- Posted by Johanna on January 20, 2008 at 11:01 am
- Category: LinkBlogging
It doesn’t stake out a new position or provide any explanation for the informally existing position that isn’t already widely known among the people to whom it’s directed…. No one owes any specific market fealty. Adopting the position paper would almost certainly have a drastic effect on certain publishers’ bottom line, if their public rhetoric is to be believed, for nothing in the way of concrete reward by a neglectful, sometimes disdainful retailing community.
Spurgeon goes on to propose one potential solution:
… that companies declare or otherwise communicate their intention to sell a book in other channels, or ahead of a drop date, so that orders could be adjusted if someone really thinks advance availability is going to cost them sales.
In a later post, Brian Hibbs responds and Spurgeon answers back, pointing out that at this point, without evidence all we have is dueling assumptions.
You guys need to step it up and provide better evidence than anecdotes. If nothing else, the publishers you’re trying to reach have anecdotes of their own. If this enterprise is really damaging, it shouldn’t be hard to find evidence as to how much.
Spurgeon goes on to make an excellent summation of the discussion to date:
The DM system isn’t like any other system, and you can’t make things equal by shooting the legs off of other system. You’re working a different system with specific advantages and disadvantages. Clearly what you’re asking for is that someone abandon a type of sale in favor of another type of sale that benefits you. Or, more accurately, the faint promise of a sale that benefits you.