Amazon Kindle e-book reader

Reading this post recently, I found myself asking why ebooks haven’t really taken off as a medium. Certainly more recent efforts, such as Amazon’s Kindle, have helped to reignite the market after a rather dubious development period over the past decade or so, but if one compares the ubiquity of mobile phones or digital audio players, e-books are entirely missing from the landscape.¹

In purely utilitarian terms, should the technology ever be fully and appropriately used, ebooks have a lot to offer over their paper counterparts. There are far fewer requirements and resources needed for production, and distribution is much easier. Whilst a device on which to read ebooks might outweigh a single volume, additional books add nothing, and in terms of transporting books en mass, ebooks are clearly in favour. The ability to flick through a paper volume might be lost in the electronic form, but this is clearly compensated for by vastly improved tools for search and cross-referencing. Likewise combining other forms of media such as video and audio is a perfectly reasonable conception with ebooks, that the paper variety can’t really compete with on any level. They’re also more easily manipulable, in terms of being able to zoom, highlight or simple leave your own annotations about the place. All of which is to say nothing of the potential advantages for newspapers and other periodicals.

Yet although the technology is certainly in a position to deliver an entirely new experience for readers, the potential has not really been tapped to any great extent, and in fact it would appear as though it is being deliberately held back. Tempting as the current technology may appear, there are still many questions left unanswered that prevent any real rapid transfer. Can books somehow be backed up to prevent possible corruption? What happens to the titles previously bought should one buy a different reader? When buying a paper book, customers can feel confident that their purchase is physically in their position, to use as they see fit. Even simple, everyday acts that we would normally take for granted with a paper book,² such as photocopying pages or lending it  to a friend, suddenly become problematic when dealing with the ebook equivalent. And what about being able to sell a book on when you’re finished with it? In addition, the recent case of Amazon withdrawing books sold for their Kindle reader,³ including deleting the items from user’s devices, highlights yet one more issue that users face when choosing between paper and electronic formats.

The current situation reminds me very much of that surrounding the invention and spread of mp3s in the later 1990s. Whilst the format gained in popularity and notoriety in the years following its publication in 1994-5, the music industry treated the news entirely as a threat to its position, and sought to localise and stifle the Internet phenomenon. When one considers that it wasn’t until mid-2003 that today’s largest online music retailer iTunes opened its e-doors, it becomes clear just how difficult working against such conservative forces can be. It’s an interesting phenomenon, given that most technological advances are met with very early attempts to capitalise upon them, that such an opportunity went virtually ignored and even shunned for almost a decade, before a success story could be made out of it. Perhaps all that is needed to really revolutionise the world of publishing is that mp3 format of ebooks, a format that will provide readers both the security of ownership that a regular paper equivalent manifests, combined with every advantage today’s technology can provide. That format for books has nothing to do with size and ease of distribution, as it did with music, rather a format that will open up a digital format to all publishers, and make the rather fledgling e-publishing market explode.

1. According to The Guardian in April 2008, ebooks accounted for less than 1% of the total publishing market, albeit this share has no doubt increased since.
2. Though with the potential to infringe upon copyright laws.
3. Pictured above. Image by davidking via Flickr.

In this matter, the Internet must have been a major boon to many sellers. By opening themselves up to such a vastly larger market, second-hand book stores can be guaranteed an extra income stream. But at what cost? How can resellers make themselves known on the Internet market, and whilst open to such massive competition, remain profitable? It’s pretty clear on the face of things that Internet prices for second-hand books are much reduced from their on-shelf equivalents. In Chapters’ new premises in Dublin, the second-hand book section prices are so ‘astronomical‘ such that you can occasionally find copies of the books cheaper in their own new books section. The same book on Amazon’s marketplaces, Abebooks or eBay might technically be listed for as little as a penny.

Of course, it would be folly to think that those prices are actual representations of the cost to the buyer. There may be many reasons for such low prices being on offer, one of which is clearly the threat of competition, as buyers generally list items by price and only buy those which top the list, but there are obviously other problems for the seller to overcome. The problem of putting themselves on the Internet market can to a large extent be negated by using services such as the ones I listed above – the problem however is being able to afford to do so.

On a recent purchase from Abebooks, I was dismayed to note that whilst there was technically a benefit to purchasing more than one book from the same seller in terms of postage costs, the reduction was clearly much smaller than what should be expected. One paperback cost £3.35 shipping, already a little extreme you might think, whilst eight paperbacks cost £16.00 – for roughly the same weight of parcel, Royal Mail quote a first class delivery (whilst the quoted price was for second class) at £8.22. This kind of price shuffling is fairly typical, which recently caused a fairly negative reaction from Abebooks through adding fees to the shipping prices. Whilst charging shipping at such high prices might seem unfair, however, it seems entirely just when considering the number of charges laid at the sellers door when dealing with the large marketplaces. I recently saw a sale via Abebooks wherein the total order amounted to £3.92 excluding shipping, and Abe’s commission was £2.10. Add to this the fees charged by Paypal (as that was the payment method) which could be as much as 20p plus 3.5% on the total amount including shipping, and it’s little wonder that book-sellers try to add extra to their shipping costs in order to maintain a sliver of profitability. For those that deal in rare books or expensive volumes, the smaller cuts that are made through listing and payment fees might be dealt with, but for smaller sellers just getting a foot on that ladder seems like a daunting prospect.

Unfortunately, there would appear to be very few alternatives. Even Abebooks was recently acquired by Amazon, and no doubt their fees and market models for second-hand sellers will be homogenised further than they already were. Sites such as UKBookworld from The Clique offer no commission sales in return for annual listing fees (amongst other services), though leave sellers to handle credit card or other payment methods themselves (though thereby avoiding a ‘skim’ from the host). The site of course suffers from a small number of participating shops, and tends to focus more on antique and out-of-print volumes than low cost second-hand paperbacks as a result.

Unless bookshops can set up their own sites that are popular enough and large enough to attract customers and direct sales, is there any alternative for those needing to use one of the main marketplaces mentioned? Or is this just an example of the failure of the Internet to democratise finances as well as ideas?

Of course, the supermarkets can hide behind their names, disguising the fact that the economies of scale have destroyed the vagaries of the market and left us with these abominations. There may appear to be some jostling at the top, but the same essential products are on sale in essentially the same way in every one of their stores. Of course, the true competition goes on behind the scenes, out of sight of the consumer, to keep the prices down and keep the margins up. But the other competition goes by on the very shelves, as the supermarkets surreptitiously promote their own brand goods above third party offerings. Who can deny that the sliding scale of quality runs from Tesco “Value”, through Tesco “Finest” to the majority of third party products? Whilst their lower end products capture the price conscious element of the market, the better quality products attempt to undercut the price of the third party products whilst offering at least a competitive level of quality. That’s not to say this is a policy actually pursued by the chains, but it is certainly within their power to do so, and the fact that they can simply stop stocking third party brands makes such a goal all the easier to achieve.

The problem is that whilst the supermarket has altered the way we buy food, it has also destroyed the competition and rivalry which kept food quality up. Whilst the corner shop has evolved and taken on a new role in the marketplace, backed by the big names of Spar or Londis, the butchers, bakers and greengrocers have been confined to those areas the supermarket cannot yet penetrate. Since this very basic competition is now out of the public sphere, it is little surprise that food quality has dropped over the years.

What is needed is a true incarnation of the supermarket. It cannot be denied that the modern day supermarket provides many conveniences that critics often ignore. Convenient parking, bulk purchases, single transactions, a wider selection of food, competitive prices, are all benefits that the modern consumer will not give up for the sake of better produce. A true supermarket could and should, of course, maintain these benefits, by providing exactly the kind of infrastructure found in today’s behemoths. Everything from site maintenance and in-store facilities, to marketing and financing, through to storage and distribution, would all be handled by the overall supermarket organisation. The store itself, however, would comprise market stalls of all varieties, rented or leased to producers and distributors, organised exactly as might be found in a modern supermarket. Of course, such a layout would limit the scope of individual suppliers to sell a wide variety of products, but the consumer’s demands must be catered to if such a system were to compete with the established giants. Similarly, with today’s technology, a system could easily be established to allow all financial transactions to be made by the overarching supermarket edifice, skimming profits from the sales of individual retailers.

Whilst more rural markets could integrate local producers akin to the farmers’ markets, the demands of the city would continue to rely on the methods of today. Yet even in the urban environment, consumers would be free to choose based not only on price, but on what they can physically see, smell, and should they be a regular customer, taste. Of course these rules could not apply to many items stocked in today’s stores, and perhaps these areas would be taken up by the supermarket edifice itself, but the space for competition in fruits, vegetables, meats, dairy, baked goods, preserves etc. is overwhelming. Potentially, of course, the supermarket could also serve to change food production patterns, as local producers bring their products to market locally, reducing the need for long distance deliveries and longer term storage, and contributing to a more environmentally friendly outlook. The success of a product such as Bonne Maman preserves to some extent illustrates the subconscious level of desire for high quality, locally produced foods. Their determined efforts to improve quality, and their deliberate marketing image replete with labels printed to resemble handwritten equivalents, and patchwork lid designs, have seen tremendous market gains in recent years.

Ultimately, of course, the supermarket in its present form is here to stay, and having already cornered the food market, giants such as Tesco have already found their only avenues open for continued expansion lie in the non-food section. With food prices seemingly set to rise, after years of underpricing and the effects of the world’s burgeoning population starting to take effect in combination with the backlash against technological and intensive farming, it would appear that the supermarket focus on good value for money will continue to take priority over food quality, a fact we can only learn to accept, with no alternative in sight.

Ostensibly the website is aimed at those allegedly few remaining people who cook, though it would appear equally useful to people planning dinner parties, students looking for something to go with their pasta, or just about anyone curious enough to experiment with a few different ingredients. In its essence, the website would be nothing more than a large recipe repository, with everything from snacks and sandwiches to stews and casseroles, with anything in between. Recipes would be submitted by users, moderated and standardised, but the slightly clever part is that these recipes would not be displayed as flat text files—it’s 2007 after all—but would be cross-referenced in such a way as to make the whole collection completely accessible.

The aim would be to create a database that would not only allow users to find a recipe for chocolate sponge cake (although this would of course be possible), but would be able to input a short list of ingredients and find suitable recipes based on what they have, and what they could easily acquire. Not got much time to prepare your meal? Limit the search by selecting a suitable preparation time. Found a recipe which works well for your dinner party but want to push the boat out? Check the recommendations for slight modifications to your meal, and other dishes that complement your main course. Each recipe entered would include relevant information pertaining to ingredients, preparation time, required utensils and serving suggestions. The database could also be expanded to include drinks and cocktails.

Of course, the website should be open to infrequent and regular visitors alike, offering daily dishes of the day or perhaps cooking tips for beginners. The site’s contents should be easily adapted to suit those on a tight budget financially, as well as those with little time to spend in the kitchen. Perhaps members could keep an updated pantry of what vegetables, meats and spices they have in stock, and get offered meal ideas based on this list. And of course there’s plenty of scope beyond this—with enough exposure the site might generate sufficient advertising revenue, there are enough people preparing their own meals still to warrant it. But then again, perhaps this site already exists somewhere?