Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
It's hardly my fault the article itself is so selective in what it says. The point wasn't audiobooks, though, the point was "one-time increase because of blockbuster book hitting the stores". Doesn't matter if it was an audio version or a paper one, because both vary with demand.
|
The point was that was a one-time increase in *audiobooks*, resulting in a larger than usual decline this year. That in no way obviates the decline in *other* books. The article wasn't selective; you cut off the first part of the sentence that made this clear. You made it seem like there was a 21% decline in ALL books in 2008, but that this was because of a Harry Potter *audiobook* the year before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
What problem are you talking about, though? as my second quote says, compound annual growth for the last decade was still positive, the slump in 2008 notwithstanding.
|
The problem that book sales were down once you adjusted for inflation. The AAP estimates that industry sales grew at a 1.6% compound annual growth rate in the 2002–2008 period. But in that same period inflation was 2.8% or so annually. So while they sold $100 worth of books in 2002 and $110 worth of books in 2008, that $110 is only worth $93 in 2002 terms. (Someone check my math on this.) You can throw out last year's sharper decline due to recession if you want; book sales are still flat at best over the past decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
Also, "Reading" has been deemphasized for decades, and revenues were still going up. Why was that? Were they just raising prices to compensate, thus forcing those who still read to make up for the difference and more, or because the problem isn't quite as bad as is being made out?
|
No, they were raising prices to compensate for inflation, and the increased revenues still means at best the industry has been stagnant for a decade if not in outright decline.