Selling $2,000+ Worth Of My Unfinished Book(planscope.io)
planscope.io
Selling $2,000+ Worth Of My Unfinished Book
http://planscope.io/blog/selling-2000-worth-of-my-unfinished-book/
89 comments
How do you actually contact people to ask for this? Emailing people? Or making a signup page and see who clicks on the (faux) "buy" button?
For my coming SaaS product (https://www.wisecashhq.com), I created a signup page back in september 2011, then tweeted regularly when I worked on it and mentioned it around (shipping end of september 2012).
It gradually got around 200 "pre-signups", and I used the list to contact people as well and verify my assumptions.
I will write a blog post about that soon!
It gradually got around 200 "pre-signups", and I used the list to contact people as well and verify my assumptions.
I will write a blog post about that soon!
That's what we have done either (but with an Adwords campaign, to see how much traffic there is to be had from Google), but I think that's no commitment to cash, just "I'm interested". I once read here on HN that bootstrappers should actually ask people whether they would pay X$ for that - but now being in this situation, I wonder how to actually do that, knowing none of the future audience in person.
Ahh I see. The thing is I picked an audience where I know some people in person and asked right away if some would pay.
In all cases, I would contact people (by email/phone/whatever) to engage a discussion and ask the "True Question" :)
I do agree that "I'm interested" is absolutely not the same as "I'm paying for this, here's my CC number".
In all cases, I would contact people (by email/phone/whatever) to engage a discussion and ask the "True Question" :)
I do agree that "I'm interested" is absolutely not the same as "I'm paying for this, here's my CC number".
> knowing none of the future audience in person
I'd seriously think about that 30x500 course if I were you. (Thibault is alum.)
The biggest chunk of the course is devoted to making sure there's a "commitment to cash" BEFORE spending a dime. And that includes $$$ adwords.
I'd seriously think about that 30x500 course if I were you. (Thibault is alum.)
The biggest chunk of the course is devoted to making sure there's a "commitment to cash" BEFORE spending a dime. And that includes $$$ adwords.
For our product, we know that there is commitment to cash for this category of products, because there are other products in that area which do well as far as we know. What we don't know is whether people pay $X for exactly our product. We have pondered a lot over the free 30x500 course materials, but haven't got around to join the course. We did not spend much on Adwords (< $100) and we did already gather some addresses. But it's hard to estimate the actual conversion rate without asking people to really pay money for it, and without screenshots and the like.
So, yes, we thought we could validate the idea with an Ad campaign, but we did not do it right, I think. We did not measure anything significant at all, and what we did is gather an "I'm interested" list. You are right that perhaps the best ways to validate a product is to ask real people - like asking quite bluntly "Would you pay $30 per month for this product, with this certain USP?", or even "Would you pay me $100 upfront to build this product?". That takes a lot more guts than just setting up a landing page and an adwords campaign, but I see that we should do it.
So, yes, we thought we could validate the idea with an Ad campaign, but we did not do it right, I think. We did not measure anything significant at all, and what we did is gather an "I'm interested" list. You are right that perhaps the best ways to validate a product is to ask real people - like asking quite bluntly "Would you pay $30 per month for this product, with this certain USP?", or even "Would you pay me $100 upfront to build this product?". That takes a lot more guts than just setting up a landing page and an adwords campaign, but I see that we should do it.
You are right that perhaps the best ways to validate a product is to ask real people - like asking quite bluntly "Would you pay $30 per month for this product, with this certain USP?", or even "Would you pay me $100 upfront to build this product?".
That's not what I said. Ensuring commitment the way you mentioned doesn't quite work because of divergence between what people say and what people do. The latter is by far the more reliable, agreed?
The 30x500 course teaches advanced 360-degree market study where you learn what people actually do and what they so badly wished they were doing instead. (So yes, you'll learn how to read between the lines, among other things.) The results of that market study forms the most robust foundation to building a value offering that has buy-in baked-in.
p.s. The above is why you'd never hear about the need to "validate a product [idea]" among 3x5ers. The assumptions behind that expression are just wrong to begin with.
That's not what I said. Ensuring commitment the way you mentioned doesn't quite work because of divergence between what people say and what people do. The latter is by far the more reliable, agreed?
The 30x500 course teaches advanced 360-degree market study where you learn what people actually do and what they so badly wished they were doing instead. (So yes, you'll learn how to read between the lines, among other things.) The results of that market study forms the most robust foundation to building a value offering that has buy-in baked-in.
p.s. The above is why you'd never hear about the need to "validate a product [idea]" among 3x5ers. The assumptions behind that expression are just wrong to begin with.
Brennan made a signup page, and let people click on the real buy button. That's what he's saying - true validation is when people will pay for it before it's even available.
For my book (see profile) I developed the idea because my posts about cold calling for entrepreneurs became so popular.
After that, I just started collecting emails, asking the list members qualitative questions, and honing copy by testing.
If you started with an idea for a book and no audience demanding it, you should really execute the whole custdev process in one form or another to verify demand. Pre-sales is a great avenue for that.
After that, I just started collecting emails, asking the list members qualitative questions, and honing copy by testing.
If you started with an idea for a book and no audience demanding it, you should really execute the whole custdev process in one form or another to verify demand. Pre-sales is a great avenue for that.
I've really enjoyed the build up to the book. I haven't pre-ordered yet (mainly because I wanted to see how serious the author was), but Brendan has been on top of his game. I've received maybe 2-3 emails, each containing great little bits of information sharing info that (I imagine) will be further articulated in the book. The best part: it's hyper-relevant. I'm coming up with strategies for my design business and Brendan's insight has already influenced some early direction.
Give this dude your money (I'm about to), he's doing it right.
Give this dude your money (I'm about to), he's doing it right.
Thank you, sir! Looking forward to hearing your review - and most importantly, how effective it was helping raise your rates for all the right reasons.
The lesson here: The best way to sell stuff is by selling stuff.
Look at what's involved:
* Guest posts / articles to become known as an expert
* Emailing a list of interested parties
* AdWords, preferably in a campaign that can scale
* Twitter and other social media
Learning to write good copy, or finding someone to do it for you, will have an impact on your business. I still get a trickle of traffic (that converts well) from an article I wrote over 6 years ago. I'd much rather spend time adding "one more feature", but a few hours spent writing quality content will have a much larger impact on the bottom line.
Look at what's involved:
* Guest posts / articles to become known as an expert
* Emailing a list of interested parties
* AdWords, preferably in a campaign that can scale
* Twitter and other social media
Learning to write good copy, or finding someone to do it for you, will have an impact on your business. I still get a trickle of traffic (that converts well) from an article I wrote over 6 years ago. I'd much rather spend time adding "one more feature", but a few hours spent writing quality content will have a much larger impact on the bottom line.
The copy on this article and the book page itself feels so spammy that I would never buy the product. I respect the desire/need to make money, but I do think a certain percentage of your potential audience will be turned off immediately by the excessive use of this type of obvious marketing-speak (excessive use of bold fonts, short, pointed sentences, all the vague truisms, "money back guarantee"..). I hope this doesn't become the standard type of post on Hacker News, I'm sorry but after clicking on that link it really feels like I've just been spammed.
Thanks for the comment, and I used to agree with just about everything you said.
However, there's nothing at all wrong with "marketing-speak". It's based on psychology: people skim, bolding is used to emphasize importance, and money back guarantees - well, they're exactly what they mean.
For most things, I personally prefer easily digestible content over blocks and blocks of text.
However, there's nothing at all wrong with "marketing-speak". It's based on psychology: people skim, bolding is used to emphasize importance, and money back guarantees - well, they're exactly what they mean.
For most things, I personally prefer easily digestible content over blocks and blocks of text.
So instead of arguing ... what % of HNers are actually clicking through to your "no bullshit" offer?
Very few articles on the front page of HN are littered with testimonials and sales copy.
Very few articles on the front page of HN are littered with testimonials and sales copy.
I've made just under $1,000 in sales today from HN. 1 in 7 people who have clicked through to the article go to the sales page.
EDIT: I'm sure a few people people are skeptical. Here's a screenshot from ejunkie (and I just crossed over the $1k mark): https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2205912/Screen%20Shot%202012-08-23%...
EDIT: I'm sure a few people people are skeptical. Here's a screenshot from ejunkie (and I just crossed over the $1k mark): https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2205912/Screen%20Shot%202012-08-23%...
So you've made around 3 sales per hour since you've submitted it.
Assuming 3 sales/hr directly from HN, that is encouraging.
I don't know how anyone can verify 3 sales/hr from HN only from that screenshot, however. Sorry my thirst is unquenched, it's just this whole deal reminds me of ClickBank sales where fudging screenshots and hyping and bullshitting others is fairly commonplace.
I would believe 1 in 7 overall users click through, but I'm still curious who is doing it because I am a jaded, jaded marketer.
Assuming 3 sales/hr directly from HN, that is encouraging.
I don't know how anyone can verify 3 sales/hr from HN only from that screenshot, however. Sorry my thirst is unquenched, it's just this whole deal reminds me of ClickBank sales where fudging screenshots and hyping and bullshitting others is fairly commonplace.
I would believe 1 in 7 overall users click through, but I'm still curious who is doing it because I am a jaded, jaded marketer.
You'll just need to take my word on it - I'm not going to post ejunkie/PayPal creds :-)
Total uniques for the main article: 7,772 Total uniques for the sales page: 1,238 A 2% conversion rate (26 sales) isn't that far fetched. It was converting higher with the pre-HN traffic (about 6% on average).
Total uniques for the main article: 7,772 Total uniques for the sales page: 1,238 A 2% conversion rate (26 sales) isn't that far fetched. It was converting higher with the pre-HN traffic (about 6% on average).
take off the tinfoil hat, there's a reason you see that kind of copywriting and styling a lot...it works, and it works very well.
So long as the product being sold is legitimate, usage of that styling and copy is more than acceptable as it's a proven way to increase sales and conversions.
Marketing != Evil
So long as the product being sold is legitimate, usage of that styling and copy is more than acceptable as it's a proven way to increase sales and conversions.
Marketing != Evil
[deleted]
I would quite happily preorder a copy of your book but there's not enough information to feel comfortable about parting with $39.
Is this an ebook or in dead tree format? Do you ship internationally?
Is this an ebook or in dead tree format? Do you ship internationally?
It's an ebook with worksheets and additional case studies / interviews from freelancers who charge a lot (most notably: Amy Hoy and Thomas Fuchs).
Take a screenshot of this comment as witness, but I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates. Paying for stuff that doesn't deliver value is dumb.
Take a screenshot of this comment as witness, but I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates. Paying for stuff that doesn't deliver value is dumb.
> Take a screenshot of this comment as witness, but I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates.
Some advice -- you really, really don't want to do this. You don't need to guarantee results to sell a worthwhile book, and IMHO you shouldn't.
Here's why:
1. Let's say you have a profit margin of 20% on your book overall -- printing costs, promotion, etc. versus income.
2. Let's also say that 80% of your book's readers do increase their client base as you claim.
3. The problem is that the remaining 20% can take you at your word, demand a refund, explain that the book was lost in a fire, and succeed in wiping out your profit.
4. Worse, someone might say your claim moved your book from the category of an ordinary caveat-emptor purchase, to a guarantee of success, and demand consequential damages. Very bad, and you made it possible.
It works like this: Because of the First Amendment, an author can say virtually anything in a book -- anything. But when you make a claim about a book's contents to motivate sales, you short-circuit First Amendment protections -- you turn your book from a freely expressed opinion, to a method with a guaranteed outcome. Very bad idea.
> Paying for stuff that doesn't deliver value is dumb.
Not as dumb as making an unnecessary claim that has a potentially disastrous outcome.
Just my opinion, expressed in words, with no guarantees.
Some advice -- you really, really don't want to do this. You don't need to guarantee results to sell a worthwhile book, and IMHO you shouldn't.
Here's why:
1. Let's say you have a profit margin of 20% on your book overall -- printing costs, promotion, etc. versus income.
2. Let's also say that 80% of your book's readers do increase their client base as you claim.
3. The problem is that the remaining 20% can take you at your word, demand a refund, explain that the book was lost in a fire, and succeed in wiping out your profit.
4. Worse, someone might say your claim moved your book from the category of an ordinary caveat-emptor purchase, to a guarantee of success, and demand consequential damages. Very bad, and you made it possible.
It works like this: Because of the First Amendment, an author can say virtually anything in a book -- anything. But when you make a claim about a book's contents to motivate sales, you short-circuit First Amendment protections -- you turn your book from a freely expressed opinion, to a method with a guaranteed outcome. Very bad idea.
> Paying for stuff that doesn't deliver value is dumb.
Not as dumb as making an unnecessary claim that has a potentially disastrous outcome.
Just my opinion, expressed in words, with no guarantees.
You believe something about people's behavior which is a testable proposition about the nature of material reality, like "If you push an apple off a table it will accelerate to the nearest cat." The scientific method exists. Have no worries, your apples and profits are both safe, because both those theories are absolutely false.
Interesting that you would mention the scientific method, then offer no evidence for your theory.
I said what I did because I have seen it happen countless times in a long career that has included a lot of writing. I have the evidence. When someone makes a performance claim about the contents of a book, the book then becomes nearly irrelevant to the outcome, which hinges on the claim.
I said what I did because I have seen it happen countless times in a long career that has included a lot of writing. I have the evidence. When someone makes a performance claim about the contents of a book, the book then becomes nearly irrelevant to the outcome, which hinges on the claim.
Money-back guarantees virtually invariably raise sales in A/B tests. I have never seen one decreases sales in a statistically significant fashion. I have never seen a guarantee meaningfully increase refund rates. (No customer of mine has refund rates worth mentioning. I will literally mail paper checks to people who bought my software five years ago and my refund rate is below ~2%.) If you have data to the contrary, I bow to the data.
As it happens, I have a product launch coming up. I will offer a money back guarantee, and I will do it in an A/B test. If I am wrong, and the guarantee statistically significantly decreases sales, I will a) have a cow and b) donate a cow to charity. If I am right, you don't have to do anything, because being consistently right at this sort of prediction makes propositional bets with authors a distinctly inferior way to increase one's income versus just being consistently right at this sort of thing.
As it happens, I have a product launch coming up. I will offer a money back guarantee, and I will do it in an A/B test. If I am wrong, and the guarantee statistically significantly decreases sales, I will a) have a cow and b) donate a cow to charity. If I am right, you don't have to do anything, because being consistently right at this sort of prediction makes propositional bets with authors a distinctly inferior way to increase one's income versus just being consistently right at this sort of thing.
> Money-back guarantees virtually invariably raise sales in A/B tests.
The original poster didn't make a money-back guarantee, as in "If you aren't happy with my book, I will refund." Instead he made a claim about increasing the number of clients, i.e. a performance claim ("I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates."). Here's the law on that issue:
URL: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOf...
Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected."
Here is another account that makes the same point:
URL: http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Templ...
Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication."
What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not.
The original poster didn't make a money-back guarantee, as in "If you aren't happy with my book, I will refund." Instead he made a claim about increasing the number of clients, i.e. a performance claim ("I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates."). Here's the law on that issue:
URL: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOf...
Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected."
Here is another account that makes the same point:
URL: http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Templ...
Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication."
What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not.
You keep talking about "commercial speech" being different from "non-commercial speech", as if that explains your claim that "If you aren't happy with my book, I will refund." (claim A) is a safe thing to say, but "I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates." (claim B) isn't.
But both claim A and claim B look like commercial speech to me!
Both are promises to provide refunds under certain specified conditions. One, claim A, offers refunds under the broad and hard to dis-prove condition of "aren't happy with the book", while claim B offers refunds under a somewhat narrower and slightly easier to verify condition of "not able to raise rates". How is claim B more dangerous than claim A?
And comparing commercial speech vs. the contents of a book is irrelevant, since neither claim A nor claim B is contained within a book.
But both claim A and claim B look like commercial speech to me!
Both are promises to provide refunds under certain specified conditions. One, claim A, offers refunds under the broad and hard to dis-prove condition of "aren't happy with the book", while claim B offers refunds under a somewhat narrower and slightly easier to verify condition of "not able to raise rates". How is claim B more dangerous than claim A?
And comparing commercial speech vs. the contents of a book is irrelevant, since neither claim A nor claim B is contained within a book.
> But both claim A and claim B look like commercial speech to me!
One of them offer a refund without making any kind of claim, the other makes a claim about the contents of the book and about what outcome purchasers have a right to expect. They are treated differently under the law.
But I can see you are simply not going to get this, no matter how many cases I quote for you, how many legal decisions.
> How is claim B more dangerous than claim A?
One of the statements offer a refund without making any kind of claim about the book's effect. The other makes a claim about the book's effect.
Imagine you are a doctor, offering a miracle cure that is in the pages of a book. To one group you say, "If you're not happy with my book, I will give you your money back."
To the other you say, "My book provides a cure for cancer. If your cancer isn't cured, I will give you your money back."
The first pitch is protected under the First Amendment because it doesn't describe the book's contents or effect, and therefore it doesn't matter what the book says. The second doesn't have First Amendment protection, because it's commercial speech that makes a claim about the contents of the book. In the second case, the author makes the mistake of making a claim about the book and its contents in his promotion, outside the protection of the First Amendment.
How is that in any way complicated?
URL:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-16/news/30523850...
Quote: "Trudeau insisted his First Amendment rights were being infringed, and began advertising books rather than diet supplements in new infomercials ... [but] the new ruling requires Trudeau to give back all the money he made from selling books during the infomercial ban."
The reason Trudeau lost his case, even though he was selling books, is because he didn't just sell the books, he described what the reader should expect from them in his pitches. It was on this basis that the court ruled against him.
One of them offer a refund without making any kind of claim, the other makes a claim about the contents of the book and about what outcome purchasers have a right to expect. They are treated differently under the law.
But I can see you are simply not going to get this, no matter how many cases I quote for you, how many legal decisions.
> How is claim B more dangerous than claim A?
One of the statements offer a refund without making any kind of claim about the book's effect. The other makes a claim about the book's effect.
Imagine you are a doctor, offering a miracle cure that is in the pages of a book. To one group you say, "If you're not happy with my book, I will give you your money back."
To the other you say, "My book provides a cure for cancer. If your cancer isn't cured, I will give you your money back."
The first pitch is protected under the First Amendment because it doesn't describe the book's contents or effect, and therefore it doesn't matter what the book says. The second doesn't have First Amendment protection, because it's commercial speech that makes a claim about the contents of the book. In the second case, the author makes the mistake of making a claim about the book and its contents in his promotion, outside the protection of the First Amendment.
How is that in any way complicated?
URL:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-16/news/30523850...
Quote: "Trudeau insisted his First Amendment rights were being infringed, and began advertising books rather than diet supplements in new infomercials ... [but] the new ruling requires Trudeau to give back all the money he made from selling books during the infomercial ban."
The reason Trudeau lost his case, even though he was selling books, is because he didn't just sell the books, he described what the reader should expect from them in his pitches. It was on this basis that the court ruled against him.
Are you seriously comparing a guy who says "Raise your professional service rates or your money back" to a guy peddling a snake oil cancer cure… or are you trolling to see what shakes out?
The person's reason for speaking isn't the issue, the law is the only issue. My point is performance claims are actionable, but the contents of a book are not.
Do you really think people only initiate legal actions when someone has actually misrepresented something? That's naive. My point was the OP was taking an unnecessary risk, when he could simply have said "If you're not happy, I'll refund your money."
How complicated is that?
Do you really think people only initiate legal actions when someone has actually misrepresented something? That's naive. My point was the OP was taking an unnecessary risk, when he could simply have said "If you're not happy, I'll refund your money."
How complicated is that?
>> When someone makes a performance claim about the contents of a book ...
> Money-back guarantees virtually invariably raise sales ...
It would be nice if we both were discussing the same topic. A performance claim is not a money-back guarantee.
> Money-back guarantees virtually invariably raise sales ...
It would be nice if we both were discussing the same topic. A performance claim is not a money-back guarantee.
> both those theories are absolutely false.
Here is a quotation from a page the cites the constitutional law on this issue:
URL: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOf...
Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected."
Here is another account that makes the same point:
URL: http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Templ...
Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication."
What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not.
Sound familiar?
Here is a quotation from a page the cites the constitutional law on this issue:
URL: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOf...
Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected."
Here is another account that makes the same point:
URL: http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Templ...
Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication."
What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not.
Sound familiar?
I'm doubtful about points 2 and 3 since it doesn't match my observations of how people really act†, but point 4 really sounds out there. Like, anybody can sue over anything. Does this meaningfully increase your risk? It's really hard to imagine some lawsuit-happy fellow who would sue you if you offered them a refund but not if you didn't offer a refund. Have you actually seen much of this?
† My experience is that people tend to be very lazy about things like mail-in rebates and and money-back guarantees, passing them up even when they're perfectly entitled.
† My experience is that people tend to be very lazy about things like mail-in rebates and and money-back guarantees, passing them up even when they're perfectly entitled.
You're #4 seems legally dubious at best. I can't imagine any court in the land upholding the idea that purchasing any education material with an implied promise of results grants the purchaser 'consequential damages'.
An easy smell test for this idea is the "get rich quick in real estate" infomercial.
An easy smell test for this idea is the "get rich quick in real estate" infomercial.
> An easy smell test for this idea is the "get rich quick in real estate" infomercial.
Yes -- and here is the law on that issue:
URL: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOf...
Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected."
Here is another account that makes the same point:
URL: http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Templ...
Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication."
What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not.
Yes -- and here is the law on that issue:
URL: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOf...
Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected."
Here is another account that makes the same point:
URL: http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Templ...
Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication."
What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment - the bit about making a guarantee that your product will do X really does make sense when put like that.
Ultimately, I realize a few things 1) relatively few people take up money back guarantee offers and 2) I do want to ensure that people are happy with their purchase. Maybe there's a better way of doing that than ensuring some outcome?
Ultimately, I realize a few things 1) relatively few people take up money back guarantee offers and 2) I do want to ensure that people are happy with their purchase. Maybe there's a better way of doing that than ensuring some outcome?
"If you aren't completely satisfied with this book I'll return your money, no questions asked" works for me.
No need to guarantee success, just guarantee quality information that you believe when applied correctly will lead to success.
No need to guarantee success, just guarantee quality information that you believe when applied correctly will lead to success.
Does your position come from experience in selling an ebook or other educational product?
Yes -- but my book isn't a traditional, mass-printed book like that under discussion. When someone orders a copy of my book, one copy gets printed and shipped. Unlike in traditional publishing, there are no piles of my book in a warehouse, awaiting sale.
And I have to tell you, this new publishing model is going to wipe out the old model (so-called "dead-tree publishing"). And pretty soon, even that model will fall before the e-book model, where no "book" is printed at all, ever.
But as a writer I've dealt with various aspects of the old-style publishing business over a period of decades, not all with respect to books.
And I have to tell you, this new publishing model is going to wipe out the old model (so-called "dead-tree publishing"). And pretty soon, even that model will fall before the e-book model, where no "book" is printed at all, ever.
But as a writer I've dealt with various aspects of the old-style publishing business over a period of decades, not all with respect to books.
So you've offered a results-guaranteed return policy for your book, and you had a bad experience? I'd love to hear more.
No, my reply to you wasn't about claims made in a book, only to say that I had some experience with publishing.
I see. So where do your very strong assertions about the folly of money-back guarantees come from? Data? Experience? Do you have friends who've done it?
I ask because I have lots of experience with it -- with 4 products offering total money-back guarantees -- and have insight into more than 10 friends' businesses with similar guarantees, and not a single one of us have had experience with refund abuse like you describe. Nor is it ever mentioned as an issue among the larger communities which offer that type of product for sale.
As patio11 said, your statements are testable, and if you test them, you will find them false.
I ask because I have lots of experience with it -- with 4 products offering total money-back guarantees -- and have insight into more than 10 friends' businesses with similar guarantees, and not a single one of us have had experience with refund abuse like you describe. Nor is it ever mentioned as an issue among the larger communities which offer that type of product for sale.
As patio11 said, your statements are testable, and if you test them, you will find them false.
> So where do your very strong assertions about the folly of money-back guarantees come from?
What assertion was that? I never said what you claim. I invite you to locate me decrying "the folly of money-back guarantees", anywhere.
Try to read more carefully, before objecting to something no one said.
> your statements are testable, and if you test them, you will find them false.
Great -- you invent something I never said, then try to hold me responsible for it. Definitely science in action.
What assertion was that? I never said what you claim. I invite you to locate me decrying "the folly of money-back guarantees", anywhere.
Try to read more carefully, before objecting to something no one said.
> your statements are testable, and if you test them, you will find them false.
Great -- you invent something I never said, then try to hold me responsible for it. Definitely science in action.
I was simply summarizing. Here are your exact words:
"3. The problem is that the remaining 20% can take you at your word, demand a refund, explain that the book was lost in a fire, and succeed in wiping out your profit.
4. Worse, someone might say your claim moved your book from the category of an ordinary caveat-emptor purchase, to a guarantee of success, and demand consequential damages. Very bad, and you made it possible."
With your bulleted list you suggested that 20% of people would take advantage of a return policy (obliterating your presumed 20% profit margin), and on top of that, you might get sued.
If that's not "folly" by your definition, what is?
But because you cried foul, let me be explicit, step by step, with what you "actually" said:
#3. Where's your experience, evidence, or data to suggest that a 20% return rate is common or likely -- even with a results guarantee?
#4. Please provide credible examples of an (e)book author or video course producer being sued for damages above and beyond their refunded money-back guarantee, based on the premise of results promised not being delivered. (Other reasons for lawsuits wouldn't count.)
If you have evidence, I'd really love to see it, because it impacts my business.
"3. The problem is that the remaining 20% can take you at your word, demand a refund, explain that the book was lost in a fire, and succeed in wiping out your profit.
4. Worse, someone might say your claim moved your book from the category of an ordinary caveat-emptor purchase, to a guarantee of success, and demand consequential damages. Very bad, and you made it possible."
With your bulleted list you suggested that 20% of people would take advantage of a return policy (obliterating your presumed 20% profit margin), and on top of that, you might get sued.
If that's not "folly" by your definition, what is?
But because you cried foul, let me be explicit, step by step, with what you "actually" said:
#3. Where's your experience, evidence, or data to suggest that a 20% return rate is common or likely -- even with a results guarantee?
#4. Please provide credible examples of an (e)book author or video course producer being sued for damages above and beyond their refunded money-back guarantee, based on the premise of results promised not being delivered. (Other reasons for lawsuits wouldn't count.)
If you have evidence, I'd really love to see it, because it impacts my business.
First, IANAL.
Next, how can you not see that I'm comparing the OP's performance claim ("I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates") to a simple money-back guarantee -- "If you're not happy, I'll give you back your money." I have to say there is a world of difference between the two, and others have made the same point in this thread.
> Please provide credible examples of an (e)book author or video course producer being sued for damages above and beyond their refunded money-back guarantee
Sure, no problem, since they practically grow on trees:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau
Quote: "Trudeau's activities have been the subject of both criminal and civil action. He was convicted of larceny and credit card fraud in the early 1990s, and in 1998 he was sued by U.S. Federal Trade Commission for making false or misleading claims in his infomercials promoting his book,'The Weight-Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About [emphasis added]. In 2004, he settled that action, by agreeing to pay a $500,000 fine and consenting to a lifetime ban on promoting products other than his books via infomercials [not mentioned in this article is that he was required to be truthful about the contents of his books]. [1] On Nov. 29, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $37.6 million fine levied against him for violating that 2004 settlement [by lying about the contents of his books]. Additionally, on remand, the district court modified its final order, requiring that he post a $2 million bond before engaging in future infomercial advertising."
The above example is someone who made performance claims about his books and lost. Second example -- Greg Mortenson:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/greg-mortenson-sued...
Quote: "Regardless of whether claims are true that author Greg Mortenson fabricated portions of "Three Cups of Tea," neither he nor his publisher can be held liable because the First Amendment protects exaggerations or lies in memoirs, his publisher's attorney said Wednesday.
Penguin Group (USA) attorney Jonathan Herman and attorneys for Mortenson, co-author David Oliver Relin and Mortenson's charity, the Central Asia Institute, asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by four people who bought Mortenson's bestselling books."
Notice about this case, that the lawsuit was dismissed because the claims are all in a book, and while fund-raising, Mortenson never claimed anything beyond the book's content, thus he is protected by the First Amendment.
I could give dozens of examples like those above. The basic thread that runs through all of them is if it is between the covers of a book, in most cases you're safe. But if you make claims while promoting the book, unless they are absolutely bulletproof, someone might sue you. This doesn't mean you have to misbehave to get sued -- people sue on bogus grounds all the time. My point is it's best to avoid opening yourself up to a lawsuit by careless "commercial speech":
http://blj.ucdavis.edu/archives/vol-5-no-2/Commercial-Speech...
I won't try to summarize the complex law on this issue, except to say that commercial speech is not First Amendment speech.
> If that's not "folly" by your definition, what is?
I never even used the word "folly". What's my incentive to let you put words in my mouth?
And I hope this helps.
Next, how can you not see that I'm comparing the OP's performance claim ("I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates") to a simple money-back guarantee -- "If you're not happy, I'll give you back your money." I have to say there is a world of difference between the two, and others have made the same point in this thread.
> Please provide credible examples of an (e)book author or video course producer being sued for damages above and beyond their refunded money-back guarantee
Sure, no problem, since they practically grow on trees:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau
Quote: "Trudeau's activities have been the subject of both criminal and civil action. He was convicted of larceny and credit card fraud in the early 1990s, and in 1998 he was sued by U.S. Federal Trade Commission for making false or misleading claims in his infomercials promoting his book,'The Weight-Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About [emphasis added]. In 2004, he settled that action, by agreeing to pay a $500,000 fine and consenting to a lifetime ban on promoting products other than his books via infomercials [not mentioned in this article is that he was required to be truthful about the contents of his books]. [1] On Nov. 29, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $37.6 million fine levied against him for violating that 2004 settlement [by lying about the contents of his books]. Additionally, on remand, the district court modified its final order, requiring that he post a $2 million bond before engaging in future infomercial advertising."
The above example is someone who made performance claims about his books and lost. Second example -- Greg Mortenson:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/greg-mortenson-sued...
Quote: "Regardless of whether claims are true that author Greg Mortenson fabricated portions of "Three Cups of Tea," neither he nor his publisher can be held liable because the First Amendment protects exaggerations or lies in memoirs, his publisher's attorney said Wednesday.
Penguin Group (USA) attorney Jonathan Herman and attorneys for Mortenson, co-author David Oliver Relin and Mortenson's charity, the Central Asia Institute, asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by four people who bought Mortenson's bestselling books."
Notice about this case, that the lawsuit was dismissed because the claims are all in a book, and while fund-raising, Mortenson never claimed anything beyond the book's content, thus he is protected by the First Amendment.
I could give dozens of examples like those above. The basic thread that runs through all of them is if it is between the covers of a book, in most cases you're safe. But if you make claims while promoting the book, unless they are absolutely bulletproof, someone might sue you. This doesn't mean you have to misbehave to get sued -- people sue on bogus grounds all the time. My point is it's best to avoid opening yourself up to a lawsuit by careless "commercial speech":
http://blj.ucdavis.edu/archives/vol-5-no-2/Commercial-Speech...
I won't try to summarize the complex law on this issue, except to say that commercial speech is not First Amendment speech.
> If that's not "folly" by your definition, what is?
I never even used the word "folly". What's my incentive to let you put words in my mouth?
And I hope this helps.
The debate wasn't, isn't, has never been about whether "commercial speech is First Amendment speech."
The debate is whether you have evidence to support your claims that it's a very risky and legally actionable idea to offer a refund if people don't see results. Assuming that the offer is truthful.
You have not offered any.
You've found one case where a person was sued for hawking a cancer cure and rapid weight loss, but even so, the lawsuits were over flat out lies inherent in the product and not any kind of results-or-money-back guarantee.
It's pretty amazing. No matter how often I ask for evidence for this assertion of yours, you manage to change the topic. I salute you. You would make an excellent press secretary.
The debate is whether you have evidence to support your claims that it's a very risky and legally actionable idea to offer a refund if people don't see results. Assuming that the offer is truthful.
You have not offered any.
You've found one case where a person was sued for hawking a cancer cure and rapid weight loss, but even so, the lawsuits were over flat out lies inherent in the product and not any kind of results-or-money-back guarantee.
It's pretty amazing. No matter how often I ask for evidence for this assertion of yours, you manage to change the topic. I salute you. You would make an excellent press secretary.
> I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates.
Since someone who doesn't understand constitutional law downvoted my original post, I want to try again to make you aware of something. Here is a quotation from a page the cites the constitutional law on the issue of performance claims:
URL: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOf...
Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected." (Emphasis added.)
Here is another account that makes the same point:
URL: http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Templ...
Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication."
What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not.
Also, saying "If you aren't happy with my book, I will refund your money" isn't a claim about the book's contents. Saying "I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates" is a claim about the book's contents, and its effect. The second is a problem, the first isn't.
Since someone who doesn't understand constitutional law downvoted my original post, I want to try again to make you aware of something. Here is a quotation from a page the cites the constitutional law on the issue of performance claims:
URL: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOf...
Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected." (Emphasis added.)
Here is another account that makes the same point:
URL: http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Templ...
Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication."
What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not.
Also, saying "If you aren't happy with my book, I will refund your money" isn't a claim about the book's contents. Saying "I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates" is a claim about the book's contents, and its effect. The second is a problem, the first isn't.
Challenge accepted, thanks for the answers.
Great post...it also introduced me to this book, Exceptional Ruby: http://exceptionalruby.com/ Buying it right now.
Exceptional Ruby is indeed fantastic. If you like it, you may be interested in Avdi's current book project "Confident Ruby": http://devblog.avdi.org/2012/06/05/confident-ruby-beta/
Impressive stuff, although the book promotion page looks slightly off. Reminds me of those 'free make money' ebook pop-up's I got in 2005.
I'll followup with a post on why I used the sales letter format to sell the book, but I can tell you this: it converts 3x better than the alternatives I tried.
We had a similar situation with an inhouse-ad on our site. The polished version performed ok, but just for the fun of testing, we switched to a rough screenshot image. It performed more than five times as good.
Just because one doesn't like it, doesn't mean it won't work. My learning was: Always, test everything.
Just because one doesn't like it, doesn't mean it won't work. My learning was: Always, test everything.
Just because one doesn't like it, doesn't mean it won't work. My learning was: Always, test everything.
This is a point that every single commenter on HN needs to be aware of. There are far too many people who seem to think that just because they don't like something, it can't work, won't work, should be priced lower...
This is a point that every single commenter on HN needs to be aware of. There are far too many people who seem to think that just because they don't like something, it can't work, won't work, should be priced lower...
Even further: asking people if they like the page would result in different results compared to testing if they end up paying for the advertised product.
a.k.a. You're not their customer. Ergo, to be successful, you're not your customer.
I've heard this same result regarding business ebook sales at least half a dozen times. There's a sentiment in tech culture to the effect that we are free thinkers who should be dismissive of obvious sales tactics. But maybe the sales guys use them because they're statistically effective.
"Test everything" includes "test the options you're dismissive of, just in case not everyone thinks like you."
"Test everything" includes "test the options you're dismissive of, just in case not everyone thinks like you."
Well I am sold - but I cannot pay outside the US it seems (unless I make up a zip code)
Edit: You have my hard-earned now, after I saw the "which country are you in" - that was embarrassing, but in my defence its a terrible interface.
Edit: You have my hard-earned now, after I saw the "which country are you in" - that was embarrassing, but in my defence its a terrible interface.
Thanks! Yeah, I'm stuck with PayPal at the moment, which I know has issues internationally - I'm sorry, and thanks for supporting the book.
I hate to sound old-fashioned, but this puts the cart before the horse. Authors should have a book available for sale before accepting delivery payments. Ask any publisher how this sort of thing usually works out.
Not sure I follow this. Pre-ordering books is a pretty well established practice among publishers (yes, real ones, not just ebook authors).
Actually, it's the primary hack for getting on best-seller lists (pre-orders, then fulfillment in strategic batches designed to show consistent sales over time).
Or is this a more basic "No one should sell anything that doesn't already exist" argument?
If so, I'd point out concert tickets (usually 6 months advance sale), seminars, conferences, and most other large undertakings that need some sort of validated audience numbers as counter-evidence.
Why not all products, as long as there's no attempt to deceive, and the purchaser is clear that the product is not ready yet?
Actually, it's the primary hack for getting on best-seller lists (pre-orders, then fulfillment in strategic batches designed to show consistent sales over time).
Or is this a more basic "No one should sell anything that doesn't already exist" argument?
If so, I'd point out concert tickets (usually 6 months advance sale), seminars, conferences, and most other large undertakings that need some sort of validated audience numbers as counter-evidence.
Why not all products, as long as there's no attempt to deceive, and the purchaser is clear that the product is not ready yet?
> Not sure I follow this. Pre-ordering books is a pretty well established practice among publishers ...
The difference is the person pre-ordering can back out, and generally speaking in pre-orders, no payment is made until delivery. It ends up being a measure of public enthusiasm, not a way to gather revenues in advance of delivery. In this case, people are paying for a book that doesn't exist yet.
> Actually, it's the primary hack for getting on best-seller lists
Yes, true, but see the pre-order discussion above -- generally, no money changes hands until the book is actually available.
Also, I have to add, the ultimate best-seller-list hack is to buy copies of your own book and put the copies back into the pipeline, endlessly, as the Scientologists are said to do.
> Or is this a more basic "No one should sell anything that doesn't already exist" argument?
But that's true in general -- in the worst cases, where delivery doesn't happen, the seller can be charged with fraud. I hasten to add I am not comparing this hypothetical (but all too common) outcome with the book under discussion, which for all I know is perfectly worthwhile.
The difference is the person pre-ordering can back out, and generally speaking in pre-orders, no payment is made until delivery. It ends up being a measure of public enthusiasm, not a way to gather revenues in advance of delivery. In this case, people are paying for a book that doesn't exist yet.
> Actually, it's the primary hack for getting on best-seller lists
Yes, true, but see the pre-order discussion above -- generally, no money changes hands until the book is actually available.
Also, I have to add, the ultimate best-seller-list hack is to buy copies of your own book and put the copies back into the pipeline, endlessly, as the Scientologists are said to do.
> Or is this a more basic "No one should sell anything that doesn't already exist" argument?
But that's true in general -- in the worst cases, where delivery doesn't happen, the seller can be charged with fraud. I hasten to add I am not comparing this hypothetical (but all too common) outcome with the book under discussion, which for all I know is perfectly worthwhile.
Ok, but you didn't address my point about concert tickets et al. Obviously you pay in advance of seeing the concert, or attending the conference, and sometimes these things get canceled.
It's reasonable to expect money back, or worst case some sort of "raincheck" in case of a cancelation or delay. Same applies to ebooks in my mind.
"Public enthusiasm" doesn't pay the deposit for a concert hall or conference center, right? Why should an author not get paid in advance of the effort of writing a book? [Hint: authors already figured this out a couple of centuries ago - thus the publishers' advance]
So it's not really a question of money changing hands, it's just whose money, and whose hands.
It's reasonable to expect money back, or worst case some sort of "raincheck" in case of a cancelation or delay. Same applies to ebooks in my mind.
"Public enthusiasm" doesn't pay the deposit for a concert hall or conference center, right? Why should an author not get paid in advance of the effort of writing a book? [Hint: authors already figured this out a couple of centuries ago - thus the publishers' advance]
So it's not really a question of money changing hands, it's just whose money, and whose hands.
> Ok, but you didn't address my point about concert tickets et al.
Fair enough. A concert doesn't work like a book -- the concert venue must know who is coming, in what numbers, in order to prepare. A traditional book publisher only needs to know enough to decide on the size of the next "printing", to fill the supply channel incrementally, as demand warrants.
The concert happens all at once, so the audience size must be known up front. The book publication might stretch over decades, with periodic decisions about the size of the next printing, so the publisher only needs to know the rate of change in demand, the "first derivative," to use the calculus term.
Two very different cases, from very different, non-comparable businesses.
Fair enough. A concert doesn't work like a book -- the concert venue must know who is coming, in what numbers, in order to prepare. A traditional book publisher only needs to know enough to decide on the size of the next "printing", to fill the supply channel incrementally, as demand warrants.
The concert happens all at once, so the audience size must be known up front. The book publication might stretch over decades, with periodic decisions about the size of the next printing, so the publisher only needs to know the rate of change in demand, the "first derivative," to use the calculus term.
Two very different cases, from very different, non-comparable businesses.
Yes, of course, I'm not making an argument that concerts and books are the same business. That would be dumb.
I'm saying rather, there's no obvious reason to not get paid for them the same way, as long as the audience is willing. If they're not willing, that obviously won't work. But clearly in some cases (like the OPs), they are willing.
So as an author, you'd have to be irrational to not want to be paid as early as possible.
As a purchaser, you're free to vote with your wallet, and not pre-buy anything you don't want to. But if you want what the author is proposing, and want to give him encouragement by pre-buying, why is that somehow bad or wrong?
And my fuzzy calculus aside, the first printing for most books will also be the last one. So better to get the volume right. If only there were a way to accurately gauge demand before doing a printing...
I'm saying rather, there's no obvious reason to not get paid for them the same way, as long as the audience is willing. If they're not willing, that obviously won't work. But clearly in some cases (like the OPs), they are willing.
So as an author, you'd have to be irrational to not want to be paid as early as possible.
As a purchaser, you're free to vote with your wallet, and not pre-buy anything you don't want to. But if you want what the author is proposing, and want to give him encouragement by pre-buying, why is that somehow bad or wrong?
And my fuzzy calculus aside, the first printing for most books will also be the last one. So better to get the volume right. If only there were a way to accurately gauge demand before doing a printing...
> And my fuzzy calculus aside, the first printing for most books will also be the last one.
This is not the norm in publishing, at least, the desirable kind. For most publishers who promote and market books, profits don't start until the first printing has sold out and subsequent printings begin, with (a) all book preparation activities already complete, and (b) a public who don't need to be persuaded of a book's value. It is at this point that an author begins to be looked on as more than a one-trick pony.
Imagine a pre-publication advertisement: "A truly epic myth! Floods, plagues, the anguish of being unimaginably stupid! Certain to be a best-seller if the author ever gets done writing it! Pre-order the Bible now -- get in before the rush!"
:)
> If only there were a way to accurately gauge demand before doing a printing...
In modern publishing, there's no need -- books are printed, one copy at a time, when they are ordered. For example, my book only gets printed after someone buys a copy. This change (electronic on-demand publishing) essentially wipes out the traditional publishing model.
This is not the norm in publishing, at least, the desirable kind. For most publishers who promote and market books, profits don't start until the first printing has sold out and subsequent printings begin, with (a) all book preparation activities already complete, and (b) a public who don't need to be persuaded of a book's value. It is at this point that an author begins to be looked on as more than a one-trick pony.
Imagine a pre-publication advertisement: "A truly epic myth! Floods, plagues, the anguish of being unimaginably stupid! Certain to be a best-seller if the author ever gets done writing it! Pre-order the Bible now -- get in before the rush!"
:)
> If only there were a way to accurately gauge demand before doing a printing...
In modern publishing, there's no need -- books are printed, one copy at a time, when they are ordered. For example, my book only gets printed after someone buys a copy. This change (electronic on-demand publishing) essentially wipes out the traditional publishing model.
"This is not the norm in publishing, at least, the desirable kind."
Ah, it's good you said that. I always thought publishers like O'Reilly and Pragmatic Programmers were totally undesirable. Now I can point out why.
"In modern publishing, there's no need -- books are printed, one copy at a time, when they are ordered."
Cite?
Ah, it's good you said that. I always thought publishers like O'Reilly and Pragmatic Programmers were totally undesirable. Now I can point out why.
"In modern publishing, there's no need -- books are printed, one copy at a time, when they are ordered."
Cite?
>> "In modern publishing, there's no need -- books are printed, one copy at a time, when they are ordered."
> Cite?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print_on_demand
> Cite?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print_on_demand
I think we all know what Print on Demand is, but that Wikipedia page doesn't list any proof for your assertion that it is "the coming thing." The only publishers it lists as offering POD are specialty POD publishers.
That's hardly the sweeping industry change you described.
That's hardly the sweeping industry change you described.
Your objection is that there is little evidence in the present for an assertion about the future -- the "coming thing". Knock yourself out.
You state things in the present tense:
"In modern publishing, there's no need -- books are printed, one copy at a time, when they are ordered… This change (electronic on-demand publishing) essentially wipes out the traditional publishing model."
This implies that this is the way things are, now, or will be in the very near future, for the majority. And there's no proof that "in modern publishing, books are printed, one copy at a time."
"In modern publishing, there's no need -- books are printed, one copy at a time, when they are ordered… This change (electronic on-demand publishing) essentially wipes out the traditional publishing model."
This implies that this is the way things are, now, or will be in the very near future, for the majority. And there's no proof that "in modern publishing, books are printed, one copy at a time."
From my perspective, there's nothing more motivating than having people chomping at the bit to get their hands on your book. The end product is arguably better because it's not being written in a vacuum and is bolstered by a ton of support.
Yes, but that end can be accomplished through pre-publication excerpts and interviews, not by accepting payments for a book not yet written. The former increases public enthusiasm for a book, the latter doesn't. Reasonable people may differ.
In your arguments against presales, you haven't said why you think that the other way is better. What's your reasoning? I'm assuming "because one creates better publicity" isn't it, since you seem to have something against the idea for deeper reasons.
> In your arguments against presales, you haven't said why you think that the other way is better. What's your reasoning?
In the traditional approach, reviewers who have no economic stake review a book or an excerpt and let the public know what they think. In most cases the public can assume the review is objective.
In an approach like this one, an author uses pre-orders or advance payments as evidence for the book's merit. But those pre-ordering haven't yet seen what they're buying. The problem should be obvious -- the author can say, "My book must have merit -- look at all those who have ordered it in advance of seeing it!"
Again, I am not saying any of this applies to this author or this book -- it's completely hypothetical.
In the traditional approach, reviewers who have no economic stake review a book or an excerpt and let the public know what they think. In most cases the public can assume the review is objective.
In an approach like this one, an author uses pre-orders or advance payments as evidence for the book's merit. But those pre-ordering haven't yet seen what they're buying. The problem should be obvious -- the author can say, "My book must have merit -- look at all those who have ordered it in advance of seeing it!"
Again, I am not saying any of this applies to this author or this book -- it's completely hypothetical.
I can't tell who you think is being served poorly by this. The people who can get their money back immediately if they are disappointed? The same people who might preorder any other kind of book on Amazon.com? The reviewers, who theoretically are less biased about something they got for free? The author, who you presume is using existing sales as a weak ipso facto ex post facto argument for the quality of the book-in-progress (which, as you admit, is purely hypothetical)?
It's not a bug, it's a feature!
The reader gets involved in the making of the book, the writer gets a way to talk with their best customers, everyone wins.
A savvy author trumps a crappy publisher any time.
The reader gets involved in the making of the book, the writer gets a way to talk with their best customers, everyone wins.
A savvy author trumps a crappy publisher any time.
> The reader gets involved in the making of the book, the writer gets a way to talk with their best customers, everyone wins.
Not disparaging this specific author or publisher, but this was once accomplished by having advance reviewers offer their criticisms without any money changing hands.
> A savvy author trumps a crappy publisher any time.
Yes, but not the reverse. :)
Not disparaging this specific author or publisher, but this was once accomplished by having advance reviewers offer their criticisms without any money changing hands.
> A savvy author trumps a crappy publisher any time.
Yes, but not the reverse. :)
Having an advanced review by a reviewer is not the same as feedback from actual customers.
He's basically asking for an advance directly from his readers. The flipside, of course, is that he must also return this "advance" if no book is made available.
Exactly. PayPal would also step in and refund if I flaked out on my side of the deal.
It goes without saying, I'm pretty certain I'm going to make a LOT more money in sales once the book is ready (immediate gratification). So it's in my best interest to get this out the door soon.
It goes without saying, I'm pretty certain I'm going to make a LOT more money in sales once the book is ready (immediate gratification). So it's in my best interest to get this out the door soon.
This post is great marketing for mentioned unfinished book. The HN frontpage is probably the perfect target audience, well put!
But by far the lowest converting traffic source :-) Thanks!
It's definitely a low converting traffic source, but then it brings an interesting coverage/publicity, tends to generate retweets etc (based on my experience on http://hackerbooks.com/).
That looks interesting enough that I sent a link to a friend. Sometimes making to HN front page does pay.
update: She bought it last week.
update: She bought it last week.
This is priceless especially considering how much effort goes into writing a book or creating a SaaS product.