Just another hit piece from the ABA

[dgcasey]

How did I know this was going to be another opinion piece by some ABA-fanboy that would ignore all the e-book numbers from Amazon? Again, we see another paid opinionator waxing on about the demise of the e-book, but using only the sales numbers from the Big Five to make his point. What's most telling about this piece is the lack of opportunity to leave a comment on the article.

https://observer.com/2018/11/ebook-sales-decline-independent-bookstores/

[David VanDyke]

When comments are locked for a non-hot-button (to most of the populace) issue, IMO it usually means the article's author or publisher knows it's factually incorrect, but they have an agenda to push--hoping that if they lie enough, it will become the truth.

 

[Post-Doctorate D]

Something else the article doesn't seem to take pricing into consideration.

When buying books from big publishers, there are numerous times when the eBook is at or around the same price as the printed version.  If shipping is free (it usually is) and the paperback is $10 and the eBook is $10, I'm probably going to lean toward buying the paperback.

I've seen ones where the eBook is more expensive than the printed book (new, not used).  If the eBook is $15 and the paperback is $10, which one do you think I'm going to pick?

Some publishers are smart and use the matchbook (is that what it's called?) option where if you buy the paperback for, say, $10 then you get the eBook for just $2 more.  Win-win.  I can start reading right away, I'll still have a nice, crisp paperback and the publisher gets an extra $2 (minus a few pennies for Amazon's download fee) without any extra effort.

I have a lot of eBooks, but I still prefer actual books.  However, often the deciding factor is price.  If I had unlimited funds, I'd probably always buy both versions so I have the best of both worlds.  But funds not being unlimited means I have to spend wisely.  And if the print book is priced lower than the eBook, that's kind of a no-brainer.  It's not a statement on the preference for print over digital but a preference for spending less money over spending more money.


Also, with the decline of the "big box" bookstores, of course there's going to be a resurgence in independent booksellers.  It's not because of print versus digital but more a matter of filling the void left by the bigger stores going under or cutting back.  It's not necessarily a matter of increased demand but rather satisfying existing demand.

And let's not forget how places have changed.  When they started, places like Barnes & Noble were all about books.  Small, local libraries shifted away from books and expanded into new media, like CDs and DVDs.  I remember reading complaints about how bad some libraries had become with music and movies taking precedence over books.  Places like Barnes & Noble became the quiet refuge that libraries had been, plus you could sit down and have a sandwich and a drink while you read.  Then, things shifted again when Amazon began selling books on the Internet.  The "big box" bookstores began to expand into movies and music, like some libraries before them.  They became less of a refuge at the same time Amazon was undercutting them on price.  Now that the "big box" booksellers are declining, the independent bookstores are fulfilling the need for a quiet refuge to enjoy books.  So, again, it's not print versus digital but rather fulfilling a need that's always been there.

With a $10 paperback, you give it to someone and fully expect that person to hand it off to someone else.

I don't know about anyone else but where I live, if someone doesn't return a book you've let them borrow, you'll never let them borrow another book again.

[dgcasey]

Then, things shifted again when Amazon began selling books on the Internet.  The "big box" bookstores began to expand into movies and music, like some libraries before them.

This is so true. I can remember a time when Amazon wanted to be the biggest bookstore on the planet. Now they just want to be the biggest store. Those were the days when you didn't have to wade through miles of aisles just to get to the book section.

I don't know about anyone else but where I live, if someone doesn't return a book you've let them borrow, you'll never let them borrow another book again.

There used to be a website geared toward giving your old books away. It was called bookcrossing.com and it is still up and running, though not with the enthusiasm it used to have. I've given away a few books using their method, but never saw any post-giveaway action on them. I stopped doing that awhile back.

[LilyBLily]

If the traditional publishing world--and I include freelance journalists--wants to keep bolstering its confidence with absurdly incorrect "facts," who am I to stop them? Adding some humanity by describing asinine behavior (losing THREE Kindles? Wha?) and some sentimental feelings about tote bags and local small businesses may be very reassuring to people seeing change as threatening, but it doesn't change reality. This journalist reads ebooks so much he keeps buying Kindles. He ought to examine his compulsion more closely, but the sentimental nonsense about book signings goes over better with the editors who buy these articles.