Thursday, March 08, 2007

Since you ask ...

... Book reviews and ad revenues. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)

" Perhaps Mr. Wilson may elaborate on his brief suggestion in the WSJ," Jerome Weeks asks.

Well, I'll try. Not long ago, The Inquirer's publisher, Brian Tierney, asked staffers to send him any ideas we might have for revenue enhancement. The Inquirer, being privately held, is no longer subject to pressure from Wall Street, but it does have its own set of economic constraints - banks, for instance.
My reasoning was simply that, as newspapers around the country cut back on book reviews, a sort of gap is opened. Just because your local newspaper doesn't publish reviews doesn't mean that people don't want to read them. People like to read reviews, period - book reviews. movies reviews, music reviews. So, I figured, why not come up with a review section that could be sold to papers in various cities, the way that tabloid Parade is, only using POD technology: Papers that subscribed could print what they want, and provision could be made for the inclusion of reviews of books by local authors. If enough papers subscribed, the cost of the reviews might well be covered , and I would suspect that publishers would be interested in pumping some ad revenue into a book review section appearing simultaneously in cities all over the country.
But Jerome is right that a book section doesn't need to depend exclusively - or even principally - on ad revenue from publishers. Bookstores - both chains and independents - are poential advertisers. And what about Levanger. What about travel agencies and literary tours? Wgat about theater packages? Not a bad place to advertise laptops, either.
The largest segment of the population in this country is over 40 and it has the largest disposable income in history, income it doesn't have to ask Mom and Dad about spending.
And yes, I do think such a print section would have to have an online component that is genuinely cutting edge, greatly supplementing the print version, in fact.
This is all off the top of my head of course and I am no business person. There may be all kinds of sound business reasons working against it - though business people I have mentioned it to have all told me they thought it was a great idea.

2 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:37 AM

    The only problem I can see with this terrific idea is that you will inevitably be asked to create and edit it yourself -- as if you aren't already working hard enough. Not my problem, of course! I can sit back and enjoy the sweat of your brow.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous5:00 PM

    There is a negative for reviewers, however: There are dozens of us across the U.S., but only a few of us are going to land pieces in this weekly section since there will now be no reviews of the same book in dif. papers that take the supplement. (Actually, that's another small problem: Right now, I might love a novel in a Phila. Inquirer review, whereas a reviewer at the Chicago Tribune might abhor the same book. This supplement you're suggesting would have to allow some multiple reviews of the same book to account for different opinions, but would that be boring to readers? No se.)

    I do think, however, it's a great idea overall. Finally advertising depts. might spend some time rustling up ads for a book section. They sure don't seem to bother now, though the big chain bookstores -- among others -- seem like goldmines from an advertising standpoint.

    ReplyDelete