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.
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 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.
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.