World, Writing, Wealth discussion

If you look back at 2013 news reports, Amazon purchasing Goodreads was kind of a big surprise, shocking news and stuff like that.
So basically right here in this part of the cyber space we are practically at Amazon's backyard. So, behave - no mentioning of lowly competitors here from now on -:)

Seriously though, how much influence/guiding do you think Amaz exerts here? Can, for example, some groups' mods be on payroll of Ama's marketing department? (You are right, of course, I was just about to send my CV to Jeff-:)) Are 'books of the month' choices random or guided? It's not a conspiracy thread, but I argue that when one spends a rumored 150 mil on purchasing something different from a wedding gift to one's fiance/e, after three years he/she must've found how to play with the new toy.
What do you think?

Lots more freedom and camaraderie here on gr as opposed to Amazon but make no mistake lol. Any criticism of Amazon that goes beyond the mild are quickly locked up and shut down by the mods. mind your manners and all that.

I agree with Tara. When I'm on Goodreads, I feel I'm at home.

i'm not persuaded by conspiracy theories. what was the reason for amazon's purchase of goodreads? (wasn't GR in financial straights?) it's a complementary service, that's why. it drums up hype for books. it's not meant to generate revenue. so, there's no need to be involved in daily operations.

Tara wrote: "Any criticism of Amazon that goes beyond the mild are quickly locked up and shut down by the mods."

there was that whole review deletion furor, so amazon does act on occasion when--i would argue--it impacts the bottom line. but generally speaking, it's a pretty hands-off approach. some users would complain about this and that about amazon, but it would soon enough die down--unless there's an external organization to keep it going (that's the transient nature of social media.)

I think Amazon realizes that gr needs to be the fb of books - a place where readers and authors can congregate and connect. They won't alter this. However, i do see Amazon using gr to test out different for-profit models in the future. For example, will Amazon make any moves in the future to compete with those pricey promo sites? Will they use gr to do it? All of it is quite interesting.

While I wouldn't be surprised if the advertising sends you directly to their sales page and other such directed marketing goes on, if they turn GR into an Amazon only discussion site, they're going to turn off readers who see this as a book discussion site and not a corporate mouthpiece.

I don't think readers would see it as a corporate mouthpiece as long as Amazon offered them a chance to purchase from every platform the author utilizes.

Alex G wrote: "i'm not persuaded by conspiracy theories. what was the reason for amazon's purchase of goodreads? (wasn't GR in financial straights?) it's a complementary service, that's why. it drums up hype for ..."

I don't believe in conspiracy theories either. There was a 'Powered By' someplace on GR (maybe it's still there) and Amazon and lots of other entities were on that list. It's just business sense. Amazon has a good architecture in place. It's a world market and it goes way beyond books.

Tara wrote: "I think Amazon realizes that gr needs to be the fb of books - a place where readers and authors can congregate and connect. They won't alter this. However, i do see Amazon using gr to test out diff..."

Interesting comparison...
I think they want to leave it 'cool', but I do think they found different uses promoting Amazon, maybe stealthily and implicitly, than in-your-face..
For example, absence of Smashwords among the retailers, when you press the 'online stores' button, is pretty striking

I'm leaning in Nik's direction. And as I've personally observed, the mods don't swoop in when you criticize Amazon for nothing.

My personal view is that Amazon mainly bought GR because GR did something Amazon did not succeed at (having readers and authors discussing things) and it helped Amazon promote itself. But while Amazon will obviously use it to help it, I don't see anything sinister in this. I think it strengthens GR more than Amazon.

Ian
Somewhat agree except I would say calculated instead of sinister and calculated is not the same as bad when it comes to business. But there is business or Amazon wouldn't do it. They aren't simply trying to get readers to hold hands lol.

Tara wrote: "Ian
Somewhat agree except I would say calculated instead of sinister and calculated is not the same as bad when it comes to business. But there is business or Amazon wouldn't do it. They aren't sim..."

Indeed. Amazon would have calculated hard before spending that sort of money.

I would say it was a good calculation lol.

Nik wrote: "TFor example, absence of Smashwords among the retailers, when you press the 'online stores' button, is pretty striking."

smashwords.com is listed as a choice in the drop-down from Stores. See https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...

but notably, Amazon is the first choice and on a button by itself rather than listed in the Stores drop-down.

Yeah, it was a freakin' brilliant calculation!!

At the end of the day, business is all about money. Anyone telling you otherwise is either not in business for themselves or soon to be outta business (that's my inside voice *smirks*)

The Zon God has done something incredibly smart here. He's managed to leverage an existing community to his own advantage.

The problem (not actually a problem) with Amazon is that it can never be a true book community because they sell too much other stuff. The sense of "authors and readers" is far too diluted in a vast sea of other products. Plus, you'll always be a "customer of Amazon." They own you.

Here, you're clearly labeled an author (not just someone selling books) or a reader/reviewer (not just someone buying books). We all say, "I sell books at Amazon" vs "I'm a Goodreads author." There is a huge difference between the two, at least on a subconscious level.

Goodreads offers a missing piece of the puzzle: Pride of Ownership.

And people eat that shizz up. The desire to feel significant is basic human instinct. Authors wanna be authors. Reviewers wanna be reviewers. Good on the Zon God for recognizing that.

Just my 2 cents. End transmission XD

Hugs
Ann

Ian wrote: "My personal view is that Amazon mainly bought GR because GR did something Amazon did not succeed at (having readers and authors discussing things) and it helped Amazon promote itself. But while Ama..."

I completely agree. GR is the perfect forum for Authors to connect, and Amazon has an amazing customer base with seemingly unlimited potential. Genius.

Amazon is the supervisor's office. Goodreads is the employee break room. :)

@ Miss Tara: Oh, suuuuure! You just walk right in and sum it up perfectly with a single line, eh? Well, laa dee dah!

Nicely put ^_~

Hugs, Ann

Yayyy! Need to show my hubs this comment - proof that I *can* be succinct!

I'm an Amazon Prime fanatic and buy almost everything from them: Dvds, bed sheets, food, chocolate, all of my LEGOs and electronics. I might be a lil in love with Amazon. And I'm not just sayin' that because they're watching ;).

What I don't understand is why Amazon and GR have different rating systems. Did you guys notice that a 3-star on GR means a 4-star on Amazon? Also I am perplexed why the reviews aren't imported if they are as connected as this.

Chocolate?!
*opens new browser window*

Lindt chocolate, that is :D buying it in bulk from Amazon is a great value!

Marie wrote: "I'm an Amazon Prime fanatic and buy almost everything from them: Dvds, bed sheets, food, chocolate, all of my LEGOs and electronics. I might be a lil in love with Amazon. And I'm not just sayin' th..."

As for the reviews, I think it because on Amazon, a lot of authors get their friends to write some five star reviews for them. They don't bother on GR

Tara wrote: "Amazon is the supervisor's office. Goodreads is the employee break room. :)"

-:) Cool
Where are the open hearth furnaces, the coal extraction then? -:)

Marie wrote: "I'm an Amazon Prime fanatic and buy almost everything from them: Dvds, bed sheets, food, chocolate, all of my LEGOs and electronics. I might be a lil in love with Amazon. And I'm not just sayin' th..."

Good to have the entire spectrum of attitudes -:) Do they sell DVDs as retro/collection items already?

Annie wrote: " The desire to feel significant is basic human instinct."

elegantly phrased and cuts right to the core of the issue. reminds me of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

i knew there was a mind as sharp as the blade of a katana hiding underneath all the glib smirks. i pray that my throat is never at the opposing end of the tip of your mind.

Tara wrote: "Amazon is the supervisor's office. Goodreads is the employee break room. :)"

When the shift to digital broadcasting occurred a few years back, channel 11.3 was devoted strictly to the Accuweather channel. Whenever I'd go on break and found myself in control of the tv, I always put it on that channel just to keep someone else from subjecting me to the lowest common denominator programming on every other channel during the day. I still remember one guy coming in with the saddest voice, "Are you really watching this?"

Me with an emphatic "Yes! Yes I am!"

J.J..
Hilarious! And I bet you were always the one who knew when to bring his umbrella ;)

Alex G wrote: "i knew there was a mind as sharp as the blade of a katana hiding underneath all the glib smirks. i pray that my throat is never at the opposing end of the tip of your mind. "

It's my secret weapon. Shhh. Don't tell anyone. ^_~

You're too sweet. Thank you. Sincerely.

Hugs,
Ann

P.S. - I'm now imagining my gray matter being molded into katana-shape *glib smirk*

Amazon Prime for me! It has just about everything. And since I read & buy trade as well as Indie, they have both and fast shipping.

As we are at Amazon's virtual premises here, I guess we need to recall it every once in a while -:)

I wasn't happy when Goodreads lost its autonomy. It's an American thing, I guess. But I don't see any difference in the way people interact on this site, which is the most important thing to me. Amazon does use reviews posted here to sell books, and when I'm thinking of buying something, I look at reviews here just as I look at the NYT website. I haven't seen any indication of censorship, which would really piss me off.

Scout wrote: "I haven't seen any indication of censorship, which would really piss me off...."

So far...
It feels some groups are Amazon - promoted. Wonder whether Books of the months in certain groups too.
Someone wrote a while back that Amazon was hiring mods for Goodreads, but denied when asked or something like that. I haven't received any offers so far -:), so don't know how true this is.
Amazon's separate first button is relatively new.
I guess they might be leveraging the site somehow

My view is if I can't see anything to complain about, I don't complain. So far, I don't see anything they have done here that annoys me.

Ian wrote: "My view is if I can't see anything to complain about, I don't complain. So far, I don't see anything they have done here that annoys me."

I concur. I don't understand why people think that they'll get attacked on goodreads by Amazon. I have had no problems so far.

Now they want to impeach Jeff : https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...

Jeff will probably be fine, but that lawyer might be in trouble. Jeff presumably cannot be held responsible for what his lawyer says.

Ian wrote: "Jeff will probably be fine, but that lawyer might be in trouble. Jeff presumably cannot be held responsible for what his lawyer says."

Do not count on that. If Jeff knows and instructed his lawyers....this could be very bad. I think the government is looking to break up Amazon and this might be the first step. The Sherman Act is nothing to sneeze at. As I always say, let it runs its course.

Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "Jeff will probably be fine, but that lawyer might be in trouble. Jeff presumably cannot be held responsible for what his lawyer says."

Do not count on that. If Jeff knows and instructe..."

Correct.

I should have said Jeff will be fine on that count. To really gt at Jeff, hey will look at what Amazon has done, not what the lawyer said. The lawyer is a weak link though, and I suspect a deal with the lawyer to get at Jeff might be coming up.

Ian wrote: "I should have said Jeff will be fine on that count. To really gt at Jeff, hey will look at what Amazon has done, not what the lawyer said. The lawyer is a weak link though, and I suspect a deal wit..."

Jeff Bezoz is untouchable, now. The world cannot do without amazon.

The Sherman Act has been sneezed at for many years. Why would that change now?

Scout wrote: "The Sherman Act has been sneezed at for many years. Why would that change now?"

Because this time may be different. It is getting close to the time when some of these big companies need to be reined in. It is arguably correct to point out that Amazon is hurting business across the board.

I'd ask what can be done about it.

Amazon has a little more power than we think behind the scenes - they also control the reviews over there from here. I have heard about reviews that have disappeared off the Amazon feeds and no one seems to know why Amazon is causing that type of problem. I could understand if the content was bad in the reviews and there was some kind of censorship they were enforcing, but for regular reviews to disappear makes you wonder what they are doing over there. Thoughts?

Marie wrote: "....for regular reviews to disappear makes you wonder what they are doing over there. Thoughts?"

Heard people complaining but never got into it too closely. I imagine they don't do it manually, but use algorithms to weed out the reviews. Maybe they wouldn't allow 2 reviews from the same ip address - just a guess. So, maybe one person using different aliases to put multiple reviews should be pulled down, but two persons that live in the same place and have read the same book and put their reviews - shouldn't ... Just thinking

Ian wrote: "Jeff will probably be fine, but that lawyer might be in trouble. Jeff presumably cannot be held responsible for what his lawyer says."

Technically, the lawyer made the statement, so he'd be the one to face any charges for lying, but Congress could use the lie to push the Justice Department into investigating the company.

J.J. wrote: "Ian wrote: "Jeff will probably be fine, but that lawyer might be in trouble. Jeff presumably cannot be held responsible for what his lawyer says."

Technically, the lawyer made the statement, so he..."

The lawyer could make the statement and do it without lying. He would not necessarily know the truth. if he was instructed to make these statements or not told the truth, he will be fine probably.

It could be an interesting problem proving he knew the truth since he is hardly likely to admit he did.