Ads in Books Debate Divides Twitter

By Jason Boog Comment

mtlg.pngPublishing folk around the Twitter-sphere debated one question all day: Should we put advertisements in books?

The Wall Street Journal touched of the debate with an article about the possibility of advertisements in digital books: “With an integrated system, an advertiser or publisher can place ads across multiple titles to generate a sufficient volume. Timeliness is also possible, since digital readers require users to log in to a central system periodically.”

UPDATE: Reader responses included below. Movable Type Literary Group founder Jason Ashlock started the Twitter hashtag #adsinbooks by writing: “About this advertising in books idea. Is it really that bad? Obv we don’t want it to disrupt the reading experience, but … Isn’t there a way to incorporate select, tasteful adverts that provide revenue, appeal to readers sensibilities?”

Check out the #adsinbooks Twitter stream to add your thoughts. Back in 2009, we posted A Brief History of Ads in Books, collecting some handy links about the topic.


Our Facebook readers posted passionate responses. Here are some highlights…

J.P. Smith wrote: The eminent French paperback series Serie noire (primarily detective fiction) always used to carry cigarette ads on their back covers … which seemed perfect for the hardboiled fiction they published.”

Phyl Good wrote: “No no no and NO. We are harassed by that stuff almost every waking moment as it is. The thought of publishers jamming still more advertisements into a book or ebook is the best argument I can imagine for NOT reading.”

Amanda Rose wrote: “I think that advertisements for other books they have (in print or online) would be fine, as long as you can just flip past them if you choose. I don’t mind the little ads Penguin books often have in the back for their classics or upcoming.”

Advertisement
Advertisement
http://www.adweek.com/galleycat/ads-in-books-debate-divides-twitter/13454?red=as
www.adweek.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-26
60277
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:U5LNYYGZ6PEGYZ7OJAXRRALETWDY7IPH
<urn:uuid:b9a0356e-6639-4a11-811c-5b9afff4dc6f>
2017-06-27T23:08:18Z
192.124.249.157
text/html
sha1:GSJTVF5LVGYKJ2EXA7H4UQEMN2DCKXAO
<urn:uuid:d3fbfa5e-4d08-4453-9aa9-8d0500a8e7c6>
http://www.adweek.com/galleycat/ads-in-books-debate-divides-twitter/13454?red=as
response
<urn:uuid:467c4de1-41b0-412b-8f0c-5690d9fc5c22>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-166-47-92.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-26
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf