Quote:
Originally Posted by taustin
That's a moving goalpost from:
It hit the mainstream press at the time. People did know about it, it was a PR problem, and it had almost no effect at Kindle sales even in the short term. So, by your logic, people don't care, because the certainly knew.
|
Your comment about bad PR has nothing to do with the original reporting of the mistake but how Amazon handled it. My comment was that the average ereader user who does not post on boards like this one has no idea that the event took place. Which means that Amazon handled it well enough that it is only discussed on sites like this one, where people are a bit obsessive on the topic. And even on sites like this one a fair number of people think it is not going to happen again because it was not well received and Amazon did have to do some serious damage control.
As to the reporting of the orginal incident I would guess that the average ereader user does not read the NY Times (or Wall Street Journal and other similar papers) and that even the ones who did might have missed that article. The Times, like all newspapers, has seen reader numbers dwindle for a long time now. Toss in people who have ereaders for "lighter" reading (romances, mysteries, paranormal vampire stuff and yes I read all three) who might be less inclined to read the Times every day and the people who are more conservative and don't read the Times because it is deemed to liberal and probably a few hundred other stereotypes and you are looking at a small percentage of the overall population that reads the Times and might have the oppertunity to see that particular article. The same can be said for other newspapers.
I have no idea where it was placed in the paper. I consider myself some one who keeps up with the news and I don't read the Times. I know that I learned about what happened on various bulletine boards and not through the newspaper. I do read other news sources but I tend to focus on papers outside of the US since I am more focused on international events and conflicts in my line of work. US reporting, even in the Times and similar papers, sucks so I don't bother with them.
Your argument that the fact that people still mention the 1984 mess on this board is an indication that it was really bad for Amazon does not hold water for me. You are basing that on the fact that the initial event was posted in the main stream press and that means that the vast majority of the public heard about it when it happened. To add to that, you are saying that the fact that it is still discussed on boards today means that it has had a lasting effect.
I am saying that the average ereader user has no clue it happened because they probably didn't read the original story, don't remember the original story all this time later, and do not post on boards were people are obsessive about ereaders and it is brought up as a topic of conversation. Amazon remains the dominant player in the ereader field in the US and a strong player throughout the globe, something that would be less likely if people thought that Amazon would take away their books. Which means people either don't know about the incident and are not worried or Amazon did a fine PR job cleaning up the mess and people are not worried.