live in the real publishing world. I also maximized my points of sales from the get go. What Amazon and Kobo, although irritating, do doesn't cause me to slit my wrists. I read their policies years ago and accepted that they could invoke them any day they wanted to. Every day they didn't was a gravy day for my holdings with them.

 

[sr71plt]

Some of you here seem to think that you have a right to have your books distributed. You have no such entitlement. You need to get over yourself on that belief before you can devise a realistic approach to being distributed if/when your distribution is cut off.

 

[colddiesel]

Caution?

Mebbe authors should be a little more cautious about what may only be happening in the UK. The traditional bookselling market in UK was almost totally dominated by 3 retailers, WH Smith, Waterstones, and until recently Borders (now defunct) They even used to charge authors (publishers) substantial up front fees just to put a book on the shelves. Good business if you can get away with it.

British Publishers are terrified of WHS and Waterstones, and WHS in particular, is terrified of Amazon and Kobo (especially since Amazon bought Book Depository) Whenever you see stoushes like this it's worth looking to see whether WHS has an interest in the outcome. They clearly have in this instance.

Apart from that, however, perhaps authors have to understand that free rides don't last forever. Perhaps you'll all be paying an upfront E book fee to Amazon and Kobo soon. It'd be sound business from their point of view.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

What part of censorship is an official act predicated on citizenship rights--which don't apply in business rights to sell bolts and not hammers (or "Lolita" and not "Making My Sister a Whore")--don't you understand? Try walking into a B&N store and telling them they have to put your book--any book--on their shelves because its censorship if they don't. I'll be able to hear the horselaugh you get from here.

You have no rights in Kobo/Amazon business decisions to invoke. They know it. So you are blowing ineffectual smoke.

But I guess if you and others want to put all of your argument into something irrelevant, Kobo and Amazon won't mind.

One time I have to agree with SR. But the OP is from the UK where they think everything is there right to have and to hold.

No one has a right to have their book sold in any store anywhere.

If the government comes in to the store and removes the books in question, that's censorship.

If the bookstore removes the books from the shelf, it's their right.

What you are talking about is discrimination, but that is the book stores right also. Well, at least here in the US.