Quote:
Originally Posted by BadBilly
It's interesting to note that statistics show revenue from book publishing increasing in all regions. Unlike music executives, who had grown used to one record-breaking year after another through the 80s and 90s, saw a decrease as evidence of lost sales due to file-sharing, publishing execs seem to think they're entitled to more even though their revenues are increasing.
I suspect a survey of serious readers (say, anyone who reads 10 books a year or more) would find that the overwhelming majority had, at some point purchased a book based on a library experience connected to that book. That could be another book in the series, another book by the same author or a similar subject. Books represent an investment in time and money and buying blind doesn't appeal to a lot of people. |
Yes, imagine the audacity of a for profit company thinking they should increase revenue. What next, snake oil salesmen not being entirely truthful about their products?
You're likely correct, those who read more would stand a chance of both borrowing from the library and buying books. It further stands to reason that some of those same people would have made purchases based on borrows, but the reverse is also true, someone buys a book from a new to them author enjoys it and then borrows their backlist from the library. There's less friction for them since backlist is in general not as in demand, with the exception of authors like JK Rowling who stay in the zeitgeist on a perpetual status.
Though circling back to those statistics, as far as I could see they never touched on ebooks versus physical, I'll grant they may and I missed it as I had no interest in signing up for a premium account which seemed to be the only means to get all the data. Given that nothing has changed with physical books and libraries in quite some time, save perhaps adjustments in price which follow along with inflation, while there have been changes in ebooks and libraries, it's clear publishers want to boost those sales.
Given the proliferation of multi-purpose devices, smartphones, tablets, netbooks, etc. which many seem to also use to read on, it would seem that the better thing for preservation of the planet would be to move toward ebooks. Though I don't want this to derail into a fight over the carbon footprint of those devices versus the millions of books printed every year so I'll not say anything more on that.
It's also probable that the publishers aren't going after voracious readers, who for the US would seem to make up a rather small percentage of the population, but those who are somewhere in the middle who are likely entirely unaware of this forum, don't pay any mind to what publishers do or what libraries do. They just borrow the current popular book, if available, or if it's unavailable they buy it.
Of course if one actually examines books as a resource they should be priced far higher. After all each one is rather unique, you will not get a Harry Potter story outside of Rowling, at least not for our lifetimes, though you may get imitations. You get hours upon hours of enjoyment from them, often reducing the price/time ratio to mere cents per hour. Rather unlike movies.