BBC Breakfast - big misconceptions

Maybe someone should just contact BBC and have them broadcast a correction.

The two assumptions you made are spot-on. Other than my die-hard e-book readers, everyone I know thinks exactly like that until I explain the differences between self-pub, traditional e-pub, indie pub, e-books, etc

Frankly, I think it would be irresponsible of the Beeb to misinform the public. They should be clear on what e-books are all about.

My friends don't really pay any attention to publishers. If they like the cover and the book description, they check out the Look Inside feature and then decide if they'll buy the e-book or not.

Funny aside, my mom's iPad and mine are synced and I always buy one copy of my e-books so I can see how they will look on my iPad Kindle app. My mom reads my books and then forgets what she reads, so she re-reads them. I download a lot of books by a wide variety of authors (trade pubbed and self-pubbed), so my mom receives those books on her Kindle app, as well. The other day she said, "I know you've been busy writing, but did you write all these books on here?" There are probably close to 200-250 books on my iPad Kindle app. I told her I wished I'd written all those books, but no, only 10 of them were written by me. Hee Hee

areteus said:

So... what can we do to inform and educate? SHOULD we inform and educate?

Click to expand...

I made the same goof in a thread this morning, and if asked, I *know* the difference. It's just that the concepts are so deeply embedded in every bookstore conversation I have that it's become Kleenex vs. Facial Tissue. You say the wrong thing because of convention, habit, and laziness.

If this becomes so pervasive that it's the norm, the answer will be to create a new term for professionally published e-books (since "e-book" is becoming synonymous with self-pubbed e-book). For anyone who loves the purity of language, this is going to rankle. For people who love to fight uphill battles they have no chance in hell of winning, this is going to be all kinds of fun!

hughhowey said:

(since "e-book" is becoming synonymous with self-pubbed e-book)

Click to expand...

No, it really isn't. I have plenty of non-writer friends who think an e-book is a digital version of a book -- period. Not one of them makes the assumption that e-books are self-published.

In general, I don't think most non-writers really care about self-pubbed or traditional pubbed, it's all just "books." And "books" can be e-books or paper books, they're still just "books."

E-Book, to most people with half a brain, means electronic book. It does not mean "exclusively do-it-yourself electronic book." It means electronic book.

Most of the people I see who confuse "e-book" with "self-published" are self-published writers. Not readers, not people who work in trade publishing, and not trade-published writers.

Terie said:

No, it really isn't. I have plenty of non-writer friends who think an e-book is a digital version of a book -- period. Not one of them makes the assumption that e-books are self-published.

Click to expand...

Same here. Maybe it's because most (if not all) of the e-books they own are :drum roll: trade published.

Same here... I'm surprised at this pervasive thing about ebook = self-pub, considering the breadth of Kindle advertisements. They advertise showing regular ol' bookstore bookity books.

areteus said:

This is true for many. However, when a major media corporation makes it clear that they do not either understand or wish to acknowledge that there are any ebooks that are not self published (it was even stated that 'ebooks are outside of publishing houses') then I feel that there is a problem.

Click to expand...

I can't comment on the article because I didn't see it: but as I understand it this was an interview, not an investigative piece. So the interviewers are relying on their interviewee to provide the pertinent information, to some extent at least.

Were this a major news story, involving fraud or murder, then yes, I'd expect the interviewers to be much better briefed; and yes, I do think it's disappointing that they weren't aware of the differences.

I do hope that the people who have taken the time to complain about it here have also taken the time to explain the problem to the BBC.

Terie said:

I have plenty of non-writer friends who think an e-book is a digital version of a book -- period. Not one of them makes the assumption that e-books are self-published.

Click to expand...

I find this true of nearly everyone I know, most of whom are non-writers and many of whom are readers of print books. To them, an e-book is simply an electronic book regardless of who published it. Like an ecard or an e-invoice or bank statement. To them, it's just another medium, that's all.

It is therefore quite astonishing to see how many people on writer's forums all over the world making similar assumptions or are similarly confused. And of course, we've also read with a little horror how some even throw indie publishing into the mix and believe indie = self-publishing = e-publishing.

Old Hack said:

I can't comment on the article because I didn't see it: but as I understand it this was an interview, not an investigative piece. So the interviewers are relying on their interviewee to provide the pertinent information, to some extent at least.

Click to expand...

This.

There is a UK writing magazine that I subscribe to, and they carry a 'members news' page. You have to carefully read between the lines, most of the time you can't identify that they've self-published until they place a little ad like 'book X is available through Amazon Kindle' after the piece.

Maybe the interviewees have been sneaky with the BBC researcher?

I've been thinking about this thread, and I wonder if the following plays into how people think about e-books vs. physical books and self vs. traditional publishing:

The e-book version of a traditionally published book feels like an extension of that book, an off-shoot, just like the audio version. If we talk about Stephen King's latest e-book, we might refer to it simply as a "book," since this is the primary form it takes. The digital copy is secondary.

E-books with no physical counterpart, on the other hand, are perhaps thought of as something different. There is no other version; this is it. It's an e-book rather than a book-book that's been exported digitally. I'm not sure if this distinction is clear, but I can sense it in my own thought process when I picture the difference between a Stephen King novel and one of Amanda Hocking's old novels (before she signed or came out with her own physical copies).

For most self-published authors, it almost seems like the physical book is the offshoot from the digital. I would think most self-pubbed writers sell more of their e-books than their hard copies. So when we think of self-pubbed, we think of their primary revenue stream, which is the e-book. When we think of traditionally published authors, we think of hardbacks, which is their primary earner (chronologically, if not monetarily).

I'm not saying these distinctions are correct or that we should reinforce them, only that they perhaps lie below the surface and color our thought and speech.

What this means for professionally published e-books is unfortunate. Despite receiving a lot of the same care traditional books receive, they are lumped in with the primary stream of the self-published author rather than the more similar traditionally published author.

Again, I'm brainstorming for explanations, not justifications.

^^ Hmmm, never thought of it that way before, but I think you're onto something.

areteus said:

Misconceptions and spotting them are my job

Click to expand...

Misconceptions and reporting them is BBC Breakfast's job.

£145.50 per year is a lot to pay for Family Guy, which is about the only thing left on BBC worth watching these days. And don't get me started on BBC radio.