Except, any answer given on that thread is one I'd still have to investigate. (Nothing personal, just not anyone I'm familiar with). I'd trust hearing from some of my peeps here who entered a giveaway that they were contacted by an author after a giveaway (plus quite a few authors here on booklikes, I'd trust their answers).
The giveaway terms I saw did not say you were sharing infuriation with anyone other than amazon by entering. Which could mean I just didn't notice or didn't understand.
As of last year, I would have sworn that Amazon had never told authors before who purchased their books. Never told them who was gifted their books. Never told who borrowed via KOLL or KU. Never told them any contact info on reviewing customers beyond the screen name used and the information the customer chose to put on their public profile. (I've helped a couple of Amazon authors with some tech stuff where I've been side by side while they were signed into their accounts and able to doublecheck that -- but it's been awhile).
Regardless, her desire to punish reviewers with a fu is just /delightful/. It's more about what her glee about that says than whether GR makes it easier for her in that particular case.
I agree, it's worrisome if they do. Even when I was on GR, I stopped using the giveaways because people said this was the case.
Polite as ever, but somehow we went down a rabbit hole of whether or not I was an author. Am I completely paranoid to wonder if an author would get a different answer than another customer? (I do have enough sense to know that more likely the chat text was just bringing up common answers -- but a part of my brain works funny ...)
I know. And at any rung you have to keep wrestling them back to your question. And rephrasing their answers back to show them how that sounds as an answer to the question asked. And frequently I still never get question answered (live chat or email).
I did my best this time. If hadn't been wanting screenshots, though, I would have ditched the chat when repeatedly asked if was an author.
I suspect they are chatting with a lot of authors bcause Amazon giveaways are newish. Used to be limited to Twitter and not allow any digital content (including kindle editions). Just recently, they did open the giveaway for author of kindle edition only to giveaway kindle editions = no doubt getting a lot of questions from kindle authors.
I've *groan* learned to talk completely differently on Amazon live chat.
I also wanted to put that link in a live chat transcript just in case anyone on staff at Amazon who could get it replied to more officially saw it *shrugs*. Not really my business -- and no skin off my teeth as a reader if the misinformation encourages more authors to giveaway free books -- but, I really get cranky at all the misinformation authors suck in other authors and the implied "because we are entitled to follow up ...." that pervades.
IMHO -- author feedback from customers on a retail site = any public review they voluntarily post. Unless customer tracks down author's public contact info to volunteer feedback. I expect followup from third parties when I do something on a retail site only when I check some option that signs me up for that or visit their website to subscribe directly.
Chat finally answered "no" (as expected, seriously, even Amazon cannot expect to keep customers if giving out their contact information; PayPal and screen names work for a reason). Boy, could I have made a very sensational post clipping just some of chat -- but, that would be too short a post for me so full transcript as well as I could is posted.
oh holy shit -- the goodreads thread now has authors saying they contact Amazon customers all the time using "Author Central" Glad I have no idea where my inbox is on Amazon to see that if not forwarded to email. (I've not gotten author communications in my Amazon email so either no author tried to contact me or feature enabled after I stopped reviewing on Amazon where maybe only customers who review there show in Author Central?)
At least one of the authors posting on that thread saying messaged reviewers via Author Central wasn't. He mentioned the book reviewed and "messages" exchanged. "Messages" were actually public comments made on the review itself when I looked.
Holy shit. Thank you, Debbie, for posting this and being so thorough. I'm with Grimlock, still can't get over wanting to say "fu" to giveaway winners...for any reason.
LOL, no, not "fu" to say "fuck you" to winners -- "fu" meaning to "follow up" with winners.
With consumer/customer review sites/sections -- authors forget we're the retail customers. We are not "their" reviewers or promoters (or else legally have some disclaimers to add on all U.S. consumer reviews), just retail customers. At most, the retailer gets to follow up with its customers. Authors are not entitled to followup or even contact readers other than by having a page, blog or site readers can follow by updates or some mailing list they can subscribe to. It's not legal for retailers to give out customer contact information to third parties unless customer opts into; authors just are not entitled to Amazon's customer information.
And by "fu" after a retail customer wins book in a giveaway anywhere (not just Amazon), they usually mean " nag them into reviewing and tell them what I want in the review" (which in U.S. is not classified as the " necessary to transaction entered into" exception to laws prohibiting unasked commercial contact by electronic means [aka "Spam"] ; if it was, meaning a requirement of the giveaway was a review with conditions, hitting all that pesky disclaimer needed ...).
No idea how any of that (distinction between reviewing-product-because-I-chose/wanted-to and reviewing product cause had agreed to, got some incentive for it, was connected to book or author, ... ) applies to Polish laws governing booklikes -- but posituve applies to goodreads and amazon.com that if an author is actually entitled to follow up with a reviewer that it becomes a commercial review with some explaining to do if going in with reviews on those sites.
"FU" with "their winners" "their readers" "their reviewers" = FU with retail customers and getting retailers to provide author with private customer data provided solely for purpose ofvthatvspecifuc retail transaction (even if the transaction was a giveaway). Even if author was the retailer selling directly to potential reviewer -- the contact info, unless you get them to opt into additional, is for that transaction only.
Confusing acronyms are confusing! I still don't like the idea of a follow up, because it can mean 'badger into reviewing.' But it's better than the middle finger!
So, today, the person who started that by saying Amazon giveaway allowed them to follow up with the winners now posts: "...3. You don't get to contact your winners directly. You see a list of names they used to enter and that is all. Two of my winners didn't even give their last names. Make sure the form letter message you get to create when you set up the giveaway says what you want it to say. It's the only contact you'll have with them and you have a character limit (400 I think) so you have to make it count..." at https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1665675-best-bang-for-buck-book-promos?comment=150107018&page=52#comment_150107018
Oh. Thanks for clarifying. FU-ing readers in any way sounds bad. ;) I'm glad Amazon doesn't release the info. Winning/entering a contest shouldn't open someone up to being bothered, even if it's well-intentioned. I'm with Grimlock that FU (I want to type that as f/u) can lead to badgering. Well, said, Grim.
LOL, I fully intended to clarify but it took them forever to come back to thread and answer. With an answer rather different from how they originally posted saying "...so you can fu if they don't post reviews to see what they thought." -- which sounded to me like they were telling other authors that after giveaway ended author could contact winner.
The giveaway terms I saw did not say you were sharing infuriation with anyone other than amazon by entering. Which could mean I just didn't notice or didn't understand.
As of last year, I would have sworn that Amazon had never told authors before who purchased their books. Never told them who was gifted their books. Never told who borrowed via KOLL or KU. Never told them any contact info on reviewing customers beyond the screen name used and the information the customer chose to put on their public profile. (I've helped a couple of Amazon authors with some tech stuff where I've been side by side while they were signed into their accounts and able to doublecheck that -- but it's been awhile).
I agree, it's worrisome if they do. Even when I was on GR, I stopped using the giveaways because people said this was the case.
I did my best this time. If hadn't been wanting screenshots, though, I would have ditched the chat when repeatedly asked if was an author.
I suspect they are chatting with a lot of authors bcause Amazon giveaways are newish. Used to be limited to Twitter and not allow any digital content (including kindle editions). Just recently, they did open the giveaway for author of kindle edition only to giveaway kindle editions = no doubt getting a lot of questions from kindle authors.
I also wanted to put that link in a live chat transcript just in case anyone on staff at Amazon who could get it replied to more officially saw it *shrugs*. Not really my business -- and no skin off my teeth as a reader if the misinformation encourages more authors to giveaway free books -- but, I really get cranky at all the misinformation authors suck in other authors and the implied "because we are entitled to follow up ...." that pervades.
IMHO -- author feedback from customers on a retail site = any public review they voluntarily post. Unless customer tracks down author's public contact info to volunteer feedback. I expect followup from third parties when I do something on a retail site only when I check some option that signs me up for that or visit their website to subscribe directly.
Screenshots of that live chat I just posted at http://donealrice.booklikes.com/post/1372717/amazon-giveaway-live-chat-screenshots-asking-if-amazon-giveaways-of-kindle-editions-provide-authors-with-contact-details-to-followup-with-reviewers-nonreviewers --
With consumer/customer review sites/sections -- authors forget we're the retail customers. We are not "their" reviewers or promoters (or else legally have some disclaimers to add on all U.S. consumer reviews), just retail customers. At most, the retailer gets to follow up with its customers. Authors are not entitled to followup or even contact readers other than by having a page, blog or site readers can follow by updates or some mailing list they can subscribe to. It's not legal for retailers to give out customer contact information to third parties unless customer opts into; authors just are not entitled to Amazon's customer information.
And by "fu" after a retail customer wins book in a giveaway anywhere (not just Amazon), they usually mean " nag them into reviewing and tell them what I want in the review" (which in U.S. is not classified as the " necessary to transaction entered into" exception to laws prohibiting unasked commercial contact by electronic means [aka "Spam"] ; if it was, meaning a requirement of the giveaway was a review with conditions, hitting all that pesky disclaimer needed ...).
No idea how any of that (distinction between reviewing-product-because-I-chose/wanted-to and reviewing product cause had agreed to, got some incentive for it, was connected to book or author, ... ) applies to Polish laws governing booklikes -- but posituve applies to goodreads and amazon.com that if an author is actually entitled to follow up with a reviewer that it becomes a commercial review with some explaining to do if going in with reviews on those sites.
"FU" with "their winners" "their readers" "their reviewers" = FU with retail customers and getting retailers to provide author with private customer data provided solely for purpose ofvthatvspecifuc retail transaction (even if the transaction was a giveaway). Even if author was the retailer selling directly to potential reviewer -- the contact info, unless you get them to opt into additional, is for that transaction only.
Confusing acronyms are confusing! I still don't like the idea of a follow up, because it can mean 'badger into reviewing.' But it's better than the middle finger!