"A book with the cover ripped off" describes a very, very small part of the remainder business. You're also wrong about publishers suing, the illegality of selling remaindered books, and whether it's hard to spot a remaindered book. And both Amazon and Half.com sell a vast number of remaindered books every day.
A remaindered book is essentially "publisher's overstock" which is made up of unsold returns from retailers, books that have been damaged in shipping ("hurts") and books that were never sold from the publisher's warehouses in the first place. The publishers then liquidate those books by selling them to remainder dealers for pennies on the dollar. The remainder dealers are then free to resell them however they like. Where do you think B&N stores get the "bargain books" they sell in the front of all their stores nowadays?
Oftentimes, remaindered books are in NO WAY different than the original. Other times, publishers will put a remainder mark (a line drawn in black marker) on the bottom of the book to indicate it is a remainder. In cases where the value of the book is very small (mass market paperbacks are a good example) and the book has little resale value, retailers are asked to just rip the covers off the books and return the covers to save shipping costs.
An interesting logical conclusion of this argument is: if you want smaller internet media companies to thrive among the big conglomerates, you should support their advertisers.
In other words, when you visit your favorite indy media site, click on its banner ads.
This and the AdWords program are text-based advertising that has "an average clickthrough rate 4-5 times higher than industry standard for banner ads" according to the Google advertising overview.
I've used Google adwords since it came out and was really surprised that it actually works. For the money they charge (around $15 cpm, lower if your ad appears in the second or third slot), what is essentially "just another banner ad" has given clickthroughs of up to 8%. The industry standard, by contrast is about half of a percent.
My guess though is that the reason adwords works is not because it's targeted or unobtrusive or any of the reasons they tout, but rather simply because it's a variation on the norm. Banner clickthrough rates were pretty good back when people were utterly fascinated by an animated gif. Then when you were able to interact with the ad people became interested again (punch the monkey, anyone?).
Of course people quickly become desensitized to every new advertising gimmick. Google adwords will most likely go the same way.
Auugh! It's because of people like you that I get 2-3 calls a week asking for some guy named "Scott" who "gave me this number to call him about..." everything from taking his shift at some restaraunt to discussing insurance.
although I like the idea of giving a 9 digit number and expecting people to believe it works.
They actually charge you more. The standard fee per transaction is over a dollar. If you deal directly with a bank (bypassing cybercash, etc., who go through a bank anyway) you can get rates as low as 1-2%, and transaction fees become highly negotiable as sale volume increases.
I'm just going from what I read in the article, take your beef with the NYTimes.
Two years later, the Horvitz team saw its first commercial program become part of Microsoft's Office software. The program, based on Bayesian techniques, was a relatively simple tool known as the Answer Wizard, which tried to anticipate the needs of users looking up topics in the software's electronic documentation. The Bayesian techniques have been widely adopted in Microsoft's products -- including the Paper Clip help wizard that pops up frequently to offer advice in the company's Office program. Many users, however, have criticized Paper Clip as an irritant, popping up too often with unwanted help. Horvitz, who speaks apologetically about the Paper Clip program, said its shortcomings were the result of Microsoft's failure to implement all of his team's ideas.
is the same one that invented the paperclip guy who pops up in MS Word and other Microsoft office applications. So they have a lot of credibility already. Interesting that they blamed its failure on the fact that Bill & Co. "failed to implement" all of their ideas. How often does one see a Microsoft-owned company directly disparaging its parent (and lifeblood) for a past project?
Slashdot Mirror
"A book with the cover ripped off" describes a very, very small part of the remainder business. You're also wrong about publishers suing, the illegality of selling remaindered books, and whether it's hard to spot a remaindered book. And both Amazon and Half.com sell a vast number of remaindered books every day.
A remaindered book is essentially "publisher's overstock" which is made up of unsold returns from retailers, books that have been damaged in shipping ("hurts") and books that were never sold from the publisher's warehouses in the first place. The publishers then liquidate those books by selling them to remainder dealers for pennies on the dollar. The remainder dealers are then free to resell them however they like. Where do you think B&N stores get the "bargain books" they sell in the front of all their stores nowadays?
Oftentimes, remaindered books are in NO WAY different than the original. Other times, publishers will put a remainder mark (a line drawn in black marker) on the bottom of the book to indicate it is a remainder. In cases where the value of the book is very small (mass market paperbacks are a good example) and the book has little resale value, retailers are asked to just rip the covers off the books and return the covers to save shipping costs.
Anyone got more suggestions?
An interesting logical conclusion of this argument is: if you want smaller internet media companies to thrive among the big conglomerates, you should support their advertisers.
In other words, when you visit your favorite indy media site, click on its banner ads.
This and the AdWords program are text-based advertising that has "an average clickthrough rate 4-5 times higher than industry standard for banner ads" according to the Google advertising overview.
I've used Google adwords since it came out and was really surprised that it actually works. For the money they charge (around $15 cpm, lower if your ad appears in the second or third slot), what is essentially "just another banner ad" has given clickthroughs of up to 8%. The industry standard, by contrast is about half of a percent.
My guess though is that the reason adwords works is not because it's targeted or unobtrusive or any of the reasons they tout, but rather simply because it's a variation on the norm. Banner clickthrough rates were pretty good back when people were utterly fascinated by an animated gif. Then when you were able to interact with the ad people became interested again (punch the monkey, anyone?).
Of course people quickly become desensitized to every new advertising gimmick. Google adwords will most likely go the same way.
although I like the idea of giving a 9 digit number and expecting people to believe it works.
Disadvantages of the jackets include the possible implications of network crashes and the effects of rainstorms on techno-clothing while being worn.
...mmrmmm, oil can!
The tin man in The Wizard of Oz comes to mind.
They actually charge you more. The standard fee per transaction is over a dollar. If you deal directly with a bank (bypassing cybercash, etc., who go through a bank anyway) you can get rates as low as 1-2%, and transaction fees become highly negotiable as sale volume increases.
is the same one that invented the paperclip guy who pops up in MS Word and other Microsoft office applications. So they have a lot of credibility already. Interesting that they blamed its failure on the fact that Bill & Co. "failed to implement" all of their ideas. How often does one see a Microsoft-owned company directly disparaging its parent (and lifeblood) for a past project?