INGRAM_CORE_SOURCE Disappearing from the feed

Thank you Rachel!

I certainly hope that also means that they have the data for the missing sales of the past few months and the respective authors will be credited accordingly.

Getting the money right is job ONE, some would argue.

An update: Lulu has fixed SOME of the problem and money from Dec is starting to flow in. They wanted to close my ticket. However, the problem is, from my analysis, they're still not yet getting ALL of the sources they used to.

I compared my month by month revenue against the same month's average over the past 3 years. From Jan to Nov of 2020 (before the change), my 2020 monthly numbers were up an average of 39% compared to the prior 3 years average of the same month.

However, starting in Dec of 2020 (the change month) and continuing to present day - even with the money now flowing - my revenue is down an average of 39%! It can't be coincidence that the trend over 4 years happened to change in the month Lulu started changing their distribution strategy.

Lulu needs to step up and own this problem. They need to tell us that they acknowledge the problem, that it isn't fully resolved yet, and when they expect it to be fully resolved. Even if they told us that they aren't sure when it will all be migrated over and we will have all of the money due us, it would be comforting to hear that they acknowledge that the situation is only partially addressed and that they will continue to work on it until it's fully resolved.

And the analysis that I'm doing isn't rocket science. It's based solely off the extract that Lulu provides. Therefore, it is fully within Lulu's capabilities to do this analysis themselves. The sniff test, particularly across all of their author base, would easily prove out that something is still outstanding. How can we apply pressure to have them do this?

- Rachel

I have, yet another update. This one is far more bothersome than the others.

Basically, they are telling me that they have done an analysis as to how the change in their distribution has effected their authors revenues - and will not disclose the findings. Their exact words are:

"Thank you once again for your question and your feedback. Please note that our Finance Team has indeed reviewed sales data and if we've seen a decrease or not in sales, is not information we would share with our authors."

Personally, even after they have "fixed" the problem to their satisfaction, my sales are down 39%. However, my sales in all the channels that still exist from before their change are either flat or up. This means that the distribution channels they have chosen to use to replace coresource distribution do not equal those served by coresource - and that by switching away from coresource to individual distributors, they have shortened the reach of our books - and have accepted a drop in sales as "acceptable".

As I see it, we have 3 choices: Accept their answer and live with reduced revenue, take our work elsewhere, or take legal action to force Lulu to disclose the nature of the issue and what they're going to do about it.

Thoughts?

"Part of the agreement mentions holding Lulu Press blameless, even if the company's action have cost you revenue."

I certainly don't remember seeing THAT! I wonder how many other authors realize that they agreed to such a thing. I wonder how many would choose Lulu if they actually recognized that this is not only the policy, but that it's being utilized in real life.

I'm also quite certain it wouldn't hold up under actual scrutiny.

Anyway - I'm not a litigious person in general, but I'm not against discussing this in social media circles, BBB, Yelp, Google Reviews, etc. If for nothing more than to alert potential authors of the nature of the agreement. Better that others go in open-eyed.