[kbenson]

> Instead of putting all KU subscriptions in a big pot and then dividing the pot among all authors by page read, divide the income from each individual subscriber among the pages he/she reads (so a read from a user who reads less would effectively be worth more).

There's a few side-effects to this, some may be beneficial depending on your point of view, others not.

- People who read more are paying less to each author than those who read less. I might find an author I like, and voraciously consume thousands of pages of her works in a month. My total payout to her would be the same monthly fee. Popular and/or good authors shouldn't be penalized.

- What happens to the monthly fees for people that don't read anything that month? Does Amazon get to keep it?

- It runs the risk of incentivizing click-bait titles and synopsis, which may cause readers to think most the content on the platform sucks, and leave. Everybody is worse off if the platform fails entirely.

In the end, Amazon wants a market where good authors can get paid, so they'll come, and they want good authors because that will attract subscribers, which is how Amazon gets paid. Pairing subscribers with authors they like, and allowing an exchange of money for services as frictionless as possible is in the best interest for all the legitimate actors here, so hopefully Amazon will find a better solution soon.

[meric]

Maybe it's not so good to have people who read more to vote with other people's money in a capitalistic market.

If a person is willing to sign up to unlimited just to read one authors books once a month, that means those books are that much more valuable.

For the person who reads a lot - if he wouldn't have gotten unlimited unless he got that much volume in reading material that means each of his views are worth less than the other guys.

Utility of page views are not equal.

[kbenson]

Maybe it's not, but maybe it is. It's not a foregone conclusion. We've had the subscription model (albeit with many middlemen) in television for a while. It allows for more niche content to survive, which is a benefit, but it can mean that people end up paying for things they don't like.

There are lots of incentives and motives at play in a system like this. For just about every downside there's probably an upside, the question is which outweighs the other (and that may be relative to the person). For example, the person who reads a lot isn't just extracting content for a reduced cost, they are also (possibly) rating a lot of books providing more accurate market info. Their reading, if more eclectic due to volume, may provide more support for more independent authors, allowing for more variety to exist (and be rated). Now, that is a lot of maybes, but marketplaces live off information, so increasing market information is an important task, and this structure may be one way to help with that.

[meric]

>> end up paying for things they don't like.

That's what's happening now - you've got low quality viewing clubs scamming from everyone else. And that's a certainty. Remember in information one false bit can introduce a lot of havoc.

You've got a lot of maybes - and I'm unconvinced. But I don't work in Amazon.

I do know if I got an unlimited membership I will not be happy my dollars are worth less because I take my time to enjoy my material - pausing and contemplating about it deeply. ( think poems ).

[kbenson]

> That's what's happening now - you've got low quality viewing clubs scamming from everyone else.

I'm not referring to that. That's fraud, and it's entirely negative. I'm referring to subsidizing niche content. For example, niche channels[1] and the leeway for more esoteric work to attempt to define a new market. If you believe people always know exactly what they want, then this isn't needed. If you believe people sometimes don't know they like something until they've been exposed to it (and it may not exist without the ability for niche markets to form), then this subsidization of niche content may been a good thing.

Like most things, it's probably somewhere in the middle. Allowing for niche content is how we experiment, but subsidizing too much means that we have a very inefficient market. Put another way, sometimes it may worth it to decrease market efficiency for current options slightly to incentivize the creation of new options in the market.

1: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/03/23/471633490/episo...

[sbov]

In an unlimited subscription model you aren't voting with money, you're voting with whatever Amazon decides you're voting with, which is currently the maximum page you reach.

[wehadfun]

> People who read more are paying less to each author than those who read less

In flat fee unlimited subscription models there is no way to escape this. Some subscribers are going to consume more content than others but they all pay the same amount. The alternative is the pay per use model which Amazon has been offering since 96 or something and has existed in bookstores for decades.

If anything this makes it feasible for authors that have loyal fans but not widely popular content to be able to make a money.

[bitdivision]

I might be missing something here but if they still track the last page read, then why would it incentivize click-bait titles and synopses?

Additionally, I think your first two points mostly address the outliers on the bell curve.

It seems to me that GP's solution would be at least somewhat more fair than the current system although its certainly not perfect.

[kbenson]

> I might be missing something here but if they still track the last page read, then why would it incentivize click-bait titles and synopses?

It's much easier to make a book sound epic, insightful and/or wonderful than it is to actually write something like that. It might take a while for the user to give up, but who cares if people only get 50-100 pages into your book before quitting if you can attract multiple times more people?

> Additionally, I think you're first two points mostly address the outliers on the bell curve.

I have personally alternated between those extremes in the last six months. I've read multiple thousands of pages one month, and been too busy to read anything the next. I also suspect there's a population of people that will sign up and forget about it for long periods - just like gym memberships.

[bitdivision]

> It's much easier to make a book sound epic, insightful and/or wonderful than it is to actually write something like that. It might take a while for the user to give up, but who cares if people only get 50-100 pages into your book before quitting if you can attract multiple times more people?

I don't see how that is any different with a per-user pot than the current system?

[kbenson]

The major difference is that it may force the current scam which seems to rely partially on getting people to download and click the last page and partially on a scammer network to do this for each other to move entirely to scamming real people to click the last page.

That said, that's not a good reason in my mind, since we shouldn't be afraid of stopping abuse just because we are afraid it will shift to another area, as it's still progress. I retract that specific example (but I think the others are worth thinking about).