Amazon+Netflix+Internet = Libraries' Destruction?

Amazon is thinking about a subscription service ala netflix for books. OK, I've been predicting this for a while- but more as for a service for libraries to subscribe to. However, if this is offered like netflix, how much longer can we compete? Let's look at it, shall we. Netflix for $8/month. Internet for $15/month. Amazon for (i'm totally guessing here) $15/month. So, we've got $38 per month. Another couple of hundred per year for an e-reader and a roku box/appletv. That's about $650 per year. For a family of 4 that would be $162.50 annual per person. (the first year, this would go down to about $100/year/person after the initial device expenditures). San Francisco public library spends approximately $86 per capita. What happens when the cost in san fran is more than the companies? How long before libraries can't compete? When do we admit defeat? When is it going to be cheaper to simply provide the poor with their own devices and accounts?

Boys don't read... crappy books.

There's a lot of response to how horrible a recent NY Times opinion about why teen boys don't read. A lot the response seems to think this article is bashing women.

I call BS. Women have- at least in the last couple of centuries- ALWAYS had female authors to read. The list is LONG. Anyone under 40 grew up reading them alongside male authors all throughout school. From To Kill a Mockingbird to Sense and Sensibility (and even Ethan Frome!) there is no shortage of women authors being taught- when the work is good. Also, it's incredibly hypocritical to say that women suffered through having to read books by men about men- that they can't relate to or don't want to- and then complain that a man might complain about the same thing in reverse! (does it matter who wrote the book if it's great? NO. So, why complain about it?)

Boys' ya fiction is bad- almost without exception- and I mostly recommend that they skip it altogether and go straight to "adult" books. I do the same with girls' books. Basically, they're romance novels- and are VERY OFTEN poorly written. When recommending books, if they aren't going to read adult books because they don't read, then they are a lost cause and they should stick with manga.

Also, let's look at the crap adults read. (other than twilight- which they do. That is the shittiest prose I think I've ever read. EVER. Had to quit it early because the fact that she made millions why being so bad at her job made my head hurt.) Romance novels? Detective novels? Romance novels sold as detective novels (I'm looking at you JD Robb/Nora Roberts)? Dirk Pitt being "co" written? How many James Patterson (with someone you've never heard of) books can be put out in a year? Star wars novelizations? Nicholas GD Sparks? I'm not going to go on anymore because it will make me cry.

Sorry, got a little off topic. The point is, most books are bad. That's a bottom line truth- ya or not, girls or boys. Also, this is a market issue. The reason we need more boys to read is because we need more boys to buy books! It's like half the market is there for the taking- or so someone thinks. Maybe they just need to start making better ya nonfiction? Or quit caring and tell them about good books to read, regardless of age or author.

Libraries ARE NOT FREE! STOP LYING!

“You'll be amazed to know that so many things you're paying for are now available at no charge at your local branch.”

This is absolutely and unequivocally FALSE. Libraries are not free. Library services are not free. Library materials are not free. (Unless, of course you pay no taxes at all, ever, anywhere.) As I’ve stated before, the cheapest a library gets is $13 +/- per capita. Would we call other things free that cost $13 per person? Are baseball games free if you get an outfield bleacher seat? Is a movie ticket free? NO. Is the library a good deal? Yes, to those that use it, the library is a great deal. In fact, the more you use it, the better a deal it becomes. However, it is NOT free.

Everyone in library land should do themselves a favor and stop spreading this lie. Instead, we should tell the truth. The library is not free; it’s something you’ve already paid for. An apt analogy (in my mind) is that the library is like a Groupon deal that get’s you $100 of food for about $13. Once you’ve paid for that, your food isn’t free, it’s just really cheap. (The big flaw in this analogy, if course, is that you would CHOOSE to buy the groupon, you have no real choice about the library- but that’s a different story altogether.)

If you think it’s free, you simply think you’re passing up a free service- like not taking that sample pizza bagel at SAMS. However, if you don’t use the library, you’re paying for something you’re not using- like buying the box of pizza bagels and leaving them on the bottom of the cart instead of taking them home. From a library marketing standpoint, I don’t see WHY you would ever tell someone it’s free. Are you more likely to use something that’s free, or something that you’ve already paid for so you might as well get your money’s worth? I definitely don’t know why Linda McMaken at Investopedia would make this ignorant mistake.