Veronica S.
Excellent Marketplace. Broken Publishing Workflow
I chose Amazon KDP because it provides access to the largest marketplace for readers, not because I believed the publishing experience would be perfect. I expected there to be a learning curve, but I did not expect the publishing workflow itself to become the greatest obstacle to publishing my book. My cover successfully passed the Cover Previewer, allowing me to order five proof copies at my own expense. Those proof copies printed exactly as designed, giving me every reason to believe my files met KDP's requirements. After reviewing and approving the proofs, I was surprised to learn that the same cover was later rejected during the final automated review due to an alleged issue with the spine. If the cover did not meet KDP's specifications, that issue should have been identified before I was permitted to spend additional time and money ordering proof copies. Over the next two weeks, I repeatedly revised and resubmitted my cover while receiving the same generic automated guidance. When I requested a manual review, I was informed that no such option exists. That means authors can become trapped in an endless cycle of trying to satisfy an automated system without any opportunity for a qualified person to review the file or provide meaningful feedback. Perhaps the most disappointing part of this experience was the solution provided by KDP's technical team. Rather than preserving my original design and making the necessary technical adjustments, they returned a revised spine that was barely legible and appeared to be an afterthought. As an author who invested significant time and care into the presentation of my work, I found that solution to be unacceptable because it compromised the professional appearance and integrity of the book I created. My criticism is not of Amazon's marketplace. Amazon's reach is precisely why I chose KDP. My criticism is of a publishing workflow that allowed me to invest additional money into proof copies before identifying a problem that supposedly existed all along, while offering no meaningful path to human review when the automated process failed. Independent authors deserve a publishing experience that is transparent, consistent, and supported by knowledgeable people—not one that relies entirely on automation when the stakes are the publication of their work. I hope KDP will improve this process by validating cover files before proof copies can be ordered, providing detailed and actionable rejection feedback, and offering a manual review process for cases where repeated good-faith attempts have failed.



