Slashdot Mirror
Dog Bites Website
In early March my eleventh book A Dog Year; Twelve Months, Four Dogs and Me was published by Random House/Villard. For several months I've been working on a bottom-up, Net-based marketing program that permits me to push my own book in my own way, rather than rely on big publishing or big media. That led me to the banner ad on this site a lot of you have seen and e-mailed me about. So why am I buying a banner ad, on Slashdot of all places, to tout my new book about a year with four dogs? It's a chance for me to tick off the yowling hordes, which is always fun. Some will shriek that a dog saga has little to do with open source, technology or selling things on the Net. But it does, and I'm happy -- eager, even -- to explain why.
I do most of my hyping for A Dog Year in the expected places -- in media interviews and on various dog-related sites, mailing lists and forums.
My reason for advertising here, too, is that I believe the Net offers the best place for individual entrepreneurs of all kinds -- writers, game creators, artists, musicians, software designers -- to skirt conventional costs, limitations and marketing practices and find their own audiences. To me, that's a big part of the "open" in open source. Younger people raised on the Net don't pay nearly as much attention to mainstream media as their elders, so we have to reach them where they are. The good news is that we can.
In fact, Net communications themselves have become increasingly segmented and targeted. Much has become subterranean, centered on mailing lists, IM and other limited-entry venues. In the weeks before my book's publication, I concentrated on these grass-roots venues, contacting websites, subscribing to mailing lists, e-mailing excerpts of my book to people who were interested. People on special interests lists and chat rooms don't mind being pitched on subjects they're interested in. They don't consider it spam. What they hate is being bombarded with messages for things they don't care about, which is what traditional media does. Besides which, I can't afford to take an ad out in Time magazine or on the ABC Evening News.
Elsewhere, individual entrepreneurs and creators find it more and more difficult to survive. The megacorporations who've taken over much of culture and media are primarily interested in best-selling mega-products -- Britney Spears, John Grisham -- not idiosyncratic ones like mine. They have a point, too. My last book found its own audience, or rather its audience found it. It did all right, but didn't sell much beyond it's core audience. To successfully market a book like Running To The Mountain or A Dog Year (at least in the conventional way) could cost more money than my publisher expects to earn. And interesting, I believe the Running To The Mountain excerpt that ran on Slashdot sold more books than a subsequent appearance on the Oprah Winfrey show.
The Net, at least in theory, can bypass that stalemate and create radical new opportunities for artists of all kinds. So I don't mind paying for my own ad. I think it has worked.
Individuals are under attack all across our culture, from the likes of Microsoft and Wal-Mart and Sony to publishing conglomerates. The Net can be a way out for people like me (us), whether we're telling the story of our dogs or coming up with new software. What's why I bought a banner on Slashdot. If it works, it could sell some books, sure. I have no apologies to make for that. But it could also help demonstrate to writers and other people struggling to survive in a mass-market world that the Open Source idea is only fractionally about software. It's about individualism, free expression, and a culture open to us all.
JohnKatz is lame!
-=The Dude=-
Plugging it again here on SlashDot can't hurt...
Oh, wait a minute...
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
-- My Weblog.
I don't mean to be troll-ish, but why is Slashdot posting this blatant advertisement as a news story? Am I missing something?
Gentle corrections are welcomed.
:wq
There's nothing I enjoy more than a soak in the bath with a good book.. but if you think I'm gonna balance a $1500 laptop on the edge of the bath to read, forget it!
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
Does anyone else think it is a perversion of the purpose of slashdot (that being to provide news and stories nerds will care about) for JohnKatz to try and pimp his book to us, the guaranteed massive readership of the site? Is this not an abuse of power on par with a newscaster interrupting a story about the middle east to remind us how he has decided to sell us his latest book of total drivel?
Fie JohnKatz. You have offended my honor, and I challenge you to a duel.
-=The Dude=-
I'm not one of those people who get worked up when Taco et al reviews some product and people complain that it's some sort of advertisement.
But this is a little much.
Is there a story here? I'm actually kind of curious to hear if Taco approves of this blatant use of the web site to advertise Katz' book for free. Did Katz get permission before posting this "story"?
Even if everyone is on board, I find this really, really, really classless.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Well, here's my example of open source writing. Bruce Eckel's books are available for free on the internet, including books he isn't finished with, yet.
He also makes a living on selling them (hell, I own two of them).
My question for Mr.Katz:
Where can I find a copy of your book online (for free)?
PS - yeah, I broke the Blackout. Sue me.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
"My reason for advertising here, too, is that I believe the Net offers the best place for individual entrepreneurs of all kinds -- writers, game creators, artists, musicians, software designers -- to skirt conventional costs, limitations and marketing practices and find their own audiences. To me, that's a big part of the "open" in open source. Younger people raised on the Net don't pay nearly as much attention to mainstream media as their elders, so we have to reach them where they are. The good news is that we can. "
----
Advertising on the internet is one thing, but advtising at the place at which you work, a place where you have a distinct advantage over nearly everyone else on the internet, is totally out of line. There are plenty of places to talk about your totally unrelated work (Remember - News for nerds, stuff that matters) besides Slashdot. Here's a thought, none of us really care about your book. Why would you even attempt to market to an audience that doesn't care? Thats like advertising feminine products during Sesame Street. It's just plain dumb and it's not going to help you get any customers (only people whining about how feminine products are being advertised during Sesame Street - catch my drift?).
-kwishot
You believe in Open Source. You believe in breaking with tradition because it's not working for you and others (ignoring for a second that perhaps it SHOULDN'T work because the market doesn't really want it). Yet you don't "open source" (i.e., allow free distribution but ask for tips or some such) your own books? Pfft. If you're going to talk the talk, then you should at least walk the walk.
... what exactly?
Anyways, I fail to see how you are qualititively different than the traditional publishers' means of promotion and sales. Sure, you are relying on the Net, by and large, to market your book(s) but I assert that that has more to do with your relations with this particular community and that, except for that relationship, the publishers are no less likely to experiment with banner ads and such than you would otherwise be. It's not as if marketing stuff online is exactly a massive departure from their business model. There's no revolution here, you just have a nominally different way of marketing your wares.
I suppose what I object to is your arrogance. You assume the publishers (not to mention the software industry and numerous other established entities) are stupid for being "traditional", yet you, yourself, barely manage to eak out an existance, despite the fact that you have a couple things here (e.g., slashdot) going for you that few can repeat. Nor can you point to substantial success stories. Yet you expect
Might there be a better way that some crafty entreprenuer can discover? Sure. Might the "traditional" way be better? Quite likely. The simple fact of the matter, though, is that it's unproven. Until someone can really show a workable, never mind superior, way, it's unrealistic, unreasonable, and just plain stupid to expect publishers to drop everything to chase pennies on the net.
When they are a minor Net celebrity, at least around these parts. Let's see a regular Joe, not known for inciting anything, would fare in a net marketing campaign. Jon's status at Slashdot is ebough to negate any good data that could come out of his "study".
That, and the fact that Jon can publish an "article" about his "study" and plug the very book he is "studying" the "effects" of...
"Goodness, how did you people live long enough to invent tools?" -Hobbes (the tiger, not the philosopher)
You don't have to apologize for buying a banner ad with money. You have to apologize for posting an ad with your moderator priviledges, disguised as Yet Another free expression anti-corporation blah blah article.
But it could also help demonstrate to writers and other people struggling to survive in a mass-market world that the Open Source idea is only fractionally about software. It's about individualism, free expression, and a culture open to us all.
Holy shit, I take it all back. You're not just advertising your book: you're a hero and a role model to us all. I can't believe you tried to tie in buying a banner ad into support of the open source movement.
Hey, ./ subscribers, how happy are you that you wasted a page hit on Katz's book promotion?
The real issue here is not "is this an ad" or "can books be promoted on the net" or even "I don't like dogs", but this:
" Can books be 'net' books
Had Jon mentioned profitability or actual sales or given some demonstration of the idea that his alternative marketing and/or distribution means are actually working, it would be news.
The closest he comes is here: "... I believe the Running To The Mountain excerpt that ran on Slashdot sold more books than a subsequent appearance on the Oprah Winfrey show.
No proof, no studies whatsoever, not even a clear and certain anecdote.
It's EASY to get proof - sell the books under different catalog numbers, and enter the catalog numbers on the invoice(s). Or, use an 800 number, and use different 800 numbers for different adv. media, and compare the phone bills.
As it sits now, it's like listening to the life story of a homeless person - not likely to get you anywhere meaningful.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I'm not much of a salesman, in comfort or skill, but I'm willing to hype my books,
by abusing using your powers as an editor at what purports to be a "news" site, thereby proving to all and sundry that you are no longer even bothering to predend to have a shred of journalistic integrity.
especially given the realities of 21st Century publishing, when you do it yourself or nobody does it.
Really? You mean to tell me that the publishing industry has decided to abandon advertising altogether? Advertisements for the latest Stephen King (RIP) book are taken out by Mr. King himself?
Some people think if you get a book published, you're a big deal and a rich one. If you're Grisham or King, that's true. The reality: Few books sell well, and even fewer (mine, for example) make money Can content like books be successfully "open-marketed" on the Net? I say yes.
I'd attempt to answer that question, except I don't know what the fuck "open-marketed" means.
In early March my eleventh book A Dog Year; Twelve Months, Four Dogs and Me was published by Random House/ Villard. For several months I've been working on a bottom-up, Net-based marketing program that permits me to push my own book in my own way,
Which includes, apparently, writing a "story" which is a barely-concealed advertisement of the book and using your connections to post this advertisement to the front page of a popular site.
rather than rely on big publishing or big media.
Oooh, scary... are they like big tobacco and big oil?
That led me to the banner ad on this site a lot of you have seen and e-mailed me about. So why am I buying a banner ad, on Slashdot of all places, to tout my new book about a year with four dogs?
Because it gives you an excuse to write a much larger advertisement for your book, thinly disguised as a "story" about buying a banner ad?
It's a chance for me to tick off the yowling hordes, which is always fun. Some will shriek that a dog saga has little to do with open source, technology or selling things on the Net.
Well, actually it has nothing to do with any of those things.
But it does, and I'm happy -- eager, even -- to explain why.
I do most of my hyping for A Dog Year in the expected places -- in media interviews and on various dog-related sites, mailing lists and forums.
My reason for advertising here, too, is that I believe the Net offers the best place for individual entrepreneurs of all kinds -- writers, game creators, artists, musicians, software designers -- to skirt conventional costs, limitations and marketing practices
For example, by abusing your powers as an editor of a news site and posting an advertisement for your book. Oh wait, no, this is a legitimate news story about how you bought a banner ad to advertise your book. Right.
and find their own audiences. To me, that's a big part of the "open" in open source. Younger people raised on the Net don't pay nearly as much attention to mainstream media as their elders, so we have to reach them where they are. The good news is that we can.
A big part of the "open" in open source is that now you can advertise on the web?
In fact, Net communications
read: advertisements
themselves have become increasingly segmented and targeted.
Yes, thanks to the ubiquity of "what kind of spam do you want to sign up for" checklists in site and software registration pages
Much has become subterranean, centered on mailing lists, IM and other limited-entry venues. In the weeks before my book's publication, I concentrated on these grass-roots venues, contacting websites, subscribing to mailing lists, e-mailing excerpts of my book to people who were interested.
Spam spam spam spam, spam spam spam spam, lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
People on special interests lists and chat rooms don't mind being pitched on subjects they're interested in. They don't consider it spam.
*cough*bullshit*cough*
What they hate is being bombarded with messages for things they don't care about, which is what traditional media does.
Messages for things they don't care about... You mean like an ad for a dog book an a computer/tech news site?
Besides which, I can't afford to take an ad out in Time magazine or on the ABC Evening News.
Elsewhere, individual entrepreneurs and creators find it more and more difficult to survive. The megacorporations who've taken over much of culture and media
Rand McNally ain't exactly an independant publisher.
are primarily interested in best-selling mega-products -- Britney Spears, Jon Grisham -- not idiosyncratic ones like mine.
Idiosyncratic? Not a best-selling mega-product? What happed to you being one of the few authors whose books made money?
They have a point, too. My last book found its own audience, or rather its audience found it. It did all right, but didn't sell much beyond it's core audience.
Which is it, Jon, do you have a small audience, or are your books some of the few that sell well and make money? Jesus Christ, can't you keep your story straight through an entire article?
To successfully market a book like Running To The Mountain or A Dog Year (at least in the conventional way) could cost more money than my publisher expects to earn.
Technically, I think that would be "unsuccessful marketing"
And interesting, I believe the Running To The Mountain excerpt that ran on Slashdot sold more books than a subsequent appearance on the Oprah Winfrey show.
The Net, at least in theory, can bypass that stalemate and create radical new opportunities for artists of all kinds. So I don't mind paying for my own ad. I think it has worked.
Yes, it's given you an opportunity to right an entire page of this crap to hype your book.
Individuals are under attack all across our culture, from the likes of Microsoft and Wal-Mart and Sony to publishing conglomerates.
Except for Rand McNally, they're quite nice.
The Net can be a way out for people like me (us), whether we're telling the story of our dogs or coming up with new software. What's why I bought a banner on Slashdot.
If you actually bought it. Given the gross abuse of editorial privilage which is this "story", I wouldn't be surprised if no money actually changed hands.
If it works, it could sell some books, sure. I have no apologies to make for that.
How about an apology for this "story", then? Tell me, if I come up with a product and buy a banner ad on Slashdot, do I get to write a front page "story" saying "look at me, I bought a banner ad! Isn't the internet great?"
But it could also help demonstrate to writers and other people struggling to survive in a mass- market world that the Open Source idea is only fractionally about software. It's about individualism, free expression, and a culture open to us all.
Advertising on the internet = individualism and freedom. Advertising on TV or in print = corporatism and oppression. Right. Got it.
One final question - do the subscribers have to deal with this shit too, or did this story get filtered out as an advertisement? If I had subscribed with the promise of eliminating ads and had to see this shit, I'd demand a refund.
"You're just scared like a little white pussy. I'll fuck you till you love me, you faggot!"
Correct. I would think that if Katz were really interested in the marketing of books on the internet, he would have included a reference to that article.
/. piece about internet marketing of books. I, for one, would like to see the hard numbers showing the results of his efforts to market his books on mailing lists and such, as well as the click-through and conversion stats from his banner on /.. (- Do I really need that extra "."? Someone should do an article on proper Internet message syntax vs. language rules. But I digress.)
I would also think that he would try to preserve some small bit of integrity with the community by *not* linking to his own book. I don't mind an author writing a
The question is, is Katz actually keeping track? Will he be able to show objectively the results of his "experiments"? This is what defines whether or not he was conducting legimate research, or just pimping his own shlock.
i don't understand why people give katz such a hard time. he's got good insight, and he makes it his mission to communicate the insights and strengths of the geek/OSS community with the rest of the world.
i think that many slashdotters are somewhat embarrassed that katz has turned their area of geeky expertise into a national reputation and has become a successful columnist and writer.
let him sell a few books here... i mean, who cares! by and large he represents the views of the slashdot community even if he doesn't adopt the same AC-like geek-superiority complex that most of us do.
Amazing magic tricks
I expected this reponse, of course, but you are missing something..like the point of the site.
The "point" of the site (if it has one) are links to articles that Taco and the editors find interesting, and discussing them. "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters".
But be that as it may, my particular problem with your article is that it's primary point seems to be to advertise your book, and not to make points about self-publishing. Even the subject references your book!
I realize it's a fine line between writing about your personal experiences, and selling your personal wares. But maybe you should read over your article and ask yourself what the primary focus is. Is the primary focus your trial and tribulations of self-marketing or a plug for your new book? To my reading, it looks like a plug with a small amount of discussion tacked on.
If the point had really been about your experiences with self publishing, you could have written a much more in-depth article without ever mentioning your book, or just having a small link to a page about it. But you didn't choose that route. You wrote a very short, shallow article that only half-tried to make a point about self publishing.
Sorry, but I'm just not buying it. Ironically, I probably would have had less of a problem with it if you HAD just an article that said, "Hey! I have a new book being published. Apologies for abusing the site in this way. Thanks for reading, bye!". At least then you are being honest and not trying to disguise the plug for the book.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Jon,
I have no problem with the use of a public online forum as a marketing tool, provided that there exists an organic relationship between the forum's focus and the product being touted, as well as a marked understanding of the audience/community by the marketer; in other words, the product should be of general interest to the community at hand, and the marketer should be a member of that community (e.g. no spammers).
I think you satisfy the second provision; while some might get all frothy upon seeing your name attached to articles, there's no doubting that you understand, and are a (not uncontroversial) part of the slashdot community. But the first requirement, that the product should fit organically within the context of the forum, just isn't met...I mean, sure, lots of folks love dogs, including slashdot readers, but, really, isn't a story about a book about a man and his dogs just Meta-Offtopic in the slashdot context?
This Offtopic-ness would certainly be enough for slashdot editors to reject a story from an (functionally, not literally) anonymous contributor. So while you extol the virtues of the "little guy" seizing the open-forum of the internet, this isn't in fact an example of that. This is an example of someone taking advantage of a privileged position vis a vis a particular forum, and using that advantage to publish the sort of advertisement that the general public wouldn't be able to publish.
So maybe what you advocating is that the "little guy" exploit privileged positions within institutions they may be a part of in order to sell whatever it is they're selling. This message, to me, is not so noble...
:wq
The quote was said to J. Michael Strazcynski, when he called for advice on getting his works to sell, since none had. The *next* thing he wrote was Bab5.
Yes, we understand these tags always apply: fud, dupe, typo, slashdotted, topic name
Institution?! come on. it's a freakin weblog. let katz make his pitch, I don't care. it's not like they don't have thinkgeek ads every fuckin page.
20721
It would have been a news story if someone else posted something like "Hey, JonKatz wrote a book" - but using your position as an editor to post a story hyping your book ain't news. It's spam.
Making a point about grassroots marketing is all fine and dandy, but not when the book is *yours*. There's a blatant conflict of interest, something you thought about but ignored.
This could have been done better by:
a. Making your in-print book available - in its entirety - online in PDF or some other readable format.
b. Putting links to places where people can go buy your book.
c. Having *someone else* note that you published a book and that it's available online. Y'know, mebbe an interview where you talk about grassroots marketing.
Yeah, people would still have a problem with this because you're an editor on this site. However, it would have a skitch more journalistic integrity.
I'm not JonKatz slamming here - I don't have the "despise JonKatz" intolerance that many others are fond of expressing. But dude, you really should have known better.
Anyway, we all make mistakes - learn from the heat of this one.
Something like a book is the automatic feedback. Not only is Katz getting the word out about his new book, he gets to see hundreds of people respond as to why they would or would not buy his book.
Let me predicate this by saying I am a writer. Not a professional one... I do it as a hobby to entertain myself and my freinds. Someday, I'd like to think what I wrote would be worthy of publication. I have received thousands of emails with comments and ideas from total strangers telling me what's good or bad about my writing.
I've learned that I'm not by far ready to do anything warrenting a book.
That having been said, let me say why I won't buy Katzs' book. To be honest, I can't really understand why Katz is so well known. The best guess I can come up with is that he was one of the first people to write about Internet technologies and explore some of the more far out ideas. But today, those far out ideas are common practice, so there is nothing new.
Over the last few years, I've read a lot of the things he's posted on Slashdot. Increasingly, I find him way off base. It feels as if he's somehow become out of touch with the subject matter he uses. When you come up with a new idea, and bring it to an open forum for dialogue, thats a good thing. But if 99% of the people who read it can only respond with 'no, you're wrong', and tear apart your arguments and your premise, then perhaps it's time to rethink where you're comming from.
If you can get anything from the Internet, Katz, it's that you should stop writing for a while. Your ideas seem vague, poorly thought out, and at times just stupid. Get a job... work for a few years. Take some time to observe first hand the phoenomnea and the community you use as your subject matter. And, even if your ideas ARE good, and you sit in frustration wondering why people just can't see them, then you're probably not explaining them well enough.
You have name reconition, something that is above and beyond what 99% of aspiring writers has. If you use the Internet to help you become better, to get back on track, you can continue to be a good writer... or, you can just become a hack. It's up to you.
The Internet is generally stupid
We aren't missing a damn thing. If your other writing is as bad as the stuff you post to Slashdot, it's no wonder your books don't sell. And no, I'm not normally this mean about it, but your article was nothing except a long-winded advertisement for your book. The few tidbits you chucked in about "bottoms-up" marketing on the net have nothing to do with "open source" anything, and everything to do with changes in the face of telecommunications and media, especially as linked to demographic niches.
If you want to write an insightful article on the impact of the 'net, why not focus on something interesting like the 2001 election of RT Rybak to the office of Mayor in Minneapolis. His campaign grew out of his participation in a Minneapolis-issues politics mailing list and continues to use the list to communicate with constituents.
The list itself is notable for trumping some other forms of communication and media sources when it comes to "being in touch" with politics and news in Minneapolis. As an example, a recent Critical Mass bike ride in downtown Minneapolis was subject to a fairly brutal police crackdown, and while the main papers and (apparently) evening news slid right over the story, the list was a primary source of communication on the incident (the other great source being IndyMedia's web site).
I realize you've written many articles over the time I've read Slashdot focused on how the web/net democratize society and the economy as well, but this particular article is just plain shoddy. Especially since you throw in a lot of jargon, but don't really connect the dots between a dog book and net marketing. You haven't shown the rest of us how this really works (a key piece of what "open source" is all about), and you haven't shown how it has really helped you. Did you do a cost-benefit analysis detailing how much time you spent hyping your book in various online forums versus the revenue those presumably additional sales produced? Did you check to see if your online efforts were truly the source of the increase by using appropriate statistical sampling methods? Have you provided any part of the book online, or just a lame link to Amazon which any right-thinking moral netizen is boycotting?
I do not have a signature
So I guess the moral of the story is, "If you're Jon Katz, posting thinly-veiled advertisements on Slashdot and passing them off as articles is cool and revolutionary."
By the way, Mr. Katz, if you'll include a digital picture of yourself with your index finger buried at least to the middle knuckle in your left nostril, I would be more than happy to post an "article" all about your new book on my own website. Just say the word.
This was the last straw. The most blatant shameles self-promotional tripe with no excuse for wasting my time. The final Katz story that actually got me to go to my prefs page and turn off the gasbag.