The New York Times, among other journals and blogs, recently published a comparison of the new Barnes & Noble eBook store and Amazon's Kindle eBook store. The review noted pros and cons on both sides: Barnes & Noble's eBooks are compatible with the iPhone, Blackberry, Mac, and PC, but it has no Kindle-like digital reader yet; Barnes & Noble has 700,000 eBooks, compared to Amazon's 300,000; but 500,000 of Barnes & Noble's eBooks are free out-of-copyright books from Google, which can be read on the Kindle anyway; most of Amazon's eBooks are less expensive than the same eBooks from Barnes & Noble; and so on.
I won't get into a discussion of Barnes & Noble vs. Amazon's Kindle in this blog; you can find enough commentary on that by doing a Google search. The New York Times video commentary by David Pogue is available here; to read a written version of Pogue's review, click here.
One observation made by Pogue in his review aroused my curiosity, though. He noted that many popular books are missing from the eBook stores of both Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Among the non-existent eBooks named by Pogue are Joseph Heller's Catch-22, Anthony Burgess'A Clockwork Orange, the Harry Potter series, and any works by John Grisham.
These books and others are unavailable because their authors and/or publishers choose not to release them electronically.
Why would some authors and publishers choose not to release eBook versions of their work?
Do they believe that eBooks are less profitable than print versions? I don't understand that reasoning. An eBook does not carry the variable costs associated with the paper, ink, and set-up of a printed publication; also, given the varying prices of the currently available eBooks, it would seem that authors and publishers could set eBook prices to generate quite a handsome profit.
Do they believe that eBooks will cheapen the value of good, old-fashioned paper books? That makes no sense. While eBooks may be convenient for travel, I personally enjoy the comfort of the smell and feel of a paper book in my hand. I would think that many other readers do, too. Even if they didn't, authors should present their work in the format that best suits their readers. If readers prefer electronic over paper versions, then give them eBooks.
Do they believe that their works are so popular that they don't need to sell electronic versions? I don't see the logic in that attitude either. Purveyors of ideas become successful when their ideas spread, not when they are limited. The marketplace of ideas is an economy of abundance, not an economy of scarcity. Thus, books (that is, the actual words and ideas, not the paper or bits upon which they are written) become more valuable as they become more plentiful, not as they become more scarce.
I am at a loss for other possible explanations for the refusal to release electronic versions of printed books. I do hope that these authors and publishers will listen to their readers and provide these eBooks soon.
Showing posts with label scarcity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scarcity. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
Balkanization of the Web?
In today's MediaPost Search Insider blog, search engine marketing professional Steve Baldwin wrote about what he foresees as the "Balkanization of the Web."
He says that, in order for suppliers of premium web content to stay alive, they will begin to release their information only to those search engines that cut them the best deals. This will result in information being divided among the various search engines, such that certain content is exclusive to specific search engines. Thus users will find themselves pushed to one engine or another, depending on the content they are seeking.
Baldwin thinks that this is the only real method by which search engines can distinguish themselves, since users care about the relevance of search results (which is now basically uniform across search engines), not the bells and whistles of a given search engine.
Now I'm no SEM expert as Mr. Baldwin is, but I must disagree with his prediction. I cannot see how such splitting up of web content is a good idea for any party involved. Nor would it ever begin to happen. Here's why.
One, the providers of premium content to whom Mr. Baldwin refers (i.e. The New York Times) are in no position to bargain for "better deals" from search engines. They are dying. Their readership is declining. They are trying to figure out how to renew their relevance and attract more readers. That is why they engage in SEO and SEM in the first place - so that any and every potential reader can find them in any and every pertinent search on any and every search engine. Creating an artificial scarcity, or threatening to, would be shooting themselves in the foot.
Two, search engines will not want to restrict themselves to only certain types of information. In other industries, concentrating all of one's resources in one product category enables a business to become truly and distinctively excellent in that category. This is not true for search engines. For search engines, there is no competitive advantage to ignoring some topics in order to focus on others. Nor will the search engines be forced to do so by the content providers, because, as noted in reason #1 above, the content providers have no bargaining power.
Three, users won't stand for it. Sharing and finding information on the Web should be free and easy. Users won't want to try several different search engines before they find the information they want - not when they can use Google to find virtually everything. And, as noted in reason #2 above, Google (and every other search engine) has no motive to limit the kinds of information it can find for users; therefore, users will continue to be able to find everything there.
The search engines and the dying providers of premium content will need to find another way to monetize their offerings. Sorry, Mr. Baldwin, but artificially limiting their products won't work. If they want to make money, they should try providing services that consumers perceive as worth paying money for.
He says that, in order for suppliers of premium web content to stay alive, they will begin to release their information only to those search engines that cut them the best deals. This will result in information being divided among the various search engines, such that certain content is exclusive to specific search engines. Thus users will find themselves pushed to one engine or another, depending on the content they are seeking.
Baldwin thinks that this is the only real method by which search engines can distinguish themselves, since users care about the relevance of search results (which is now basically uniform across search engines), not the bells and whistles of a given search engine.
Now I'm no SEM expert as Mr. Baldwin is, but I must disagree with his prediction. I cannot see how such splitting up of web content is a good idea for any party involved. Nor would it ever begin to happen. Here's why.
One, the providers of premium content to whom Mr. Baldwin refers (i.e. The New York Times) are in no position to bargain for "better deals" from search engines. They are dying. Their readership is declining. They are trying to figure out how to renew their relevance and attract more readers. That is why they engage in SEO and SEM in the first place - so that any and every potential reader can find them in any and every pertinent search on any and every search engine. Creating an artificial scarcity, or threatening to, would be shooting themselves in the foot.
Two, search engines will not want to restrict themselves to only certain types of information. In other industries, concentrating all of one's resources in one product category enables a business to become truly and distinctively excellent in that category. This is not true for search engines. For search engines, there is no competitive advantage to ignoring some topics in order to focus on others. Nor will the search engines be forced to do so by the content providers, because, as noted in reason #1 above, the content providers have no bargaining power.
Three, users won't stand for it. Sharing and finding information on the Web should be free and easy. Users won't want to try several different search engines before they find the information they want - not when they can use Google to find virtually everything. And, as noted in reason #2 above, Google (and every other search engine) has no motive to limit the kinds of information it can find for users; therefore, users will continue to be able to find everything there.
The search engines and the dying providers of premium content will need to find another way to monetize their offerings. Sorry, Mr. Baldwin, but artificially limiting their products won't work. If they want to make money, they should try providing services that consumers perceive as worth paying money for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
