Comments on: It’s not ads in books, it’s ads in e-books, silly http://snarkmarket.com/2010/6130 The stomping grounds of Tim Carmody, Robin Sloan and Matt Thompson. It's a long-running conversation about media, journalism, technology, cities, culture, design, books, music, movies, the future and the past. Tue, 14 May 2013 15:49:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Tim http://snarkmarket.com/2010/6130/comment-page-1#comment-14411 Tim Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:28:35 +0000 http://snarkmarket.com/?p=6130#comment-14411 Ding ding ding ding ding! Ding ding ding ding ding!

]]> By: Sylvie http://snarkmarket.com/2010/6130/comment-page-1#comment-14350 Sylvie Sun, 03 Oct 2010 12:14:41 +0000 http://snarkmarket.com/?p=6130#comment-14350 Amazon's one such company. It has all sorts of demographic data about their readers and it's e book market share is about 60%. Amazon’s one such company. It has all sorts of demographic data about their readers and it’s e book market share is about 60%.

]]> By: August http://snarkmarket.com/2010/6130/comment-page-1#comment-13119 August Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:26:13 +0000 http://snarkmarket.com/?p=6130#comment-13119 Ah, I misread part of that. Thought Carr's piece was the WSJ piece for a bit. Will have to re-read now. Ah, I misread part of that. Thought Carr’s piece was the WSJ piece for a bit. Will have to re-read now.

]]> By: August http://snarkmarket.com/2010/6130/comment-page-1#comment-13118 August Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:20:32 +0000 http://snarkmarket.com/?p=6130#comment-13118 Well, actually I was thinking of in the mid 19th Century. And then again in the '20s. And again in the '50s... It's not like we're talking about ads in the Gutenberg bible, and going for the "closer and more-easily-understood target" is generally part of what leads to a plethora of essays about the future of books and reading that mean well but, as you wrote about on your Kottke.org stint, manage to conflate (and dismiss) wildly different periods in publishing practice and technology. I don't expect everybody to always say it either. Just one person, once, would be nice. But that's ultimately less what concerns me. I can't get behind the paywall, so I can't read anything beyond what you've quoted here, but I see no discussion at all of the ethics of double-dipping on a tech that still has class concerns and is often touted as an education solution (or on the efficacy of such advertising, especially given how much folk online complain about ads, and no evidence of the validity of the statement "many mag­a­zines pub­lish fic­tion sur­rounded by com­mer­cial mes­sages" as a counter-argument to ads being disruptive when reading fiction, especially since fiction has all but disappeared from mainstream periodicals, and the majority of small lit mags actually don't publish their advertising the same way as commercial periodicals, often opting to group them together at the back...). There's simply too many important things going on here to worry about who the major players in such a thing might be. I mean, clearly Google and Amazon would be the go-to folks, because they are the go-to folks for saturating everything with advertising, but why is *that* what should matter in this discussion? Well, actually I was thinking of in the mid 19th Century. And then again in the ‘20s. And again in the ‘50s… It’s not like we’re talking about ads in the Gutenberg bible, and going for the “closer and more-easily-understood target” is generally part of what leads to a plethora of essays about the future of books and reading that mean well but, as you wrote about on your Kottke.org stint, manage to conflate (and dismiss) wildly different periods in publishing practice and technology. I don’t expect everybody to always say it either. Just one person, once, would be nice.

But that’s ultimately less what concerns me. I can’t get behind the paywall, so I can’t read anything beyond what you’ve quoted here, but I see no discussion at all of the ethics of double-dipping on a tech that still has class concerns and is often touted as an education solution (or on the efficacy of such advertising, especially given how much folk online complain about ads, and no evidence of the validity of the statement “many mag­a­zines pub­lish fic­tion sur­rounded by com­mer­cial mes­sages” as a counter-argument to ads being disruptive when reading fiction, especially since fiction has all but disappeared from mainstream periodicals, and the majority of small lit mags actually don’t publish their advertising the same way as commercial periodicals, often opting to group them together at the back…).

There’s simply too many important things going on here to worry about who the major players in such a thing might be. I mean, clearly Google and Amazon would be the go-to folks, because they are the go-to folks for saturating everything with advertising, but why is *that* what should matter in this discussion?

]]> By: spavis http://snarkmarket.com/2010/6130/comment-page-1#comment-13116 spavis Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:29:14 +0000 http://snarkmarket.com/?p=6130#comment-13116 i'd love to get ads in books, maybe similar to how Pandora for Andorid does it, with a little banner ad that changes periodically. it's pretty unobtrusive and i'm more than willing to put up with it or (heavens!) click on one to keep using a great free service. so if it means reducing the cost of ebooks i'm all for it. i'm a big fan of dead tree and since the electronic version is often 90% of the price of a new copy I prefer paper. if ad-enabled ebooks were only 50-60% of the cost of paper that'd be pretty compelling to me. what i'd really like is a risk-free way to try a new book right now: 1 dollar for 100 pages for 10 days. i could so get on board with that. a rent-to-own scenario where, once i'm in the story, i'd more willingly pay the ad-enabled or ad-free cost to get the whole thing. or if i don't like the story it's not a big loss on my end. i’d love to get ads in books, maybe similar to how Pandora for Andorid does it, with a little banner ad that changes periodically. it’s pretty unobtrusive and i’m more than willing to put up with it or (heavens!) click on one to keep using a great free service.

so if it means reducing the cost of ebooks i’m all for it. i’m a big fan of dead tree and since the electronic version is often 90% of the price of a new copy I prefer paper. if ad-enabled ebooks were only 50–60% of the cost of paper that’d be pretty compelling to me.

what i’d really like is a risk-free way to try a new book right now:
1 dollar for 100 pages for 10 days. i could so get on board with that. a rent-to-own scenario where, once i’m in the story, i’d more willingly pay the ad-enabled or ad-free cost to get the whole thing. or if i don’t like the story it’s not a big loss on my end.

]]> By: Tim Carmody http://snarkmarket.com/2010/6130/comment-page-1#comment-13098 Tim Carmody Tue, 24 Aug 2010 01:47:59 +0000 http://snarkmarket.com/?p=6130#comment-13098 I think Carr is actually pretty good on this. I don't expect everybody to always say, "you know, in the 17th century..." particularly when cheap paperbacks are a much closer and more-easily-understood target. He zeros in on the essential fact; books have always had ads, and for a variety of structural reasons in the form and the industry, they haven't been able to do them well. And the KIND of explanation he makes is the right one to make. I think he just misses the big, looming possibility here -- which is that the big players in ebooks (Apple, Amazon, and to a certain extent B&N and Google) are also big players in ads and retail. I think Carr is actually pretty good on this. I don’t expect everybody to always say, “you know, in the 17th century…” particularly when cheap paperbacks are a much closer and more-easily-understood target.

He zeros in on the essential fact; books have always had ads, and for a variety of structural reasons in the form and the industry, they haven’t been able to do them well.

And the KIND of explanation he makes is the right one to make. I think he just misses the big, looming possibility here — which is that the big players in ebooks (Apple, Amazon, and to a certain extent B&N and Google) are also big players in ads and retail.

]]> By: August http://snarkmarket.com/2010/6130/comment-page-1#comment-13096 August Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:59:57 +0000 http://snarkmarket.com/?p=6130#comment-13096 I love articles like this, because despite that cursory glance at "old paperbacks" with ads in the back, they have absolutely zero sense of history. Books have gone through more than one phase where they've had ads in them (and not just at the back). I work with old books for a living (basically from the 1600s until 1923, but mostly 19th Century books), and I see them nearly every day. And you know what? They're just as horrible and intrusive as you'd expect them to be. Although I suppose if it ever takes off (yet again), you could pay a premium to have ads disabled... I love articles like this, because despite that cursory glance at “old paperbacks” with ads in the back, they have absolutely zero sense of history. Books have gone through more than one phase where they’ve had ads in them (and not just at the back). I work with old books for a living (basically from the 1600s until 1923, but mostly 19th Century books), and I see them nearly every day.

And you know what? They’re just as horrible and intrusive as you’d expect them to be. Although I suppose if it ever takes off (yet again), you could pay a premium to have ads disabled…

]]>