The article was titled: Don’t Burn your Book—Print Is Here to Stay. With the subtitle: The e-book had its moment, but sales are slowing. It cited a Pew survey, but when I looked it up, this was their headline: E-book Reading Jumps; Print Book Reading Declines.
It seemed the WSJ was stating the exact opposite of what the study was saying. The contradiction made me curious, so I kept reading, and the more I compared the two, the more puzzled I became.
The WSJ story says:
"How attached are Americans to old-fashioned books? Just look at the results of a Pew Research Center survey released last month. The report showed that the percentage of adults who have read an e-book rose modestly over the past year, from 16% to 23%."And here’s what that Pew study actually says:
"The population of e-book readers is growing. In the past year, the number of those who read e-books increased from 16% of all Americans ages 16 and older to 23%. At the same time, the number of those who read printed books in the previous 12 months fell from 72% of the population ages 16 and older to 67%"The WSJ goes on to say:
"A 2012 survey by Bowker Market Research revealed that just 16% of Americans have actually purchased an e-book and that a whopping 59% say they have "no interest" in buying one."That one startled me. I’d never heard such a thing. Then I looked closer and realized they were talking about all Americans. Since most people in this country don’t buy books in general, it would make sense that more than half would have no interest in buying an e-book. But it would seem that if they’d asked actual readers that question, those results might not be quite-so-whopping. So in reality, these numbers are pretty meaningless.
And there was this:
"Purchases of e-readers are actually shrinking, as consumers opt instead for multipurpose tablets. It may be that e-books, rather than replacing printed books, will ultimately serve a role more like that of audio books—a complement to traditional reading, not a substitute."Does the WSJ not realize that those "multipurpose tablets" actually have e-readers built into them? It would be kind of like saying, “Nobody buys tomatoes anymore, but salads are on the rise.”
It’s not the first time I’ve seen a story like this with a distinct bias against the e-book industry. I remember reading one recently (also in the WSJ) that spoke of Amazon’s “Struggle to crack publishing”. It painted a dismal picture by citing their poor sales. The only problem was, their theory was based solely on Amazon’s print book revenue, completely ignoring their Kindle sales, which are outselling the former. Also overlooked was the fact that many brick-and-mortar bookstores refuse to carry Amazon titles.
I’ve read articles from other traditional print media publications that appear to have the same slant, and it made me wonder why so many of them seem anti-e-book.
One popular theory is that these ostensibly unbalanced representations are fueled by Amazon’s threat over the marketplace. Many retailers have reacted in a similar manner. Target and Walmart announced they would no longer sell the Kindle e-readers in their stores (although they continue to carry devices from other companies such as Barnes & Noble's Nook). A New York Times article states that Target Executives sent out a memo to their vendors stating:
"What we aren’t willing to do is let online-only retailers use our brick-and-mortar stores as a showroom for their products and undercut our prices.”Is it possible an industry that's struggling to survive in the digital age might be reacting in much the same manner? Of course, I don’t claim to know the answer. I can only guess.
What do you think?
Excellent post. I read that article too. and it made me laugh. First, WSJ is a conservative newspaper, and conservatives, by definition, are slow to adopt change. Second, just because half of all people have no interest in ebooks today, doesn't mean much. Ten years ago, half (or more) of all people had no interest in cell phones, and today nearly everyone owns one. And last, ebook sales are not declining. Their growth is slowing. A very different scenario. And no one expected the ebook market to double every year forever.
ReplyDeleteI guess it shouldn't surprise me that as an "award-winning journalist" you would have have such a biased opinion about what conservatives are by definition.
DeleteAnonymous: I don't think LJ was making a reference to or criticizing conservative people--more, she was making an observation about the conservative press. I think there's a distinguishable difference.
DeleteOut of curiosity, I checked the WSJ app in the Kindle Store. It has 2.3 out of 5 starts with well over 400 reviews.
ReplyDeleteThink that might have something to do with their attitude?
Interesting, Peg. I think it certainly doesn't help their attitude, or at the very least, depending on the complaints, may demonstrate a lack of concern about their digital presence.
ReplyDeleteGood point, LJ. The article seems to be predicting doom for a product that's simply leveling out after an unusually high accelerated growth. 16-23% is still a very healthy leap. Assuming this means readers are going back to paper is beyond unreasonable, if not irresponsible
Sellers: If being against all the stuff that Democrats are proposing is being a conservative, or a supporter of Ron and Rand Paul makes me a conservative, then why do you say we are slow to adopt new technology? I had the first Kindle on the second shipment, I drive a Prius and have since 2003 and I have 150 aircraft carrier landings. That's not conservative, it is early adopter of technology.
ReplyDeleteAl, thanks for commenting. I made a general statement that clearly doesn't apply to everyone. And I said "slow to adopt change" not "slow to adopt technology." You make a good point though. My mother is a liberal and still uses a VCR because she hates technology changes. :)
ReplyDeleteThose darn kids and their newfangled music/technology. Horseless buggies are the devil's spawn. Rock and roll will fade. E-books are a fad. In ten years, I'm sure WSJ will find a way to spin today's article to mean that they knew the ebook revolution was coming, all along.
ReplyDeleteThanks for an excellent example of reading critically, checking the sources, and analyzing the results, Drew! Interesting and informative.
ReplyDeleteWorking in a software company, sustaining 100% growth (doubling) year over year over year is, well, almost impossible. I might be wrong, but I think most companies are thrilled with growth and outstrips inflation and would kill for 23% growth from the previous year.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like every time a new thing comes along, it's dismissed as a "fad," be it cell phones, rock-n-roll, or ebooks. Drives me crazy.
As for conservatives, I'm reminded of the song from the play/movie 1776 - Those Cool, Conservative Men. By definition, conservatives are hesitant to downright resistant to change. That's only bad when taken to extremes (like so much in life).
You cited one newspaper: the Wall Street Journal. How does this equate to "the print media" as an industry?
ReplyDeleteThis is the statement from the WSJ that drives me crazy:
ReplyDelete"What's more, the Association of American Publishers reported that the annual growth rate for e-book sales fell abruptly during 2012, to about 34%. That's still a healthy clip, but it is a sharp decline from the triple-digit growth rates of the preceding four years."
The growth rate always declines when things, uh … grow! You're calculating off an ever larger base, so the rate of growth declines! Once a market starts to mature, you never see triple-digit growth rates. *bangs head on spreadsheet*
Mary & Cathryn: good points. It seems a lot of relevant factors were ignored here.
ReplyDeleteHi, Ramona. I did mention that I've seen stories in other print media publications with a similar slant (and I see them a lot). I was actually just using the WSJ as an example to illustrate.
Love this line: “Nobody buys tomatoes anymore, but salads are on the rise.”
ReplyDeleteVery interesting. I don't quite know what their objective is with their incredible slant on the portrayal of the numbers. It's kind of mind-boggling when you think about it. What was the writer of that article thinking?
ReplyDeleteOne of the main problems remains is that many WSJ readers won't be as critical and swallow the reporting for fair and unbiased.
ReplyDeleteThat was my concern as well, Amsterdam. Most people won't look up the actual study as I did and will take the information at face value--which, as a former journalist, is why unbalanced reporting drives me absolutely insane.
ReplyDeleteAs a teacher (and practitioner) of rhetoric, I was glad to read your analysis of the WSJ article. (Hey, namesake!) It's a good example of how wording ("How attached are Americans to old-fashioned books?...rose modestly" vs. "The population ... is growing." Same facts, different slant. A different reading aimed at producing a specific result. That's why critical reading and critical thinking are so important. Of course, the WSJ is not alone in the practice. Still, the more aggressively a perspective is being pushed, the more implications and connotations are pre-planned and pre-planted. (Can that be done?) There's bad bad rhetoric - like bad acting with a mediocre script - as well as bad good rhetoric - an agenda cleverly done, as here - like weak acting with a decent script.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to use this in class (if I was still teaching freshman comp, I would), I'd ask the students to deconstruct this: what's the WSJ's agenda? Why do they care and why are they making it an either-or false dilemma? Perhaps, indeed, the answer lies in the relative failure of the WSJ's online presence, or its app.
I think there's another reason, and it has to do with "conservative" in a business rather than political sense: e-books, long-tail, independent publishing, disturb the pattern, disrupt the model. They're unpredictable. Jane Friedman had a blog entry about e-books being mainly genre, and mainly for readers of of the fill-a-grocery-bag-a-week-at-a-used-book-story-and-trade-it-in-next-week mind-set and spit-it-out-in-3-months-never-mind-plot-or-character writers. We've seen that criticism before, of course.
All we can do is master the craft, or, as Ursula K. LeGuin puts it, steer the craft, and discover the harbors and bays and rivers of readers, out there waiting. Thanks!!!
Nice work consulting the Pew study to show how the results could just as easily be interpreted in a positive way. I think journalists are under a lot of pressure to come up with provocative stories that puncture the conventional wisdom. Maybe this writer stretched a little too far in suggesting that the much vaunted ebook revolution is on the wane. I'd be surprised if the motivation was to denigrate ebooks. More likely the goal was to provoke.
ReplyDeletehttp://slokeclarke.wordpress.com
The print media has been slow to adapt/adopt to the digital world and is suffering as a result. Their attitude and (not so covert) approach is all too typical in the media (and large corporations, in general), covertly attack their perceived enemies--childish, but typical.
ReplyDeleteDon't kid yourself. Money comes first and foremost, anything goes when it comes to the Corporate Godfathers.
One possible reason for the WSJ's slant on the matter is that it's owned by the very conservative Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which also owns HarperCollins book publishing. Though Harper offers at least some of their titles in electronic formats, it's reasonable to assume they want to move more of their print books because they're costlier to produce.
ReplyDeleteGreat article, Andrew, on WSJ's article. I enjoyed many thoughtful comments here. I think Barry Ergang hit it on the head: newspapers, including WSJ, and publishers like HarperCollins (Rupert Murdoch's company owns both) are suffering because of digital competition. The surprising thing is that business-savvy WSJ and Murdoch would denigrate digital publishing instead of trying to find creative ways to hop on the profitable bandwagon.
DeleteI agree that "conservative" people (not speaking politically, but socially) are slower to adapt to changed ways of doing things. As a retiree, I am in contact with many who still want to read a newspaper printed on paper, and a book printed on paper. They also quite often eschew such technologies as cell phones and are not sure about using their computers for anything other than email. Heck, some of them still want film in their cameras!
ReplyDeleteHmmm, I actually think that both studies seem to be finding the same thing. First of all, sales of dedicated e-readers have slowed--I don't think that's in dispute. Yes, it's because people seem to prefer multi-use tablets, on which they'll do some of their reading as well as gaming, searching, etc. But investing so much in hardware (Kindle or Nook) does seem--arguably--to have been the wrong way to go versus creating a drop-in reading app.
ReplyDeleteBut independent bookstores had a sharp uptick this last year, and although some customers bought books for their Kobu devices, most of that was print. I do suspect--although I have my own inevitable bias--that people will continue to read in print and digitally, without one replacing the other.
Thanks for widening the discussion.
I was looking for some new techniques about printing press during that search i got your post its really interesting.
ReplyDelete