I love the smell of PR flacks sweating in the evening...

[lagilman]

Amazon Says Glitch to Blame for "New" Adult Policy
By Rachel Deahl & Jim Milliot

A groundswell of outrage, concern and confusion sprang up over the weekend, largely via Twitter, in response to what authors and others believed was a decision by Amazon to remove adult titles from its sales ranking. On Sunday evening, however, an Amazon spokesperson said that a glitch had occurred in its sales ranking feature that was in the process of being fixed. The spokesperson added that there was no new adult policy.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6651080.html


Of course, this does not explain why authors who queried were told by Amazon reps that 'adult' material" was being excluded from appearing in "some searches and best seller lists" as a "consideration of our entire customer base." I'll be very interested what glitch explains that....

Comments

[wedschilde.livejournal.com]

There is no glitch in the world that could have done that AND generated an email. Unless of course they've got AI that they're not telling us about.

I mean, really. Seriously? A glitch?

[wedschilde.livejournal.com]

i think we also crashed publisherweekly's site

[lagilman]

it's been taking a beating, yeah. Be patient, and it will load. Or someone else will pick up the story.

[nycdeb.livejournal.com]

and the story has been picked up

Seattle Post Intelligencier: http://blog.seattlepi.com/amazon/archives/166259.asp?from=blog_last3

LA Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2009/04/amazon-deranks-gayfriendly-books-the-twitterverse-notices.html

[wedschilde.livejournal.com]

poor pbweekly :D

[smoemeth.livejournal.com]

I actually think this is a rather plausible explanation for all of this madness.

But all that aside, I also think it's plausible that the customer service staff was handed the script response that seemed to the shift supervisor to be the closest fit to the complaints that suddenly started flooding in this morning ... I've been in a call center when a similar thing has occurred, it's quite easy to have happen.

Of course, it's also plausible that Amazon.com is suddenly in need of an immediate cranio-rectal extraction, stat. Sigh.

[lagilman]

It's plausible, but doesn't explained the e-mails that specifically stated there was a policy on such things.

I suspect, much like Strikethrough here, there was an external trigger, be it malicious or not, and the company handled it in the worst possible way. That does not relieve the company of responsibility for a) allowing such a loophole to exist/be exploited and b) sending out those "yes, we have a policy, we have a stupid policy in place" e-mails.

Hopefully by midday tomorrow Amazon, having screwed the pooch, will made an honest dog out of it.

[warrenlapine.livejournal.com]

I've only seen one e-mail that said it was a new policy. I once had to work in a call center for ten months. Every day I heard some rep (usually new) say something that was totally out of left field and completely insane. The turn over in a call center is so high that sometimes only about ten percent of the people on the floor answering phones or sending out e-mails have a clue what they're doing. And with the time constraints (you're evaluated by how many calls you handle in a day) if they have a question and a manager isn't available right away most of them just make something up on the spot.

[shadowravyn.livejournal.com]

Not all call centers work like that, though. I worked for Fidelity for a year and a half. All changes in policy were gone over minutely, and if they caught you giving out faulty info, you could get a reprimand or suspended or fired, depending on the severity of your screw-up. And while time was a factor when they were evaluating your performance, giving correct information was MUCH more important. You sucked it up and waited for the help desk if you didn't know the answer.

Of course, I don't know where in the spectrum Amazon's call center falls. However, the email response dates back to February (http://craigspoplife.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-amazonfail-timeline.html)

[lagilman]

Except that the response quoted wasn't sent in to an overworked answer-right-now call center -- it was submitted to the Amazon Associates program via e-mail, and the response, while swift, was still with in the 24 hour window. They had plenty of time to send their response up the flagpole to see who saluted.

[shadowravyn.livejournal.com]

I also agree that it's plausible, but:

*medievalist says, (http://tehdely.livejournal.com/88823.html?thread=259319#t259319) "A living person at Amazon gets a list of books to check for questionable content.

That person gets to make a yes/no decision about whether or not to forward it to someone with live edit privs, and makes a written report with a reason and suggestion of what and how to edit, up to and including delist." She has no documented proof of this (she says she applied to Amazon and the policy was explained to her), so it's something to think about, but can't be considered fact until independently verified.

and

*A timeline from February when the "adult=no sales rank" was first used as an excuse. (http://craigspoplife.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-amazonfail-timeline.html)

[chibiaingeal.livejournal.com]

But if that is true, that would explain why (in an effort to check the theory of the post that was linked) I couldn't find any easy way to flag something to Amazon....

[chibiaingeal.livejournal.com]

I was accepting the post you linked as a plausible reason (and could almost see how that would lead to the responses at least 2 authors received from Amazon about adult content) except...

I don't see any way - at least an easy link - where I could tell Amazon I think something is "adult" or "objectionable". I even logged in with my account and still can't see it...

Am I missing something?

[lagilman]

There is (or was, anyway) a way to 'flag' something as objectionable. It's a safeguard to prevent (for'ex) the 'casting of an excerpt that is obscene-by-community-standards, or a third party posting a 'review' that is actually trash-talking.

You can also 'tag' an item as having specific content, allegedly so other people can find similar interests, but it's quite easy to misuse, as may have been the case here. But if so, it is incumbent on Amazon to police that usage, and not kneejerk yank (again, the example of Strikethrough here, where LJ was allegedly gamed by outside forces, and reacted...badly)

[wolfsilveroak.livejournal.com]

I call bullshit.

[nightdweller20.livejournal.com]

lol I agree.

Reminds me of one line Will Smith says in I-Robot:

*fakes a sneeze* Oh sorry, I'm allergic to bullshit.

[leethomas.livejournal.com]

Worst PR response possible. Infantile, evasive, meaningless, and so cliched the company looks all the more suspect. They teach that crap in high school communications... like verbatim from a textbook. The Amazon lame - it is a blossoming.

[nightdweller20.livejournal.com]

Wow, I'm baffled. That's as obvious as the old "the dog ate my homework" excuse.