A good read for authors. Leads us to where people can find our works. I notice Goodreads topped the list and just wish I knew how to get more out of it.
Read the full story @ http://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news ... ew-e-books
Where do You Hear about New e-Books?
Where do You Hear about New e-Books?
A good read for authors. Leads us to where people can find our works. I notice Goodreads topped the list and just wish I knew how to get more out of it.
Read the full story @ http://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news ... ew-e-books
Drop by Father Serra's Legacy http://msgdaleday.blogspot.com. Comments always eagerly awaited - but only if you find the item interesting enough to respond to.
Re: Where do You Hear about New e-Books?
A random, non-scientific survey with statistical anomalies deserves a healthy dose of skepticism. A survey that precludes results and begs the question -- uses the circular logic of a precluded claim assertion and presupposes its conclusions, which this one does -- is as useful as an off-the-cuff opinion and is an informal fallacy.
The foremost issue of the survey is the ballot selections where cherry-picked. "Other" choices, numerically significant, are not enumerated. Preselected options limited to expected results precludes results. The survey's methodology precludes its responses, like asking how often do you beat your children? Once a day? Twice weekly? Annually, whether they deserve a beating or not? Never? The question assumes responders beat their children, though allows the "never" escape option, and has no proposition or foundation.
The goodereader site is a self-promotion gig for the site's electronic publishing services and patently biased. Reason enough alone to question the survey results.
The numbers, too, to me, are fishy. Not that they are invented, that they skew toward Internet markets. Naturally, the survey's responders are Internet savvy and e-book savvy. A valid proposition, a control group, control selections, or all three would make the survey data progressively more reliable.
In any case, the survey expects only e-readers to respond, the number of responses was below a reliable sample size, and skews toward known quantities -- distribution outlets with a known reputation of being e-reader sources. Missing altogether are the categories of marketing practices each division represents: packaging (to mean content merit; ie, genre and quality of product *), advertising, publicity, promotion, and the one all-important and most elusive practice -- word-of-mouth buzz.
The survey and its results imply e-readers generally browse for reading selections and make fickle choices according to capricious whims. They are assumed to settle for a product, probably of inferior quality, because they settle for something, anything, without conscious discernment. A reliable e-reader survey would poll based upon a proposition that e-readers make informed choices, even if those choices are non-consciously informed.
The one marketing way that matters, proven and reliable, is to package (see above *) a narrative product such that readers not only earnestly seek the product, they generate abundant word-of-mouth buzz about the product. Discretionary, nonessential consumption demands any reading product stand above the fray.
The foremost issue of the survey is the ballot selections where cherry-picked. "Other" choices, numerically significant, are not enumerated. Preselected options limited to expected results precludes results. The survey's methodology precludes its responses, like asking how often do you beat your children? Once a day? Twice weekly? Annually, whether they deserve a beating or not? Never? The question assumes responders beat their children, though allows the "never" escape option, and has no proposition or foundation.
The goodereader site is a self-promotion gig for the site's electronic publishing services and patently biased. Reason enough alone to question the survey results.
The numbers, too, to me, are fishy. Not that they are invented, that they skew toward Internet markets. Naturally, the survey's responders are Internet savvy and e-book savvy. A valid proposition, a control group, control selections, or all three would make the survey data progressively more reliable.
In any case, the survey expects only e-readers to respond, the number of responses was below a reliable sample size, and skews toward known quantities -- distribution outlets with a known reputation of being e-reader sources. Missing altogether are the categories of marketing practices each division represents: packaging (to mean content merit; ie, genre and quality of product *), advertising, publicity, promotion, and the one all-important and most elusive practice -- word-of-mouth buzz.
The survey and its results imply e-readers generally browse for reading selections and make fickle choices according to capricious whims. They are assumed to settle for a product, probably of inferior quality, because they settle for something, anything, without conscious discernment. A reliable e-reader survey would poll based upon a proposition that e-readers make informed choices, even if those choices are non-consciously informed.
The one marketing way that matters, proven and reliable, is to package (see above *) a narrative product such that readers not only earnestly seek the product, they generate abundant word-of-mouth buzz about the product. Discretionary, nonessential consumption demands any reading product stand above the fray.
Spread the love of written word.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests