I just had a horrible, horrible thought. What if books had advertising in them? Not product placement in the story like "quoth the raven, eat at Burger King", but real honest-to-goodness ads every three or four pages, just like in magazines. Publishers could print two versions of every title:
1. A normal version of the book at the current regular price; let's say $36 for a hardcover.
2. A version with advertising that costs, oh, 50-75% less than the normal version. That same hardcover would cost $9-18. The ad version of the same book in paperback might go for only $4.50.
Supported by advertising, publically available texts like Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities, or Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels could be free. Free books!
Financial issues aside, I believe the world is a better place without advertising absolutely everywhere. But if advertising makes books more affordable -- and in some cases absolutely free -- and therefore accessible to more people, it's hard to argue that it wouldn't be a good idea.
Of course even without being free, I wouldn't mind seeing books cheaper due to advertising. I'm thinking of the technical books especially.
I'd buy more reference manuals from someone like O'Reilly because they're the type of books where I grab it, look something up, and then put it on the shelf more than I pick it up and read chapters at a time.
Besides, you could always cut a piece of white paper the same size as the ad and glue it right on top of it, it would then ge a great place to write your notes!
if you have a real desire to read, you can do it on the cheap if needed - if you have a strong desire to collect, you'll probably steer clear of the ad version just like collectors steer clear of book club versions.
hell, why shouldn't publishers charge the same prices they do now, AND put the ads in the books - why bother with the inexpensive versions at all - seems to be working for the movie theaters; the more ads i watch before a flick has no effect on the retarded price i pay for the movie. the no ad version could be the "collectors editon" - $50 instead of the ad filled $36.
I'm kinda digging the product placement angle. Pepsi should do their own versions of the classics, with Huckleberry Finn enjoying a refreshing Pepsi One while he wolfs down a delicious Burrito Supreme and Border Friz-eyes from the Bell. They could distribute the books to middle schools for free!
Before you get offended, remember that that's what food companies do already. For instance, Kraft will do a food pyramid chart with all of their products listed as examples, then send these posters to poverty-stricken home economics classrooms around the country. It's very common, why not books as well?
It sort of freaked me out, to be honest.
Here's the Sanka ad if anyone's curious:
http://missanthropy.org/misc/sanka.gif
That said, I do kind of like the idea of free/ad subsidized books. I'm a huge reader, I'll take money out of the grocery budget to buy a book if I can't stand being on the library wait list for it. But ultimately, I'd rather have the libraries themselves be ad-supported, and leave the books out of it.
They would then look for the books that would satisfy both these criteria. This may not be dramatically different from the problem we have today with good literature getting published, but in my opinion, it would probably exacerbate it.
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. But it better times still with Fritos® brand corn chips!"
"There she blows!- there she blows! A hump like a new Volkswagen Jetta®! It is Moby-Dick!"
Besides, old ads are often amusing. Due to that very ephemeral nature, rarely will you find ads from decades past. It's great fun to see what was once considered a good ad campaign, and how odd it looks given today's context.
Advertisers only care about the immediate period impact -- maybe a month or so, maximum. After that, they're on to a new campaign and any returns on those book ads certainly aren't going to be credited to the agency/marketing department responsible. Worse yet, books are printed in runs, so you could have your ad being published "new" for a year or two after your placement. That would restrict the ads to only the most generic "branding" campaigns.
Book publishers won't see it as economic. Figure you're going to get $10 cpm, max. That's $0.01 cents per ad -- probably almost as much as printing a four-color, full-bleed, laquered, book quality plate into the book would cost. How many ads in a book? Magazines aside (which I would postulate sometimes are bought for the ads), figure you could have maybe a double ad every 16 page folio. For a 320 page hardcover, that's what, 20 or 40 ads? Even optimistically we're talking $0.40 per book.
Would you take the version with ads to save maybe $0.25? (I'm assuming the publishers would want some profit from ad revenue.)
I thought about that as I wrote the post, but many books have short shelf lives. They are published, on the shelf for a few months, and then they're gone.
Also, advertisers would have to think about advertising that would be appropriate for media that may be utilized over a period of months or years. An ad for the new Toyota FastCar might not work so well, but a general branding ad for Toyota might.
I for one don't resent commercial advertising or think of it as "evil." It's human to create things (whether it's art or a service or a product) and to want others to see or buy or pay attention. I also think that a lot of art we now revere was really just advertising for Jesus.
Technical books must be some of the worst excesses of the publishing industry: often bloated and go out of date quickly. Do any tech publishers use recycled paper? How many of those books are recycled? Who knows.
imagine all the wasted paper on advertising. imagine all the additional destruction of the environment. imagine the pain in my ass, as a new york resident, getting bombarded with even MORE advertising than i do already. honestly, it's so bad i can't even use a public restroom without an ad staring me in the face.
for free books, there's a much better option - one that's a little less harmful to the environment. In most places, library cards are free.
In a magazine, you read through a shared space - many authors. In a book, you're completely in the author's domain, so anything extraneous is going to point right back at them. Guilt by association.
As an example: What ad would fit in a William Gibson book? (I would think he'd fight it)
"In September 2001 the novelist Fay Weldon wrote what was, certainly at the time, the world's first sponsored novel. "
Eh? So what about all those novelization-of-the-movie books, then? The Buffy the Vampire Slayer novels, the endless Star Trek novels, the TSR book-shaped-objects, the really atrocious Lord of the Rings novelizations by that hack J.R.R. Tolkien (good god, couldn't they have found a better writer? And what's up with Aragorn breaking into song every five pages?).
Anyway, books-as-advertisements have sort of already happened if you look at it from that angle, in that feeding the fires of the fans makes them keep coming back for more. Just sayin'.
Movies already have corporate sponsors. BMW had high profile place in a James Bond movie, Austin Powers highlighted Jaguar, etc.
Just like with television advertising, you could target your ads to certain genres in order to maximize ad conversion.
Just think of the popularity of, for instance, a certain shoe brand if people heard about it in Harry Potter!
There are definitely lots of good reasons not to do advertising on a societal level and this is definitely one of them. I feel bad everytime I see an issue of Vogue, bloated with ads, all that paper and ink used just because Gucci decides they want to. I don't subscribe to magazines partially because of this...I feel really guilty when I don't read them and end up wasting all that paper.
If you consider writing art (which I think many many writers do), placing an ad at a chapter break could be considered equivalent to slapping a sizeable corporate logo in the corner of a finished painting.
Unfortunately, I think we may be headed toward advertising in books without a price break. We get commercials at movies in the theatre and on DVD, and we're not paying any less for those.
The argument that advertising is somehow free or makes things "free" is fallacious. Is your beloved Burger King simply giving away $340 million every year on advertising? No, the cost is passed on to consumers, which makes products cost more, not less.
I'd hate for advertising to move onto books; I'd be willing to pay, say, double the cost for an ads-free book and keep the reading experience intact. It's one of the few places I can still escape from branding and advertising, at least for a while.
European-style mediatheques would be nice, too.
What does work? Business models where the advertising income is supplemental. Take magazines, for example. I still have to buy a magazine with ads. They don't just give it to me because it has advertisements. I pay to watch The Cartoon Network, even though it has ads. And we all watch ads when we go to the movies. Advertising alone doesn't support these things. It merely supplements it.
Hell, I get angry every time I see someone wearing a t-shirt that says "NIKE" on it across the front, or with a Pokemon character on it, or a skateboard logo or something like that. The way I see it, NIKE should pay me to walk around town wearing an advertisement for them. Not the other way around!
Ho, ho, funny guy. A subscription to Wired is $12/yr and ~$4 at the news stand. If there weren't any ads, it would be, what, $10, $20 a copy?
Books are sacred. Besides, we have more than enough opportunities to process advertising elsewhere.
Media companies are getting so large it's becoming way too easy for them to push advertising promoting their other owned interests.
http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html
This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.

