Amazon's love-hate for Kindle porn

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by tompe

How can you know that? Maybe the authors last book will sell less copies if many back list books are available. Very few people are looking for specific back list titles.

And from the publishers perspective it is the total number of books they sell that are interesting.

If you read a lot of books you probably have book budget, food budget, other budgets, and entertainment budget. In that order. If you do not read a lot of books you will probably by the new books so back list book availability is not relevant.

I am over half a century old.
I have never separated books, from other entertainment in my budget.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Most people *don't* read a lot of books.
You can't extrapolate from the likes of us.
Most people don't shop for "something to read" but rather for specific books.

Well, if they do that then it will not be old back list books they want to buy. So no lost sales at all for that case.

Casual readers aren't avid readers with a smaller book budget but rather people with other things in their life. If they don't find the title somebody told them was a good read they don't turn around and buy the next pretty cover they see; they just shrug and go on to watch a ballgame.
That is why Amazon sells used books.
For avid readers books are somewhat fungible but not for casual readers. And those folks make up some 70% of the book buying population.

I would say that for casual reader buying books at airports books are very fungible. But in other situations less so.

I read a lot and do not see books as fungible at all.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, if they do that then it will not be old back list books they want to buy. So no lost sales at all for that case.

Many of the books I buy or borrow are old backlist or even previously out of print books. I was/am thrilled to be able to get unread books by my favorite authors. And many want to start a series at the first book if they can, which nowadays they often can.

And you might be surprised by the number of casual and avid readers who are reading A Game of Thrones. I believe this book fits the standard definition of backlist in that it was published first in 1996 but is still sold in bookstores.

Helen

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

For avid readers books are somewhat fungible but not for casual readers. And those folks make up some 70% of the book buying population.

I think this is backwards. A casual reader might just want to read a current, popular, best-selling book, whereas an avid reader wants to read specific titles.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Many of the books I buy or borrow are old backlist or even previously out of print books. I was/am thrilled to be able to get unread books by my favorite authors. And many want to start a series at the first book if they can, which nowadays they often can.

A reader that do that is not a casual reader according to how I use the term.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I think this is backwards. A casual reader might just want to read a current, popular, best-selling book, whereas an avid reader wants to read specific titles.

Or at least, specific authors, writing in specific genres. Or maybe something different, on occasion.

Luck;
Ken

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by tompe

A reader that do that is not a casual reader according to how I use the term.

You are no doubt right. I was referring to readers who shop for specific books.

Older casual readers do often shop for specific backlist books though, I have been asked twice in the last month where to get Louis L 'Amour books and once for James Clavell. And again many people are reading Game of thrones.

What is your definition of a casual reader?

My loose definitions are:
Avid 1 - 5 books a week.
Casual 1 - 2 books a month
Occasional 1 - 2 books a year.

Pretty loose because it doesn't take into account book length and free time available. I read maybe 5 or 6 books a week in winter and 1/2 that in the summer. Some people only read in waiting rooms or on the bus. Probably less of those now that we have iphones and tablets

Still I think that many of those in the baby boomer generation, that are even in the one or two books a year category, have somewhat established tastes and preferences and will hunt down that backlist title or two.

Helen

[tompe]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

What is your definition of a casual reader?

Well, the meaning I go to is "releaxed and unconcerned". It is more the attitude to the reading activity then the number of books that matters. And if you for example want to read a book series in copyright order from the beginning I would not call that a casual attitude.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

I bought and read erotic romance 12 years ago and read it on my PDA. I didn't need an eReader or tablet to do that.

Having said that, it's always frustrating to see the typical ignorant romance=porn belief come up again. There are romances available without a bit of sex. And there's erotica without any romance. And then there's the stereotypical "the babysitter made me a man" or "I watched my sister take her showers" porn.

They are not synonymous.

Well Said. Amazon does have alot of real porn on it. As someone who wades through the slush pile daily I see covers that make me want some eye bleach. My problem is Amazon doesn't better police this stuff. It does not belong in the romance category! It should have it's own section. I'm not talking about Erotic Romance like 50 Shades or Bare to You. (Yes I do read Erotic Romance.)
I'm talking "the barely 18, I did my stepdaughter" and other stuff that makes me want to hurl.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Imagine what would happen if a bookstore's sales were dominated by SF&F, and their search/rating algorithms reflected that. A lot of people would look for another vendor, one that better reflected their tastes.

No need to imagine: that is exacty what happened to Books on Board during the transition to Agency pricing. Unable to quickly secure the BPH titles, they were left with an active catalog heavily skewed towards romance. They (permanently) lost a critical fraction of their customer base and never recovered.

[fjtorres]

The market analyst definition of casual reader and the one we use around here is that a casual reader buys several books a *year* rather than several books a month.

It has nothing to do with reading attitude and everything to do with buying habits.

Casual readers don't stockpile books; they buy when they are going to read it.
It might be a bestseller or a midlist/backlist title that has come to their attention somehow.

Casual readers should not be taken lightly; they may not buy as many books, individually, as avid readers but there are way more of them.

This difference in habits has been under discussion for years and came to the forefront after the iPad/iBooks launch:
http://thenextweb.com/us/2010/06/21/...ronic-reading/

Casual V. Not

This discussion could perhaps have set up a false dilemma if Apple is not shooting to grasp the hand of the heavy reader to lead them to iPad-land. It could be that Apple merely wants to court the casual reader, and is willing to leave the rest to the rest.

Amazon and Barnes and Noble would likely find this to be a sort of truce, but not one that they would want to let stand long. Casual readers are an important slice of the book market; they fuel explosive bestsellers by appearing out of the woodwork at odd moments. You want them.

If Apple is courting casuals, then this is the question: will enough people buy the iPad to ensure a large enough pool of occasional book-buyers to have a marketshare worth talking about.

Again: casual readers buy books *when* they want to read them. If they don't find them, they don't buy another book. They go do something else.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Alexander Turcic

This isn't exactly a secret being kept under lock and key. Adult literature is selling well. So well, in fact, that various online booksellers, including Amazon, have been tweaking their search and rating algorithms to downplay the importance of that category. The Atlantic writer Noah Berlatsky makes a persuasive argument that it may, in fact, be this very erotica that has helped the Kindle to thrive:



Who would have thought. The Kindle - the ultimate camouflage gear for porn aficionados?

It may serve that purpose, but in my reading groups the one thing that made the kindle thrive is that it's easy to buy and get the books. You don't have to learn anything new. Most of my cozy group is over 50. Most of them don't want to fiddle with technology and will buy a book from Amazon rather than download a book from elsewhere--even if it is free elsewhere.

It's the one click and delivery without having to USB or learn anything that has convinced many a buyer and kept them coming back for more. Some of them may even read porn, but from the conversations we've had, it was the simplicity of the technology they were sold on. A number of them no longer drive or drive a lot less than they used to. They love the instant delivery. They don't have to drive across town, make an extra stop, etc. If they want a book, they can get it. They do complain about pricing at times, but not lack of selection.

I'm sure some people like the ability to hide what they read (for whatever reason), but if that was the ONLY reason Kindle was popular, everyone could have bought a Sony a long time ago.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, the meaning I go to is "releaxed and unconcerned". It is more the attitude to the reading activity then the number of books that matters. And if you for example want to read a book series in copyright order from the beginning I would not call that a casual attitude.

Ah, I was taking it as number of books read per time period.

I actually now prefer to read books in order, or fill in the blanks, but before ebooks I didn't pay any attention. Just got whatever was available that looked interesting, and if that was the cae with ebooks or reading out of order was easier or cheaper for example, I would not be upset. Does that make me semi-casual I wonder?

I have always preferred some types of books over others though. And some authors over most everyone else.

I think most people do, but I could be wrong.

Helen

[tompe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Again: casual readers buy books *when* they want to read them. If they don't find them, they don't buy another book. They go do something else.

And I do not believe your claim that the books these reader that read 1-2 books per year want to buy are old back list books that are not available. Of course it could happen but I do not believe at all that it happens so often that it is worth keeping all back list books in print. And if it is back list books like part of a popular series they will be available.

So can you give any titles of back list books that are not available and were you think so many causal readers would like to buy this book so it is worth keeping it in print? I do not see how they can look for the same book and at the same time the publisher will not be able to see that that will happen and provide the book.

[SouthernSun]

Originally Posted by rkw

Dear gawds...seriously? :sly:

Seriously. I haven't got the faintest idea why you thought it necessary to bring her up, as she's not an erotic author.