Comments on: Big e-reader is watching you

By: Speaks the Truth

Speaks the Truth — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:26:05 +0000

No amount of analytics, the discussion and massaging of which, will substitute for good writing. It is kind of like in Field of Dreams, if you build it they will come. If you write it well and in an interesting manner, they will read. I consider this analysis of my reading patterns to be a gross invasion of my privacy. No doubt the ability to analyze same comes from DRM. Perhaps, we should stop trying to build a better book by the numbers and get back to superior writing which is what this should be about. Secondly, as readers, let’s set a goal to put a stop to this kind of invasive practice. Amazon and the other retailers are entitled to our cash when we purchase their products, and no more than that!

By: Matthew Williams

Matthew Williams — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 15:23:55 +0000

These two quotations sum up my concerns…

“If we can help authors create even better books than they create today, it’s a win for everybody.” – Jim Hilt, vice-president of eBooks, Barnes and Noble.

‘Publishing has lagged far behind the rest of the entertainment industry when it comes to measuring consumers’ tastes’ – Alexandra Alter, WSJ

Move over art, culture and authorship, corporate-directed Wordotainment is the future, and you, dear consumer, will love it.

By: Thad McIlroy

Thad McIlroy — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:35:34 +0000

I with @David Thomas on this. I thought the WSJ article was hooey.

There’s a pattern: because stories about self-publishing, ebooks, Amazon, Apple, or, ideally some combination of all four, get excellent readership, the WSJ, NYT etc. need to have at least one eyebrow-raising digital book story each week.

The other topic that’s getting traction these days is “big data”.

This article married the two in order to come up with startling insights such as: people don’t always finish the books they’re reading.

This had never occurred to us before.

By: Laura Hazard Owen

Laura Hazard Owen — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:02:34 +0000

No worries, David — thanks for the comment! Agree, too, that what’s revealed in the WSJ piece is not surprising (people read Hunger Games fast!)

By: David Thomas

David Thomas — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:32:14 +0000

Laura not Leah. My apologies…

By: David Thomas

David Thomas — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:08:51 +0000

Leah: you hit the main issue squarely in the conclusion. No one can take these inferences from frequency stats too seriously because the sample size is so skewed, non-random and proportionally secret thanks to Amazon’s e-book dominance and lack of candor. The possibilities of studying reading habits is tantalizing, but at the same time the entire subject pool is limited to those readers who have devices and,presumably, use them regularly. It doesn’t account for people who may have abandoned the e-book for a bound copy, may have juggled between formats or take into account those reading multiple volumes at the same time and juggling between them. Most of what is revealed about readers in the reporting is a “non-surprise” and it is also self-serving to the analysts.

By: Tom McElvy

Tom McElvy — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:22:00 +0000

I recall as a youth, spending many a day reading some readlly heavy books in the guse of the old Reader’s Digest Condensed Books. I wonder if that isn’t a concept whose tome may be back. Consider this: Sell the condensed version of a book for, say $1.50 or $2. If a person really likes the book, they can invest in the full blown version. Not only would this seperate the good books from the bad ones, it would probably increase overall sales, PLUS increase revenue for the authors. Or, in the alternative, offer the condensed price as a credit towards the full version.