Goodreads + Amazon = ?
It is somewhat auspicious that my last week's Goodreads blog entry was focused on Amazon, and that news has come in recently that Amazon has plans to acquire Goodreads. Given that the details of the acquisition have not been fully disclosed beyond a few vague statements, Goodreads users/readers might be curious as to what might be in the pipeline with respect to possible changes that would arise on account of this acquisition.
In one of my recent posts here where I attempt to defend the purpose of this site as being for readers, I may have neglected to emphasize that in many ways Goodreads functions as a kind of "walled garden" for readers to discover and discuss books. One of my worries about this acquisition is that it may start to change the character of Goodreads in a way that narrows the gap between appreciation and the commercialization of the site.
Amazon is no slouch when it comes to acquisitions and partnerships. Now considered the global leader in book sales above competitors like Barnes & Noble, Amazon has steadily increased its market share of more than just books as it now battles for dominance against Google and Apple. Amazon's success story is partially due to its diversification: Amazon carries more than just books, and one can find all manner of products for sale that have absolutely nothing to do with reading. In addition, Amazon's marketplace empowers individuals to sell their own wares, and Amazon's Kindle exclusively matches their specific hardware and software to ebooks. Already, Amazon has a partnership with Shelfari, another readers' site.
These games of capitalist empire aside, what will become of Goodreads once the acquisition is a fait accompli? Will Goodreads simply become another sales channel for Amazon? One of the founders of Goodreads, Otis Chandler, has claimed that the acquisition will improve efficiency for readers, but does not qualify what is meant by efficiency which can be understood in a variety of contexts. Does Chandler mean efficiency in terms of the buying and selling of books? I am unclear how this new deal will improve the READING of books. I question if Goodreads will have much autonomy left after Amazon folds it into its juggernaut machine.
Donning my prediction swami headgear for a moment, allow me to peer into the crystal ball and speculate what it is that I see in the smoky glass.
1. Expect a more integrated and robust mechanism for readers to purchase books from Amazon prominently displayed as a highly visible button on any book page.
2. Do not be surprised if Amazon insists that the search function for acquiring the book de-lists competitor sites like B&N.
3. Reviews of books posted on Amazon might make their appearance on Goodreads' book pages.
4. Goodreads users might be able to add their credit card details on Goodreads for the purpose of buying from Amazon without having to navigate away from the Goodreads site.
5. To "seal the deal," Goodreads users and Amazon customers may be merged into "superusers," and so signing into Goodreads might also simultaneously sign one into Amazon.
6. Will it go both ways? Imagine, if you will, all the Goodreads readers' reviews suddenly populating the Amazon point-of-purchase (PoP) pages for each book.
7. As an extended metric, Amazon might insist that the sales rank appear on Goodreads for each book.
8. If Amazon is feeling a bit tyrannical, any listed books on Goodreads that do not appear on Amazon may be removed from Goodreads, and this would also include ebooks published exclusively with other services like Kobo, Smashwords, and iBooks.
9. The adoption of a "verified purchase" mechanism here on Goodreads in an effort to maximize the appearance of credibility of reviews.
10. Banner ads, links, and so forth to other Amazon products prominently placed on Goodreads.
Don't get me wrong: I thrill at the knowledge that readers buy books, and especially that they take the time to read them. However, I do have my reservations about making the discovery and discussion of books subordinate to the commercialization of books. To my mind, this would possibly privilege authors over readers. However, it is not as though Goodreads does not already have installed mechanisms for sales of a sort through its services: authors and publishers can pay for advertising on the site. Goodreads *does* have to make a little bit of money to sustain its operations given that it is not running a charity.
If I had Otis Chandler right here, I might question what "efficiency" means, and how the existing Goodreads site architecture is somehow deficient in this regard. Efficiency of search and retrieval? Efficiency for linking or merging data? Efficiency in terms of server storage and speed? My followup question to Chandler would be this: "how much autonomy will Goodreads maintain once the ink is dry on this friendly takeover?"
Crusty neo-marxist critic that I can be, I'm still very much suspicious about any action that seeks to monetize reading, if not shifting the balance of power away from readers to advertisers. I'm also suspicious of the continuing monopolization tactics of Amazon to either edge out or absorb competitors, if not also barging into any successful readers' site with its bags of money.
Just as Haruki Murakami tells us (and that is also similar to the epigraph of my book, The Infinite Library: "cave ab homine unius libri"), those who only read one book are going to think in one way, and so this may map analogously to this situation where "those who access books through just one venue are restricted to what that venue deems valuable or important."
Until the deal is done, we simply will not know what changes may help or hinder Goodreads. As readers, none are better disposed to the art of reading between the lines. And that is what I think a lot of us will be doing.
In one of my recent posts here where I attempt to defend the purpose of this site as being for readers, I may have neglected to emphasize that in many ways Goodreads functions as a kind of "walled garden" for readers to discover and discuss books. One of my worries about this acquisition is that it may start to change the character of Goodreads in a way that narrows the gap between appreciation and the commercialization of the site.
Amazon is no slouch when it comes to acquisitions and partnerships. Now considered the global leader in book sales above competitors like Barnes & Noble, Amazon has steadily increased its market share of more than just books as it now battles for dominance against Google and Apple. Amazon's success story is partially due to its diversification: Amazon carries more than just books, and one can find all manner of products for sale that have absolutely nothing to do with reading. In addition, Amazon's marketplace empowers individuals to sell their own wares, and Amazon's Kindle exclusively matches their specific hardware and software to ebooks. Already, Amazon has a partnership with Shelfari, another readers' site.
These games of capitalist empire aside, what will become of Goodreads once the acquisition is a fait accompli? Will Goodreads simply become another sales channel for Amazon? One of the founders of Goodreads, Otis Chandler, has claimed that the acquisition will improve efficiency for readers, but does not qualify what is meant by efficiency which can be understood in a variety of contexts. Does Chandler mean efficiency in terms of the buying and selling of books? I am unclear how this new deal will improve the READING of books. I question if Goodreads will have much autonomy left after Amazon folds it into its juggernaut machine.
Donning my prediction swami headgear for a moment, allow me to peer into the crystal ball and speculate what it is that I see in the smoky glass.
1. Expect a more integrated and robust mechanism for readers to purchase books from Amazon prominently displayed as a highly visible button on any book page.
2. Do not be surprised if Amazon insists that the search function for acquiring the book de-lists competitor sites like B&N.
3. Reviews of books posted on Amazon might make their appearance on Goodreads' book pages.
4. Goodreads users might be able to add their credit card details on Goodreads for the purpose of buying from Amazon without having to navigate away from the Goodreads site.
5. To "seal the deal," Goodreads users and Amazon customers may be merged into "superusers," and so signing into Goodreads might also simultaneously sign one into Amazon.
6. Will it go both ways? Imagine, if you will, all the Goodreads readers' reviews suddenly populating the Amazon point-of-purchase (PoP) pages for each book.
7. As an extended metric, Amazon might insist that the sales rank appear on Goodreads for each book.
8. If Amazon is feeling a bit tyrannical, any listed books on Goodreads that do not appear on Amazon may be removed from Goodreads, and this would also include ebooks published exclusively with other services like Kobo, Smashwords, and iBooks.
9. The adoption of a "verified purchase" mechanism here on Goodreads in an effort to maximize the appearance of credibility of reviews.
10. Banner ads, links, and so forth to other Amazon products prominently placed on Goodreads.
Don't get me wrong: I thrill at the knowledge that readers buy books, and especially that they take the time to read them. However, I do have my reservations about making the discovery and discussion of books subordinate to the commercialization of books. To my mind, this would possibly privilege authors over readers. However, it is not as though Goodreads does not already have installed mechanisms for sales of a sort through its services: authors and publishers can pay for advertising on the site. Goodreads *does* have to make a little bit of money to sustain its operations given that it is not running a charity.
If I had Otis Chandler right here, I might question what "efficiency" means, and how the existing Goodreads site architecture is somehow deficient in this regard. Efficiency of search and retrieval? Efficiency for linking or merging data? Efficiency in terms of server storage and speed? My followup question to Chandler would be this: "how much autonomy will Goodreads maintain once the ink is dry on this friendly takeover?"
Crusty neo-marxist critic that I can be, I'm still very much suspicious about any action that seeks to monetize reading, if not shifting the balance of power away from readers to advertisers. I'm also suspicious of the continuing monopolization tactics of Amazon to either edge out or absorb competitors, if not also barging into any successful readers' site with its bags of money.
Just as Haruki Murakami tells us (and that is also similar to the epigraph of my book, The Infinite Library: "cave ab homine unius libri"), those who only read one book are going to think in one way, and so this may map analogously to this situation where "those who access books through just one venue are restricted to what that venue deems valuable or important."
Until the deal is done, we simply will not know what changes may help or hinder Goodreads. As readers, none are better disposed to the art of reading between the lines. And that is what I think a lot of us will be doing.
No comments have been added yet.
