Comments on: Hey, Tim Ferriss: Book banning isn’t a marketing gimmick

By: annmariekostyk

annmariekostyk — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:16:49 +0000

Nice publicity for Tim Ferris! There should be no complaints…

By: Scott Pictures

Scott Pictures — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 17:25:34 +0000

“it’s poised to be the most banned book in us history”
That’s the statement Tim made about his book. That statement is either true or false.

Do you think Tim did research to see what the most banned book in history is?

Or is his headline just an emotional and attention grabbing headline, that he’s using just to sell books?

Why not lead with a headline about the value the book offers? He doesn’t because Tim knows emotion is the best tactic to use when you’re selling B.S.

By: Andrew Glassman

Andrew Glassman — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:37:25 +0000

Hey Laura Hazard Owen: Catchy blog post titles aren’t effective at driving traffic.

Oh they are? Oh… I guess that is old news.

By: Johnny

Johnny — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 03:38:03 +0000

I don’t like Amazon’s business practices either, which means I don’t purchase anything from them, period. Which means I won’t purchase Tim’s book. If everyone who disagrees with Amazons policies would stop buying from them, would it make a difference?

By: Paul French

Paul French — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 00:55:58 +0000

Beyond the publishing industry’s infighting, let’s focus on the stated aim of the book, which is to determine, for the health and economic benefit of all, the future of food production in the United States. That’s a grand, noble and immeasurably important ambition. If those banning the book don’t think so, I’d argue that Tim’s entitled to a bit of spin. After all, as marketing hooks go, there are far greater evils than a straightforward truth.

The bigger picture is a better planet. Those inclined to do so can bat around definitions all day long, but meanwhile Tim Ferriss is out there fighting the good fight. Don’t knock it.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:16:26 +0000

+1 Chelsea

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 04:52:50 +0000

Did you know that they “banned” selling the Big Mac at Burger King? Not completely the same, but if you publish with a quasi-publishing house that’s also a store, the competing stores don’t have to automatically sell the same goods. Sorry, but this is a non-story.

By: Chelsea

Chelsea — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:04:54 +0000

Peter, where is Tim claiming to be a victim?

He said “do I view stifling innovation and free speech (through distribution of otherwise) as a malevolent thing? Yes. Regardless of the motive (moral, economic, etc.), the outcome is the same: regress instead of progress. And regress snowballs quickly.”

He’s not being a crybaby… he’s making logical statements. You’re just name-calling.

By: Squashi

Squashi — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:36:32 +0000

Doesn’t know the publishing business from his ass? Are you a best-selling author? Judging from your “very few numbers” tidbit I’d guess you probably aren’t and in the publishing business I’d also guess that your numbers are fairly important.

By: Brian77

Brian77 — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:29:36 +0000

Like the French collaborators who later claimed to part of the Nazi resistance, or like those in America who claimed to be “fighting” the KKK from the 1990′s forward, people like Laura Hazard Owen only come out for liberty when it is utterly safe and socially acceptable to do so.

Newsflash, Miss Owen. You’re not displaying great courage in coming out against the censorship of Huckleberry Finn. Today, in 2012, the greatest world threat against liberty – and freedom of speech – is political Islam. Here in America, a man named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has been jailed for insulting the pedophile prophet Mohammed (those pretending it was about a probation violation are lying to themselves.)

But the ever-obedient Miss Owen doesn’t want to talk about that.