Gaming the System
I love connecting with other authors. I’ve been doing it for more than 15 years. I love talking to people who get it. People who understand how you can be proud of being rejected more than 500 times, who can sympathize with bolting awake at two a.m. and scrambling for a pen, or who can help you through the twelve step program to stop obsessively checking your Amazon ranking.
I’m on a lot of writing e-mail lists and Facebook groups and so on. And sometimes it’s great. Other times, it degrades into a groupmind effort to game the system. Lately I’ve started getting messages about the new “Like” button at Amazon. I’m paraphrasing here:
Please, please, please go to Amazon and like my books and I’ll like all of yours and we’ll get bigger like numbers and that will (somehow) sell books and soon we’ll rule the universe!
Before that it was swapping tags and reviews on Amazon. And you can’t forget vote-trading for awards, big and small.
Too much self-promotion can be obnoxious, but to me this crosses the line from promotion to deception. If you’re begging your readers to “like” your books, you can at least assume they’ll only do it if they actually like you and/or the books. Whereas when it’s writers running around to click each others’ books just so those writers will do the same for them, you’ve basically rendered the whole thing meaningless.
I don’t know why it bugs me, because most of the time, this scrounging for clicks and tags and likes and whatever makes very little difference. I think part of it is a principle thing: I hate seeing authors going down what feels like a rather slimy path. Partly it just feels sad.
Yet, occasionally, manipulating the system works. One self-published author told me how successful he had been with adjusting the price of his e-books, dropping them to 99 cents to boost sales and get onto the Top 100 lists at Amazon where random browsers are more likely to find them, then raising the price to $2.99 for the bigger royalties.
But that’s an exception. (Given the number of 99 cent e-books, the vast majority are not making the Top 100 lists.) And it’s not deceptive the way the “Hey, I’ll give your book five stars if you do the same for mine!” approach is.
So I guess to those authors trying to game the system, I’d say:
- I understand the urge. I know how desperate we are to somehow control and improve our sales.
- Swapping “likes” with a dozen other authors is not going to have any significant impact.
- Whatever I might think of Amazon’s practices, they’re smarter than just about anyone at selling and marketing books. Thinking you’re going to beat their system and make it work to you is about as likely as heading to Vegas with a system to beat the house. Good luck with that.
- Worry more about writing the next book and less about the trappings of false control.
That’s my rant for today. Discussion and debate are welcome, as always.
The Gneech
June 1, 2011 @ 9:39 am
Well said!
-The Gneech, whose $0.99 eBooks have not sold a dickybird ;P
UnravThreads
June 1, 2011 @ 9:45 am
I think the price drop thing isn’t deception, at least not in the same way. It’s not even manipulating the system – It’s simply marketing. Most people would rather gamble $1 on a book they may not like, especially with something that’s new to most people, rather than $3 or above. The same goes for the iTunes App Store, as an example. if you look at the paid chart, many of those games are $1/59p, although a few more expensive apps do crop up.
An author should, in my opinion, rely on just themselves (And possibly their publisher, if they have one) to get sales, at least on the lower levels of sales numbers. Get yourself involved with communities, get yourself on Twitter or Facebook, get a blog – Reach out to your readers, make yourself friendly, and you *will* get sales.
Amazon ratings generally mean nothing much to the consumer. I, personally, don’t know anyone who takes them into account. They’re generally badly written, poorly informed and highly opinionated waffle written by disgrunted peopole with a stick up their backside. Someone who isn’t impressed is MUCH more likely to review or rate a product than someone who enjoyed or liked it.
Don’t game the system; You’ll only waste your time. If you want sales, go and earn them.
Jim C. Hines
June 1, 2011 @ 9:49 am
On the other hand, at least Amazon lets authors check up-to-the-minute reports that show how many dickybirds they’ve sold…
Jim C. Hines
June 1, 2011 @ 9:51 am
I agree with you that adjusting prices isn’t deceptive. (I said as much in the post.) Is it manipulating the system? Well, it feels that way to me. Setting a low price to get readers to try out your stuff is one thing. Adjusting the price from week-to-week to try to hit the top 100 lists feels more manipulative.
That’s not a condemnation, in this case. You’re manipulating a system to try to achieve a certain result. I suspect most people will fail to achieve that result, but there’s nothing dishonest there.
T.J.
June 1, 2011 @ 10:02 am
Thank you!
Seriously, this is my view of one of my online writing groups. Most of the writers in there aren’t published. But when someone is published they’re excited and promote a lot. I’m okay with that. It’s the “come check out my blog” posts that bug me. It’s like all they want are comments and page views. I don’t mind a little self-promotion. But in the end it seems like everyone’s going to each others’ blog and maybe leaving comments. To me, this becomes somewhat cliquish.
Awesome thoughts!
jonathanmoeller
June 1, 2011 @ 10:03 am
I suspect the optimal strategy would be to write excellent books while expertly gaming the system.
Ali
June 1, 2011 @ 10:46 am
Oh, amen to that, Jim. I want to earn my likes and ranking. If it doesn’t break the top 100, fine. I’m not in it for the ranking, although I’d like a great one. I’m in it for the writing.
And I completely related to your first paragraph. Great post.
Joshua Bilmes
June 1, 2011 @ 11:13 am
Let’s not forget the people who think the way to a Nebula nomination was to recommend everything for a Nebula…
Jim C. Hines
June 1, 2011 @ 11:56 am
Wait — what if I write an excellent book *about* gaming the system?
Deborah J. Ross
June 1, 2011 @ 11:56 am
I’m still looking for a dignified way to encourage readers to engage in thoughtful discussion of books they like (hopefully mine, too). I’ve always believed that the way to “improve internet presence” and “promote sales” is to offer content that people actually want to read.
As a book-buyer myself, I much prefer a reasoned discussion with lots of criticism to a blanket “like.”
Jim C. Hines
June 1, 2011 @ 11:58 am
It gets rather incestuous, too. My goal in recent years has been to figure out how to reach wider, to get the books into the hands of new readers. The groups promoting themselves to each other is an inward-facing circle, and while you might sell your books to that group, it doesn’t do much for you on a larger scale, if that makes sense?
Jim C. Hines
June 1, 2011 @ 11:59 am
It’s been several years since I’ve gotten an e-mail asking me to swap nominations for a Nebula. I’m hoping my Inbox remains free of such e-mails…
Jim C. Hines
June 1, 2011 @ 12:01 pm
I’ve tried hosting discussions myself, but that can be awkward, especially if people have complaints about the book. And if you’re hosting it, that means the discussion isn’t reaching beyond those core fans who follow you online.
Joshua Palmatier puts up discussion posts on LJ for DAW releases, and I try to direct people to those.
I agree with you that good, thoughtful discussion is a great thing, and I’d love to see more of it.
Jim C. Hines
June 1, 2011 @ 12:02 pm
Oh, yes. I have no idea how I would have ever gotten this far without the advice and support I got (and continue to get) from other writers.
Deborah J. Ross
June 1, 2011 @ 12:04 pm
Sherwood Smith has wonderful commentary on books, either on her LJ or Goodreads. Even if I don’t care for the book, I enjoy her discussions!
Sean Sweeney
June 1, 2011 @ 12:07 pm
That would be called “Libriomancer.”
Ali
June 1, 2011 @ 12:09 pm
Me either. Without it, it feels like you’re on a raft — in the middle of shark infested waters, holding chum.
Okay, that was maybe a LITTLE dramatic. But still. The advice and support I’ve gotten from people means the world to me.
Elizabeth
June 1, 2011 @ 12:46 pm
I hate when art becomes a popularity contest about things other than the art. I want my writing/music/whatever to be popular because people like it… not because I am bribing them with something unrelated or trying to game the system.
Stephen A. Watkins
June 1, 2011 @ 1:32 pm
All very much a “yes” to what you’ve said here.
These aren’t games I ever want to play – if I ever make it to the big leagues. To me, the quality of the work stands on its own. I know there are things outside my control, and that’s not ever going to change. The only thing I can do anything about, the only real control I have, is over teh quality of my work. I know that’s not always enough to gaurantee sales – great stuff does go unnoticed – but I’ve got to feel like it’s enough because it’s the only thing I have power over.
Philip Weiss
June 1, 2011 @ 2:11 pm
All that system gaming makes me think of SEO. Whenever people ask me about SEO, I tell em the best way to get visitors is to write good content.
Erin Hoffman
June 1, 2011 @ 4:46 pm
The thing that strikes me about this is not so much that they’re trying to game the system — but that they’re doing it wrong.
The world is full of systems to game, and Amazon’s new like button strikes me as one of the saddest. Do we even know what it does? Who even sees it? It’s a tiny footprint on the book’s page. “Likes” on facebook itself actually have value in that they give you a connection to the person that “likes” a page that is ongoing. I haven’t seen any continued connection through Amazon’s like.
Then there is the whole gaming-the-social-system, like trying to game Nebulas or Hugos. The problem with these is that I think people don’t realize the consequences of even attempting something like this. In an odd way it reminds me of educational games trying to be fun. They don’t realize that as soon as your audience gets the slightest whiff that you have an ulterior motive, you’ve lost. And that’s worse (way worse, in most cases, because the damage to your reputation is permanent) than not playing in the first place.
So, gaming itself, which has a generally negative connotation, isn’t the problem — it’s false targets. I would far rather see people “game” Kiva groups or AIDS walks or charity fundraisers. Those are games, too. But they do good things in the world in the course of their process.
(Obsessing over Amazon page rank, though. I might need an intervention on that one soon. >.< )
Deborah J. Ross
June 1, 2011 @ 5:05 pm
Friends don’t let friends obsess over amazon rankings!
Is there a 12-Step program for that?
Jim C. Hines
June 1, 2011 @ 7:42 pm
Sherwood does some marvelously thoughtful blog posts. Well worth reading.
Jim C. Hines
June 1, 2011 @ 7:44 pm
Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line between contests and bribes?
Jim C. Hines
June 1, 2011 @ 7:47 pm
SEO makes me think of content farms that exist solely for the ad revenue. As long as my site shows up on Google and people can find it, I figure content should (hopefully) carry the rest.
Kevin Richardson
June 1, 2011 @ 8:05 pm
When I first started blogging, I tried to connect with other book bloggers.
Big mistake.
It turns out that most book bloggers (and even author bloggers) have artificially inflated subscriber counts. You follow me, I follow you. I don’t really care what your blog is about, so long as you reciprocate.
The irony is that bloggers defend this practice by saying it builds “social proof.”
Deirdre Saoirse Moen
June 2, 2011 @ 1:40 am
I left my grad school’s email list over this BS. They said I was being mean. Possibly true, but I was trying to be constructive.
There was a lot of “cred trading” going on, and that really turned me off.
Deirdre Saoirse Moen
June 2, 2011 @ 1:42 am
See: Steve Martini’s “The List.”
http://www.amazon.com/List-Steve-Martini/dp/0515121495/
Deirdre Saoirse Moen
June 2, 2011 @ 1:45 am
BTW, I call these “stupid author games,” though I don’t think I’ve said as much publicly before.
Jim C. Hines
June 2, 2011 @ 7:39 am
Makes me want to write an author song to the tune of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer…
Da' Vane
June 2, 2011 @ 7:52 am
Thank you for basically cheapening what is actually a very viable process just because of the cynicism that you and others may share.
This is not meaningless – it’s networking and peer reviewing, and many groups and communities use this method. It’s only become cheap because people have made it cheap – because people see it as cheap, and have little or no idea of it’s actual value any more. This is a very sad thing.
Originally, this was the point of such processes. Peers could communicate and share ideas, boost each others work, and make other people better, by actually leaving advice and criticism. Now, it’s just trading, there’s no feedback. People don’t give feedback any more, and see giving feedback as cheap, all the while asking for it from everyone else.
How often do you comment on other people’s works and provide criticism, and more importantly, who’s work is it that you normally do this to? Take a moment to think about that for a second, and notice your patterns, and you will realise something – certain people will get more feedback than others, and they will normally be the ones that don’t need the feedback, because they’ve already made it. Everyone else is basically struggling on in silence, trying to get noticed and do something, anyway they can, to try and compete, while you go around a call this cheap, so you don’t have to give them any credit or any meaning.
We’re all so concentrated on ourselves that we don’t have time to focus much on others, and it really comes down to justifying what we can and cannot spend time on. What has worth and what doesn’t. People can make up their own mind, on whether something’s cheap or not, but it’s all about trying to get ourselves more notice to give ourselves more credence and more justification so that we can feel that this is something worth doing, and devaluing something we don’t see the point in doing to justify why you don’t do it.
I can guarantee that for every person here that thinks such tactics are cheap – that if someone was to come around to their work and give them a +1 or post a “This is really good. Keep it up.” or otherwise take that time out to actually do something, it wouldn’t be so cheap. I would also guarantee that if any of the people here took the time here to do that to someone else, it wouldn’t feel so cheap to the person that you are giving credit to. You call it gaming the system, but it’s more than just gaming the system, it actually represents real people – people who care and appreciate every one of those ratings, whoever they come from. Maybe you’ve become so cynical and jaded that it feels cheap to you, but it’s not always so cheap to them.
Jim C. Hines
June 2, 2011 @ 8:04 am
Hi Da’Vane!
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you read the entire post before jumping to the defensive. So can you please clarify for me what exactly is “viable” about spamming e-mail and Facebook groups by begging for “likes” on Amazon, swapping five-star ratings for books you haven’t read, and so on? How do you defend these tactics as “peer reviewing”?
“How often do you comment on other people’s works and provide criticism, and more importantly, who’s work is it that you normally do this to?”
All the time. Have you read my blog before? Click the “Review” tag. Check my Facebook page, where the last update is to congratulate author Erin Hoffman on her new book and send my friends over to congratulate her.
As for whose work it is that I do this to, it’s a pretty long list of authors. Again, if you’re interested, you can read the blog and find that out for yourself.
This feels a lot like a canned response, a generic defensive comment that doesn’t appear to address what I was actually talking about. I’m happy to engage and debate with you, but please take a minute to address the points I’m actually making.
Thanks,
Jim
Da' Vane
June 2, 2011 @ 9:27 am
No problems, Jim. I did read the whole post.
“Peer reviewing” is when one is reviewed by their peers. In most forms of academia, of which writing in quickly becoming, anybody can call themselves a writer, but it means little unless others being to call them a writer as well, particularly their peers, who are other writers. Therefore they are trying to get their work looked at (or at least noticed) by other writers to get reviewed so they can say they are a writer. It’s your classic “I’m a writer because Stephen King says so!” scenario – exactly the same way as you see on the back of DVDs, games, and books. The only difference is what they are advertising is themselves, to themselves. It’s getting harder to do – it’s easier to get into writing thanks to blogging, vanity press, and self-publishing, but harder to get peer-reviewed because this just means more people are trying to squeeze through the door at once. So, they are looking at other methods of validations – such as sales and popularity.
It’s good that you do go over and congratulate people on their efforts, Jim. I probably wasn’t as clear when I opened the floor on my comment – I felt you were being too cynical, but the third paragraph onwards applies to everyone, including myself. It’s unavoidable, because what you have reviewed (33 books thus far, it seems) is a tiny drop in the ocean compared to all those seeking reviews, all those trying to get noticed, both with and without talent.
A big part of this appears, upon hindsight, to be how you consider what you are doing and what you are selling. Are you a writer or an author? It may seem strange, but there is a slight difference in identity – because writers tend to see themselves as providing a service where as authors see themselves as providing products in the form of books. This difference then goes on to shape how they see their work, and everything.
Your arguments stem basically about books people have not read. They have some merit on that score, but the tactics used don’t target books – they target writers. Writers who provide a service. That service includes everything – not just books, but every blog post, comment, and piece of text they have ever produced. Format and product is irrelevant to the service, and the review isn’t just for the book itself, it’s for the service as well. It’s for everything.
The saddest thing is that the service is part of the most undervalued parts of a writers or author’s life. How much value does this blog actually have to you, Jim? What do you get from it? You make your life from writing, yet time spend on this website, replying to these comments, writing these words, using your trade. What do you get for them? What does it add? It adds so little, when every word you waste here could conceivably be spent on another book, so why do it? It shouldn’t be like that – you are a writer, and your words have worth – all of your words have worth. If they didn’t, you wouldn’t be a writer. That’s what such tactics are validating – or at least, they originally did so. They might not be quite so noble now, but I still wouldn’t say that they are cheap, just that some people might be using them cheaply, but they are the only ones losing out, undervaluing themselves and others because they do know what things are worth.
As the saying goes “a cynic know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.”
Jim C. Hines
June 2, 2011 @ 10:03 am
“In most forms of academia, of which writing in quickly becoming…”
You lost me. I’ve done academia, and I’ve done commercial fiction. I see nothing to suggest that what I do now is turning into academia.
You seem to be talking about peer reviewing as a process by which one is validated. “If my peers review me, then that means I’m a *real* writer.” Peer reviewing in academia is more of a critique process. For example, peer-reviewed journals require submissions to be reviewed and often revised based on feedback from peers. The analogy I’d use is when I send a book to my beta readers, who also happen to be published novelists, so they can help me improve it. I don’t see critique as validation.
“Are you a writer or an author? It may seem strange, but there is a slight difference in identity…”
Honestly, to me this question is a waste of time. I write books. I get paid for this. Arguing writer vs. author is a game I leave to others. It can lead to interesting distinctions, but it’s not something I’m interested in spending time on.
“What do you get for them? What does it add? It adds so little…”
You’ve answered your own questions, making me believe they were rhetorical. Without spending a lot of time on this, I disagree with you, and believe this blog adds a lot both for me and for a significant number of my readers.
You seem to be arguing that we should be supporting other writers as writer, regardless of whether we’ve read or liked anything they’ve written. I strongly disagree with you, and find that approach rather dishonest. Hell, there are authors I love as people whose books don’t work for me. There are authors who have written brilliant books, but have also written books I can’t get into. If I say I “like” that author’s books even when I don’t, I’m lying. I’m not comfortable with lying as a promotional tactic, especially when I’m doing it in the hope of getting them to do the same for me.
Da' Vane
June 2, 2011 @ 10:56 am
Originally, Jim, academia did use a validation process. However, in academia this later became an examination process. For example, originally, to be considered a psychologist you needed to be considered such by other psychologists, now you are classified as such as soon as you enroll upon any formal course studying psychology. This also has a lot to do with the fact that you are also bound by the ethics required by psychologists, even as a student of psychology.
You currently write fiction, but fiction itself isn’t the only form of writing. I am talking about all forms of writing. That said, it is not the content that matters, but the organization of peers that matters, there are masters and there are students. There are those that are writers and those that seek to become writers. Writing, generally, is becoming more structured – there’s a lot more homework involved. You can study and learn about becoming a writer. There’s a lot of these hybrid academic/trade type industries appearing right now in a lot of areas – people aren’t just picking up pens and bashing away at keyboards to put words on pages. They are actually learning, and people are teaching. Have you never been to a convention or been to a seminar on what it is to be a fiction writer, Jim? If you have – that was you teaching, right there. That was writing becoming academic.
Peer reviewing is often a lot like applying for a job – it’s like asking someone established to check over your portfolio. “Do you like my work? If so, say something good about me, sometime!” Or in this case, “If so, go like all my stuff…”
The “Author vs. Writer” debate is just an interesting insight – but then, with a background in socio-psychology, I find this interesting. But you have hit a major point – you get paid for writing, but who pays you, exactly? Published authors have a sense of security from being paid that self-published do not, since it is up to the self-published authors to promote their work as well. That is a very important issue that many people seem to miss out on – I’ve been both. It’s very much a contest of old vs. new in so many ways – that the old established authors are having their superiority undermined by a wave of insecure upstarts who have decided to go it on their own simply because they haven’t been given any other choice.
If your blog adds so much for you and your readers, why don’t you consider it as part of the service you provide? This is my argument: It’s not just about the books, that’s just an old way of thinking. If it was, you wouldn’t have the blog.
I am arguing that we should support writers as writers, whether we’ve read their books or not. But that doesn’t mean we should be dishonest about it. This is the point – books as the point of contact, meaning that you either have to like the book or not support them at all. That’s flawed thinking right there. What’s preventing you from being honest? If a book doesn’t work for you – then it is much better for you to say why a book doesn’t work for you, why their style doesn’t work for you. You can still show your support, validate their work, give them feedback.
Think about it for a moment – what’s really bothering you here is that they are so open about it. Do you send review copies to anyone? Do you pimp your books? Do you ask people if they like your books? That’s all this really is. The sad thing is that there’s a bunch of people who claim they will only like your book if you like theirs, that if you don’t like their book, they won’t like yours. That’s not cheap – it’s pathetic. That’s not validating anyone.
Maybe I’ve just not seen the same groups you have Jim, and my different experiences have led to different opinions meaning that I just don’t see this like you do. Maybe I missed out on the ones that have managed to make this all seem cheap to you, in which case, I apologise.
Deirdre Saoirse Moen
June 2, 2011 @ 1:18 pm
Might I suggest “newbie” for “reindeer”?
I’d love to see the filk!
June 2, 2011 Links and Plugs : Hobbies and Rides
June 2, 2011 @ 3:32 pm
[…] Jim Hines on Gaming the System. […]
Jim C. Hines
June 2, 2011 @ 4:20 pm
Huh. I’m not even sure how many subscribers I have. I mostly just check the unique visitors to any given post, and where they’re coming from.
When I’m trying to evaluate book review blogs, I often find myself checking comments. I figure a blog that never gets any comments probably doesn’t have all that many readers. It’s far from a perfect way to measure traffic, but I figure it’s better than nothing.