On the plane on the way back from Vietnam, I was reading this article about how bookstores are preferable to shopping for books online[1] when I ran across this quote from David Sedaris:
One thing about English-language bookstores in the age of Amazon is that it assumes that everybody has the Internet. I don't. I've never seen the Internet. I've never ordered a book on it, and I wouldn't really want to"
This seems almost impossible and might even be a joke, but it would go a long way in explaining how he gets so much work done. He's got continuous complete attention while the rest of us have only partial.
[1] Which article was not very convincing since it included this passage:
[Odile Hellier, owner of the Village Voice bookstore in Paris] said that she thinks the act of buying books in a store rather than online is essential to the health of our culture.
"My fear is that while the machine society that we live in is very functional, very practical, and allows for a certain communication, it is a linear communication that closes the mind," she said.
She said that although Internet sites perform many of the functions of a bookstore - recommending similar books or passing on personal impressions of a book - nothing equals the kind of discovery possible when visiting a store and scanning tables covered with a professional staff's latest hand-picked selection.
I always chuckle when someone (usually grinding an axe) describes the web as so flat and with little social aspect. I love bookstores, but in many ways, shopping for books online is superior.
I got an email this morning from a kottke.org reader, Meghann Marco. She's an author and struggling to get her book out into the hands of people who might be interested in reading it. To that end, she asked her publisher, Simon & Schuster, to put her book up on Google Print so it could be found, and they refused. Now they're suing Google over Google Print, claiming copyright infringement. Meghann is not too happy with this development:
Kinda sucks for me, because not that many people know about my book and this might help them find out about it. I fail to see what the harm is in Google indexing a book and helping people find it. Anyone can read my book for free by going to the library anyway.
In case you guys haven't noticed, books don't have marketing like TV and Movies do. There are no commercials for books, this website isn't produced by my publisher. Books are driven by word of mouth. A book that doesn't get good word of mouth will fail and go out of print.
Personally, I hope that won't happen to my book, but there is a chance that it will. I think the majority of authors would benefit from something like Google Print.
She has also sent a letter of support to Google which includes this great anecdote:
Someone asked me recently, "Meghann, how can you say you don't mind people reading parts of your book for free? What if someone xeroxed your book and was handing it out for free on street corners?"
I replied, "Well, it seems to be working for Jesus."
And here's an excerpt of the email that Meghann sent me (edited very slightly):
I'm a book author. My publisher is suing Google Print and that bothers me. I'd asked for my book to be included, because gosh it's so hard to get people to read a book.
Getting people to read a book is like putting a cat in a box. Especially for someone like me, who was an intern when she got her book deal. It's not like I have money for groceries, let alone a publicist.
I feel like I'm yelling and no one is listening. Being an author can really suck sometimes. For all I know speaking up is going to get me blacklisted and no one will ever want to publish another one of my books again. I hope not though.
[My book is] called 'Field Guide to the Apocalypse' It's very funny and doesn't suck. I worked really hard on it. It would be nice if people read it before it went out of print.
As Tim O'Reilly, Eric Schmidt, and Google have argued, I think these lawsuits against Google are a stupid (and legally untenable) move on the part of the publishing industry. I know a fair number of kottke.org readers have published books...what's your take on the situation? Does Google Print (as well as Amazon "Search Inside the Book" feature) hurt or help you as an author? Do you want your publishing company suing Google on your behalf?
A reader inquires:
When the tsunami struck Asia last year, Amazon.com was quick to post a donation link on its front page. Don't you think they should do the same for the victims of Katrina? How about using that platform of yours to apply some leverage to Jeff and the crew to get a link up there?
Amazon's lack of a donation link was noted in our household this morning as well. How about it, Amazon? (thx scott)
In the meantime, you can donate directly to the Red Cross (the site seems a little slow right now, so be patient).
Update: Please stop emailing me about the tsunami/Katrina comparison thing. I don't wish to debate the relative scale of natural disasters or who deserves more attention and aid when bad stuff happens. Individuals and corporations alike need to determine who they wish to aid on their own terms. In the past, Amazon has been a place to go to give aid...it's the first place I thought of going when I heard of the escalating problems in the Gulf states (and I don't think I'm alone here) because if they had a donation mechanism, it would be a fast link and easy for people to donate. That Amazon has chosen to not to set up a donation mechanism in this case is their choice and I certainly don't fault them for it.
Update #2: InternetWeek is reporting that Amazon has decided not to add a donation mechanism to their site. (thx, julio)
Update #3: Amazon now has a donation link on the front page which goes to this donation page. (thx to several who wrote in, including those at Amazon.)
Sometime in the last 6-9 months (it's been that long since I last looked at my account), Amazon changed their policy on placing an upper limit on the amount an associate can earn on big ticket items:
Only personal computers (both desktops and laptops) have referral fees capped at $25. No other product lines have their referral fees capped.
Previously, the most you could earn if a referral was $10, even if the item cost $3000 and the referral rate was 5%. Sometime in the last month and a half, someone used my associates code to purchase a printer for close to $600 and gave me $28 for "selling" that printer for them. I don't link to Amazon as much as I used to (my referrals and revenue have been flat several quarters despite increasing site traffic), but the associates must be pretty happy with this change, particularly those that can move big ticket items on a regular basis. For the right blog or site, the revenue generated by putting up Amazon ads featuring more expensive items might compare favorably to using AdSense or the like.
So, if you've been waiting to buy that Segway, a book on Bhutan, a 65" plasma TV, or a 5-carat diamond, you know what to do. *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*
There's a doozy of an "exposé" about the company behind 43 Things, Robot Co-op, in Salon. The article's author asserts that because 1) Amazon.com is an investor, 2) they didn't want anyone to know about it at the present time, and 3) the company's employees were a bit "oh shit, how did you know that?" panicky when asked about the deal, that Robot Co-op is nothing but a thin cover for some nefarious activity on the part of Amazon to mine the web's hopes and dreams.
If you take your tin foil hat off for a few minutes, you might realize that it's probably not as bad as all that.
1) If Amazon wanted to keep this quiet, why the company web site with a weblog on the front page detailing what the company is up to? Post after post of intentional misdirection? (Oop, hang on....hey honey, where's my razor?)
2) The front page of the site links to the personal web sites of all the employees that have them. Again, pretty open for such a supposedly stealthy undertaking. (Unless all those employees and their sites are fake!)
3) Did I mention that Amazon is doing a horrible job keeping this whole thing quiet? You'd think that Erik, Josh, and Amazon's PR department would have been a little more prepared and in sync in the event that someone found out about their little secret. "Nobody's supposed to know that" is obviously not what you say when a reporter calls you about a company's investor unless you're truly unprepared.
4) What company ever wants their business details to go public before they are ready to make an announcement? Answer: no company whatsoever. Since when is waiting to announce an investment an attempt to cover something up?
5) Does funding a company mean that the funder gets access to all the fundee's data? Until we know the terms of the deal, it's just idle speculation.
6) The article says, "The people posting their hopes, dreams and aspirations to 43 Things probably don't realize that they're effectively whispering them in the ear of the Web's biggest retailer, a multibillion-dollar, publicly traded company." Perhaps Salon doesn't realize that the people posting their hopes and dreams to 43 Things are effectively whispering them to the whole world because -- if you'll forgive me channeling Dooce here -- ALL OF THAT INFORMATION IS PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE ON THEIR WEB SITE. Thousands of hopes and dreams, free for the taking.
I agree that it's important to ask questions about how closely Amazon is involved with 43 Things, their data sharing policy, and future plans between the two companies (I could see Amazon acquiring 43 Things, even before news of the investment came out...I mean, those guys all worked at Amazon and are working on stuff that Amazon would be interested it), but it just doesn't make sense at this point to assume that Amazon is orchestrating 43 Things from their corporate HQ.
See also:
- A less alarmist article on news.com
- Robot Co-op's announcement of the Amazon investment
- Robot Co-op on how the company came about (good stuff in the comments)
If you're logged into Amazon and visit the front page, you're presented with your Plog, or personalized blog. Basically, The Great and Powerful Amazon looks at what you've purchased, looked at, and rated and posts links to other items you might find interesting. It's the same recommendations they've always given people, only more timely (this DVD is out today, we thought you might like to know because you liked this other movie) and in easily digestable chunks. Blog as interface; the content exists and this is just another way of presenting it.
Update: Matt says that he's not seeing his Plog. Maybe they're only testing it for some people, so you may not see it when you hit Amazon's page.
The first line of the news.com article on A9 says that "Amazon.com has quietly launched a test version of its long-awaited search engine" (emphasis mine). Curious. I wonder if news.com felt slighted at the way A9 chose to initially publicize the site, breaking the story via a weblog instead of a traditional media outlet (like, say, news.com) and the "quietly launched" is a displeased rejoinder to the strategy. Judging from the response so far (233 news stories on Google News, A9-related posts hold the top 3 spots on Blogdex, a very active thread on Battelle's site, a post on Slashdot, an article at Search Engine Watch, and it hasn't been 24 hours yet), the launch wasn't that quiet.
A9, a new search service from Amazon, has launched in beta. Amazon chose to break the story through John Battelle so that, in his words, "[the news would] move from the blogosphere out, as opposed the WSJ in". Battelle's got some good thoughts on it in his post. They're using Google's search results, display book search results alongside, have a search toolbar, keeps track of your past search results and what you've visited already, and more. Toolbar includes a diary feature with which you can annotate any Web page you visit (a la E-Quill). My first thought: how about some contrast? The cream background and gray text ain't working for me.
A9 has a generic version of their search service that doesn't track you via cookies or use your data in their analysis.
Steven has whipped up a Firefox search plugin for A9.
Erik Benson, an Amazon employee, has some thoughts on A9.
John Battelle's interview with Udi Manber, head honcho at A9, is now up at Business 2.0 and he has more thoughts on A9 on his site, including:
As an aside, I have to say the idea of a complete, lifetime record of a person's searches and browsing history - which by the way that person can edit - is an extraordinary concept. It's taking the idea of the database of intentions to the utmost granular level of history - the individual. What, I wonder, happens to a person's search history when they die? Do they have a right to own it? Does it get passed down as a keepsake to his or her children?
Looks like Google branching out into searching more than just web sites. The Google Print FAQ says they're experimenting with "publications" (books? magazines?):
Google's mission is to provide access to all the world's information and make it universally useful and accessible. It turns out that not all the world's information is already on the Internet, so Google has been experimenting with a number of publishers to test their content online. During this trial, publishers' content is hosted by Google and is ranked in our search results according to the same technology we use to evaluate websites.
Google Print isn't referenced anywhere else on their web site so it's unclear as to whether it's a planned beta, an ongoing effort, or already over, but it sounds like an effort to counter Amazon's full-text book search efforts.
Update: Reader Xavier writes that Google Print is still working. A search for "1,000 knock knock jokes for kids" (with the results restricted to the print.google.com domain) yields this page for the book. A search for a common word like "the" reveals that around 8000 books are available, including Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring, David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest, Crime and Punishment, and Kurzweil's The Age of Spiritual Machines.
Amazon's New York City Purchase Circle reveals what New Yorkers are interested in: kids, chocolate, Excel, jazz, Hotel Costes, Sex and the City, Christopher Guest, Robert DeNiro, Stephen Sondheim, Sesame Street, Tivo, and MP3 players.
(You may want to skip this one if you're not an Amazon Associate.)
I've noticed lately that when I browse items at Amazon, the URLs now take one of two forms:
http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684868768/
http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684868768/
The former URL style has been around for some time, but the latter is relatively new. If you're an Amazon Associate, the proper way of linking to an individual item (per their linking guide) is to append your Associate code (mine is "0sil8") to the first URL style, like so:
http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684868768/0sil8
But if you run across an item at Amazon with the second type of URL, this won't work:
http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684868768/0sil8
If you've linked to items using that style of URL (something I've seen on several sites), check your reports at Amazon...you'll find that you're not getting any Associates clickthroughs or credit for those purchases. Meg has linked to items in this incorrect fashion and has received no clickthoughs or credit for any of those sales. There's no documentation on the Associates site that says anything about how to properly link to an item using the second style, so the solution is to modify your links to the first URL style if you have it wrong.
I'm not sure why Amazon introduced the second URL style to their site. The strange thing is that their appearance is inconsistant. Sometimes a search result will return the first style and sometimes the second...and then the style will switch in the middle of a browsing session. I hope that Amazon is not doing this intentionally to thwart some Associates linkers and that they will add documentation to their site concerning the appropriate linking method for the second URL style.
p.s. I'm going to get mail about this, so I'd better mention it. Several Associates are using the following linking style to get around the "You may also be interested in these items..." page that Amazon throws at you when using a link of the first style:
http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684868768/ref=nosim/0sil8
instead of:
http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684868768/0sil8
That way, you land on the page you linked to, rather than the page of recommendations, and have a better chance of getting the full 15% commission on the item (the commission falls to 5% if the person clicks on anything other than the "Add to cart" button on the initial page).
The "ref=nosim" links apparently work correctly, although they are undocumented on the Associates site. However, it's unclear as to whether you make more money from using them. You're more likely to make that 15%, but you might make more in the aggregate from the recommended items you get using the first method. That is, the number of people looking to buy that item right away (say, 2 people counted at 15% apiece for a $15 item for a total of $4.50) might be offset by the number of people looking to browse and then buy (10 people counted at 5% apiece for a $15 item for a total of $7.50). The reports for my site at Amazon show that people who click through seem to browse and then buy rather than buy directly...I just need to get them into the store and Amazon will take care of the rest.
While at Amazon just now, I noticed this curious recommendation related to one of their products:
Customers who wear clothes also shop for:
· Clean Underwear from Amazon's Target Store
· Ladybug Rain Boots from Amazon's Nordstrom Store
· Arm Warmers from Amazon's Urban Outfitters Store
· Cheetah Print Slippers from Amazon's Old Navy Store
No word on what naked customers shop for.
Here's a idea for an easy revenue stream for Google: replace the "I'm feeling lucky" button with a "Search Amazon.com" button. When a user clicks that button, it takes them to the Amazon search results page. Extrapolating from what my site earns me in Associates fees each quarter, Google would stand to make several hundred thousand dollars a quarter without devoting any people or energy into extra development. Since the button would have such prominent and permanent placement on the site in comparison to the Amazon links on kottke.org, the amount would probably be much higher, maybe a million a month or so.
Of course, what's more likely is that Google will create something akin to Amazon Light at shop.google.com or something, putting Amazon's database into Google's user experience. Google would probably be just as clever as Amazon in offering shoppers useful ways to browse merchandise...and they wouldn't have to deal with the order fulfillment or any of the other stuff. They'd just have to sit back and collect the Associates fees.
Here's some positive fallout from O'Reilly's Emerging Tech Conference: Amazon is now offering a Web services interface to their data. Jeff Bezos attended the conference and was apparently listening quite closely to all the hype about Web services (including Meg's talk on Web Services for the Real World). Like Google's API, it'll be interesting to see what people do with this.
(Amazon was offering some limited Web services before, but these are implemented in a couple of different ways with more features and is open to anyone who wants to apply for a developer's token.)
Web services is the latest buzzword that promises the change the way we ___[fill in the blank]___. Since the last buzzword that lived up to its hype was "World Wide Web", I'm naturally a little skeptical. But I admit that Web services makes me feel just a little bit tingly. Google recently released an XML-based API that allows people to access their search results without a browser. Amazon is letting participants in their Associates program use an XML API to access product information.
So what can you do with all this? How about using Amazon's API** and some XML-formatted data from weblogs.com to build a list of the most linked books on the Web (more info)? And you know what the best part is? You can use BookWatch's RSS document and Google's API to add the most recent search results for each of the books on the list, which is useful because Google searches for book titles and authors often yield links to authors' Web sites, sample chapters, and reviews.
The biggest challenge for companies offering Web services will be how to make money with them. Free and unlimited Web services would suit developers best, result in fast adoption and defacto standardization for those offering the services, and promote an explosion of innovation. But as we saw with the Web, a free product, no matter how many people are using it, doesn't necessarily translate into revenue down the road. Plus it conveys a false sense to Web users that everything online must be free, which is ultimately self-defeating for everyone trying to do business on the Web.
It's nice to see that Google and Amazon are on the right track. Google is betting that a free teaser of their API (only 1000 searches/day currently allowed) will demonstrate to developers the power of Google in their applications and hope that they upgrade to a more industrial strength version (at least, that's what they should be thinking). Amazon is limiting the use of their API to their Associates for the purpose of driving traffic back to Amazon and (hopefully) increasing sales.
** Note: I'm pretty sure that Paul didn't use Amazon's API to get the book information from them because I don't think they offer that capability yet (although they say that they are going to). I think he just screen scraped the info. Paul?
I wonder if it would be possible to study the output of Google's search results and Amazon's recommendations and determine the algorithms & methods they use in producing that output. The key components in both systems are the relationships between the items (Web pages in the case of Google and merchandise in the case of Amazon) in the databases, but the details of all the different factors that make up those relationships are closely-held corporate secrets. Precisely how Amazon makes their recommendations might be very valuable information for other online shopping sites to have, especially large offline retailers that are looking to establish themselves online and have R&D money to burn.
Inspired in part by Rusty's donation, I've decided to donate my Amazon Associates revenue for this quarter (Jan-Mar) to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. My Associates revenue came to about $275 for Q4 2001, but hopefully it'll be more this time around. So for the next couple months, if you see me link to something you'd like to buy at Amazon, a portion of the purchase price (5-15%) will go to the EFF.
I'm donating money to the EFF because I'm concerned ("upset" would be a better word) about current copyright laws, the U.S. patent system, and the like, and the (grossly understaffed and underfunded) EFF is fighting to do something about these issues. If you're interested in helping out, here are some things you can do:
- Support the EFF through membership or donation.
- Volunteer with the EFF. They are looking for media people, research assistants, & Perl/CGI folks for a variety of projects.
- If you have a weblog and link to books, movies, or music at Amazon, why not donate your revenues or link to Amazon using the EFF's Associates code ("electronicfro-20")? Using the EFF's code is easy: here's a link to Amazon's front page and here's one to EFF board member Larry Lessig's new book, The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World. Me donating my little bit of revenue is one thing, but a whole lot of weblogs donating their revenues...now that would be something else. Let's go!
About a week and a half ago, I profiled Amazon Recommends, a new service from Amazon that allows members of their Associates Program to easily place product recommendations on their sites using JavaScript. I also lamented that they had hard coded the layout so that you pretty much have to go with their design on your page.
Interested JavaScript coder Willem Broekema found a way to change the layout of your Amazon recommendations. Basically, you put Amazon's JavaScript code in a hidden div, parse it with JavaScript, and then spit it out into another div with the modified look and feel.
Someday, everyone will be an Amazon associate just so they can get 15% off of their purchases there. None of the associates will be making any money, and Amazon will just be giving everyone an extra 15% off on purchases. This is what my dad calls having an army of all generals and no privates.
