Survey finds that 62% of 16 to 24-year-olds prefer paper books to e-books

[Ravensknight]

Originally Posted by Waflicka

This doesn't surprise me at all. I'm well within the demographic at 21 years old, and an English major -- so naturally myself and all of my friends are prolific readers. I prefer readers and one friend prefers audiobooks, but all of my other friends within this age bracket prefer books. Most have boxes of them in their garages for lack of storage space! Frankly, I think that the insinuation by earlier posters that people who prefer paper must not be prolific readers is quite offensive. Just because you prefer a screen, it doesn't mean that everybody else should -- some prolific readers are tactile readers, too. Get over it. The level of arrogance in this thread is a disgusting picture of this forum...

This, coupled with the obvious lack of reading comprehension when people answer basic questions in threads, makes me very, very doubtful of my decision to join. You're folks who can't see the forest for the trees, and half of you seem to think the trees are shrubs, anyway. *shakes head*

Sounds like someone is feeling a little a sensitive.

Sonny, settle down and stop taking this personally. NOBODY here is talking directly about you. Or, they weren't, until you acted exactly like we all thought someone like you would.

So chill and eat some more turkey, drink some eggnog and get along. We do [for the most part anyway ]

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Waflicka

This doesn't surprise me at all. I'm well within the demographic at 21 years old, and an English major -- so naturally myself and all of my friends are prolific readers. I prefer readers and one friend prefers audiobooks, but all of my other friends within this age bracket prefer books. Most have boxes of them in their garages for lack of storage space! Frankly, I think that the insinuation by earlier posters that people who prefer paper must not be prolific readers is quite offensive. Just because you prefer a screen, it doesn't mean that everybody else should -- some prolific readers are tactile readers, too. Get over it. The level of arrogance in this thread is a disgusting picture of this forum...

This, coupled with the obvious lack of reading comprehension when people answer basic questions in threads, makes me very, very doubtful of my decision to join. You're folks who can't see the forest for the trees, and half of you seem to think the trees are shrubs, anyway. *shakes head*

Hmmm... I won't categorize your lack of reading comprehension and inability to differentiate between different opinions and posters by your age, although it is tempting I must admit. Lumping everyone together, criticizing en masse without any examples or basis or distinguishing criteria other than 'earlier posters' probably seems pretty disgustingly arrogant in itself even to you.

Helen

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by Waflicka

This doesn't surprise me at all. I'm well within the demographic at 21 years old, and an English major -- so naturally myself and all of my friends are prolific readers. I prefer readers and one friend prefers audiobooks, but all of my other friends within this age bracket prefer books. Most have boxes of them in their garages for lack of storage space! Frankly, I think that the insinuation by earlier posters that people who prefer paper must not be prolific readers is quite offensive. Just because you prefer a screen, it doesn't mean that everybody else should -- some prolific readers are tactile readers, too. Get over it. The level of arrogance in this thread is a disgusting picture of this forum...

This, coupled with the obvious lack of reading comprehension when people answer basic questions in threads, makes me very, very doubtful of my decision to join. You're folks who can't see the forest for the trees, and half of you seem to think the trees are shrubs, anyway. *shakes head*

I guess you missed the bits where people, such as I, were going by what we've personally seen.

Also, there's a marked difference between a prolific young reader who has a library of several hundred books (which, I'd think, is not insignificant - most of the avid readers I know in that age group have maybe two shelves, no more than 100-200 books in their personal library, and they consider themselves big readers) and a prolific older reader who has a library of several thousand books at home already.

Most reading-inclined people find space for ~200 books at home, even if they don't have a garage (not everyone does, you know). When we're talking about ~2000, that's starting to be another matter, and one where even snobbish* teens and early-20s start thinking about maybe giving this awful e-reading business a try after all.

(*Note for those with problems with reading comprehension: I'm not saying all teens and early-20s are snobs. Some - even many - are, though, especially when it comes to reading, and they're the ones I mean here.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Yapyap

Most reading-inclined people find space for ~200 books at home, even if they don't have a garage (not everyone does, you know). When we're talking about ~2000, that's starting to be another matter, and one where even snobbish* teens and early-20s start thinking about maybe giving this awful e-reading business a try after all.

Precisely. When you've been buying books for 30+ years and have double-stacked bookshelves against every available wall, that's the time when you need to consider whether it's more practical to switch to ebooks or buy a bigger house. It's not a problem that young people tend to have.

[auspex]

Originally Posted by Yapyap

They also tend to be people who haven't had to move to a new home with more than a couple of boxes of books (or if they have, they haven't been personally responsible for doing it).

… and have never had a whole box of books disappear somewhere in that move. <sob /> …sorry, I'm still bitter

I'm quite a bit more impressed with this poll than most similar ones. They actually seem to have asked the right sort of questions. I'm particularly pleased to see that 36% of those who prefer DTBs cite as their reasons exactly what Amazon promotes as the benefits of a Kindle: "I am not restricted to a particular device" (20%), '"I can easily share it" (10%), … and "I can sell it when used" (6%)'. When e-book sales level off and Amazon, and whoever's left in the trade, look for ways to continue to grow the business, maybe they'll realize that vendor lock-in and end-user licenses are not good for anybody.

[crossi]

Not all prolific readers will prefer ereaders. That wasn't even implied. But those who are NOT prolific readers or who don't have some condition that makes paper difficult would have little reason for the added expense of an ereader. It would not make sense for them to buy one unless they just enjoy gadgets. It would be like someone who goes to maybe one game a year buying a season's pass.

[auspex]

Originally Posted by theducks

You still can legally buy USED books in the USA. Those cost even Less again than an e-book and you don't need a expensive special device to read them upon

Manga at original Print size? Oh! Paper wins out over big displays again.

I think you'll find that the survey is already screening out Manga.

But the fact that it's legal to buy used books in the US (and particularly in the US) is key—and not legal to buy a used e-book. Those kids who preferred paper actually seemed to understand the legal issues.

[auspex]

Originally Posted by Little.Egret

"Half of the respondents were sourced through student moneysaving website Studentbeans.com, and half through a broader youth research panel."

Not a random sample then which would likely show half hadn't read a book except set books in the last six months.

The missing questions relate to how many books/ebooks were (a) bought and (b) read
(c) borrowed from library.

Same for music and movies.

I don't want to know any of that—that's what other surveys have done. I actually wanted THIS survey, asking readers which they preferred, and why (the 'why' being far more important).

[Katsunami]

The two big reasons for preferring print are value for money and an emotional connection to physical books. On questions of ebook pricing, 28% think that ebooks should be half their current price, while just 8% say that ebook pricing is right.

While I can understand the emotional connection to physical objects (and wanting to be able to hold a physical object, as mentioned later in the article), I think "value for money" and "ebooks should be half their current price" is misguided.

Value for money: True, ebooks don't give you any stuff to hold, but they give you a lot of extra perks, such as portability, customizable font, built-in lighting in your reading device (if you're using a tablet or a newer reader), and space savings in your home. That's a lot of value for money in my book. (Uh... yeah.)

eBooks should be half their price: For me, eBooks ARE already half the price of the paperback versions, or close to that, assuming I shop around a bit, and sometimes prices are even lower. I can buy best sellers or newly released books for prices like $10 (€7.35), where the same book in paper would invariably cost me around €12, should I buy it as a paper edition. Often it's easy to find even cheaper stores or use coupon codes.

I think this research is another stupor of the publishing industry, fearing that they will be made redundant. E-books give the artist the possibility to sell directly to their fans, either through a store, or maybe even through their own websites.

We're seeing the same thing happening as with digital music. Back then (around 2000), there were many reports that a lot of people preferred CD's over digital music. Back then I could appreciate that, because a CD *IS* better than an MP3. I still prefer CD's as source material.... to create my own digital music, after which the CD will be archived. With e-books, there need not be a quality difference, as long as the publisher / author takes care to layout the book properly.

[Billi]

Really, what is the sense in taking apart their arguments?? It's their opinion. Respect it and don't try to show them how wrong they are.

My daughter fits into this age group too and also into the result of the survey. She prefers paper books to ebooks by far. Of course she has an ereader (she couldn't help getting one ), she sees the advantages in regard of shelf space and going on vacation, but nevertheless wants to read (and own) "real books". For her one of the most important advantages is the flipping through the book, the finding of certain places in the book.

[Salgueiros]

Based on my personal experience, i tend to agree with the conclusions of this study.

Also, ALL the prolific readers i know do not have ereaders, and they do have thousands of books and they are quite proud of it, actually. They call it their "personal library".

Some even have dedicated areas in their houses for them. Paper books are indeed a very special object for some (including me). I read ebooks and paper books almost in equal amount, for various reasons (availability, better visual arrangement and typesetting in the paper books, etc). The advantages of ereaders exist and are quite impressive, but books are stilol great objects and very well adapted to their function.

[Lemurion]

I really think there is no universally right answer, however, when it comes to value for money, one of the things that you have to consider is that different people value different things.

For me, at 50, the added value that comes from a physical object such as a paperback is greatly outweighed by that of being able to change the font size on an ebook. When you add the fact the screen doesn't have the same problems with gutters it becomes no contest.

I value the format I can read easily more than the one I have to struggle with. However, my values are based on 50 year-old eyes, and a 16-24 year old may not have the same issues reading a paperback, so their value equation will weight the factors differently than mine.

I'm curious to see what the numbers might reflect as those who grow up with ebooks and ereaders begin to age. Will they shift further toward ebooks as they grow older?

[Scarpad]

this is accurate I'm 51 yo and all the youngsters in my office drag around paper books, when I inquire why they don't like ebooks they are all very much professing their love of books I gather the ease of passing them among family members as the chief reason

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Scarpad

this is accurate I'm 51 yo and all the youngsters in my office drag around paper books, when I inquire why they don't like ebooks they are all very much professing their love of books I gather the ease of passing them among family members as the chief reason

We use a shared family Kindle acc't. Works very well.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by Yapyap

I've noticed that a lot - but it does make sense, to me, as I've also noticed that in general, the people who most prefer paper books to ebooks are often people who have relatively few books (no space issues and not even any realisation yet that space may become an issue - or the lucky few with large houses and space for personal libraries!) and who have no physical issues with either holding books or reading them in whatever font, margins and line spacing they come in.

They also tend to be people who haven't had to move to a new home with more than a couple of boxes of books (or if they have, they haven't been personally responsible for doing it).

Very young people fit right into both of those categories.

Also, and I think this is related to the no lack-of-space issues, when someone is a relatively new reader, who doesn't have a large personal library yet, the idea of owning books, having a shelf or two as physical items to display and admire, is much more important than when you already have shelf upon shelf at home, taking up all the space you'd need for other things...

I'm quite sure this isn't the only reason - or one that many of those young readers would even give - but I interact with rather a lot of 15-20-year-olds in book fandoms on daily basis, and for many of those kids, reading for fun is something they really only discovered a few years ago, and books-as-physical-objects is still a major, new, shiny, wonderful thing for them.

I agree with your summation.

Being able to finally afford and buy books was a big deal to me when I was younger, since I had always been an avid reader since I learned to read. I can understand preferring the tactile aspect of reading, the enjoyment of book cover designs (they just don't have the same impact on e-readers), the ability to easily share books (and re-sell them).