16 Responses to “Evidence of publisher’s attitude about web”

1. Will Hindmarch says:
   February 4, 2009 at 3:38 am

   What a sad story. There’s a grain of truth to it, though. Would Amazon have gone out of business if there’d been any real overlap between book readers and Internet users?

   … waitaminute.

2. Tania says:
   February 4, 2009 at 4:09 am

   And no one said “You, out of the gene pool” to this person remarkably out of touch with reality?

   That’s the sort of remark you should lose your job over. Seriously. You can’t have someone that disconnected running a business unless you’re looking for it to fail.

3. Adam Israel says:
   February 4, 2009 at 4:24 am

   You know, I would have expected that 15 years ago, but in 2009? Shocking. Did any of these people catch a horse-drawn carriage on their way back to the farm after the meeting?

4. asylumletters says:
   February 4, 2009 at 6:49 am

   Which was followed by his brilliant remark, “Internet users aren’t book readers, so posting what I just said on your blog will generate.”
   He then clutched his Dayrunner, threw his head back, and belted out the heavily over used “Bwahahahaha.”

5. Charles Tan says:
   February 4, 2009 at 6:50 am

   I know there’s a divide between dead-tree users and eBook users but it’s not that kind of a divide. Obviously, some people (probably most people) are Internet users. And there’s definitely a demographic wherein what the publisher said was true. But I’d like to think the former market is big enough to put a line or two at the back of the book.

   On a side note, I’m greatly impressed at how Underland has embraced the web. =)

6. Lon says:
   February 4, 2009 at 8:29 am

   Someone needs to let F. Paul Wilson and James Patterson’s Maximum Ride publishers know this! All the money they are wasting on URL ink…

7. Steve Thorn says:
   February 4, 2009 at 8:46 am

   Yeah, Amazon is crying all the way to the bank about readers not being Internet users…

8. Ed Webb says:
   February 4, 2009 at 10:02 am

   Fascinating failblog fodder.

   Does this also mean internet readers aren’t book users?

9. Bill Ectric says:
   February 4, 2009 at 10:23 am

   I hesitate even to comment but I can’t hold my tongue. “Book readers aren’t internet users”?
   Not only is the statement obviously wrong – the exact opposite is true.

10. Jessica Reisman says:
    February 4, 2009 at 10:32 am

    Er. Wow. ::boggle::

11. C.D. Reimer says:
    February 4, 2009 at 10:52 am

    If the publisher had zero sales through Amazon, he might have a point. Although he should look at his sales department for a solution to that problem.

12. Bryan Russell says:
    February 4, 2009 at 11:27 am

    Hi,

    Missed the question period the other day, so I thought I’d just jump in here. Does Underland see itself growing into a general publisher or focusing on a niche market (or two)? Do you see Underland as publishing simply the best stuff you come across (an eclectic mix), or do you see an advantage in developing a sort of aesthetic for Underland books? Are there common threads you want to run through the different titles? I suppose part of this comes down to Indie Presses and whether the branding concept can apply. In this new Internet age of publishing, can a Press develop a following in the same sort of way as an author might?

    Thanks, and happy to have you here for a bit. My best,
    Bryan

13. Tim Lebbon says:
    February 4, 2009 at 12:13 pm

    Absolutely, you’ll never find me wasting my time on the net.

14. Seth Merlo says:
    February 4, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    Although the comment is obviously highly ignorant, I’d be interested to know what the reaction from others in that room was. Was there some sage head nodding in agreement, or were the other publishers in the room looking at each other with a ‘did he really just say what I think he said?’ expression on their faces? Basically, is this the dominant view amongst publishers?

15. Alex Carnegie says:
    February 4, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    I would say, in terms of certain genres at least, those book readers would be highly likely to be internet users.

    However I would say that many publishing houses’ internet presence, and especially the way that they use the internet to promote their authors (or rather they *don’t*) is quite woeful. I’d usually go to Wikipedia before a publisher’s site if I wanted to find information about an author – and they should be trying to make themselves a “first stop”

16. Seth Merlo says:
    February 5, 2009 at 2:23 am

    Agree with Alex. Even if publisher sites do have author info, its usually out of date. The other thing is, you can’t usually buy direct from most of the bigger houses, so you end up going to Amazon etc. anyway. If I was a publisher, I’d have some kind of ongoing program specific to my site that would ensure people kept coming back to it – exclusive interviews, freebies such as wallpapers, etc. It’s easy enough to do, but so few business (not even limited to just publishing) take advantage of the web.