Social Media

Image Management

21 September 2014

From author Drew Hayes:

The simple truth of the digital age is that, when you create and exist online, you are a persona that is tied to your work. I’ve had several fellow authors bemoan the fact that they had to manage so many social media accounts (a lot of writers are introverts, so interaction tires them out), but the fact of the matter is it’s necessary. It’s become the expectation for us to interact, to put ourselves out there, no matter how small of potatoes we may be. I’m as guilty of it as any of us, I’ve found myself genuinely confused when authors I liked weren’t on twitter, and I’ve written whole blogs about the importance of making yourself reachable as an author.

So, what does all of this really mean? It means that once you put work out there: books, art, comics, videos, any of it; you have reached a point where you need to be at least vaguely aware of image management.

. . . .

Be Honest

This is the most basic, core tenant I think I can pass on. Don’t pretend to be something you’re not, or your social media existence will turn into another job. No one can fake being anything for that long without getting drained, and honestly there’s no reason you should.

I’m not saying you have to talk about everything (we’ll cover that in a moment) but you should at least feel comfortable being you.

. . . .

Be Discreet

Here is where I flip things over slightly. Being on the internet is like baking, you want to be really careful what you add, because once it’s in you can never truly take it out. You should certainly be honest online, I still stand by that, but that doesn’t mean you need to put out every part of your life for public consumption.

. . . .

Be A Person

I’ll be honest; I’ve unfollowed/hidden other writers, even ones I was partial to, because all they did was post links to their work. I’m not alone in that, either. Many of my net-friends have expressed similar sentiments. More than anything, it’s disappointing when you see someone whose entire image is just their body of work. It feels like trying to shake the hand of a cardboard cutout.

Link to the rest at Drew Hayes and thanks to SFR for the tip.

Here’s a link to Drew Hayes’ books

It’s not just journalists — for better or worse, design plays a key role in how we get our news

15 September 2014

From GigaOm:

Among its other disruptive influences, the rise of the web has caused journalism to become detached from the physical objects it used to be embedded in, whether that was a newspaper, magazine or book. Information flows over us like a river now, instead of being chopped up and frozen in time. And that means more than just an aesthetic change in how we consume the news — it means that the apps and devices and platforms we use play an increasingly large role in how we get our information, and therefore so does the design of those services.

. . . .

[J]ournalists definitely have an obligation or a duty to choose and tell stories ethically, but they are no longer the only ones that have that responsibility:

Today, press ethics are intertwined with platform design ethics, and press freedom is shared with software designers. The people at Facebook, Twitter, Flipboard, Pulse and elsewhere have a new and significant role in how news circulates and what we see on our screens. We’re only just beginning to understand how these companies’ algorithms work and why they matter to the editorial calculations shaping today’s news.

. . . .

[O]ne of the players at the center of this debate is Facebook, since the massive social platform is a source of news for a large number of users — and therefore the algorithms it uses, and the design choices it makes, have a powerful influence on what news users either see or don’t see. The contrast between a filtered and an unfiltered view of the world was brought home during the recent civil unrest in Ferguson, Mo., when Twitter users got a real-time flow of news that many users of Facebook missed out on completely.

Is that Facebook’s fault? Does it have some duty or obligation to deliver the news in an ethical or responsible way, like the newspapers it has said it wants to emulate?

Link to the rest at GigaOm and thanks to Matthew for the tip.

Heard it From a Friend Who Heard it From a Friend Who…

14 September 2014

From author Margot Kinberg:

[T]he way we talk to each other about books has changed.

It used to be that book lovers would share their finds at book clubs, perhaps in bookshops themselves or sometimes with friends and family members. Those things do still happen. But today, there are more ways to share books than ever before. So the meaning of ‘word of mouth’ has changed.

. . . .

There’s also social media. Speaking strictly for myself, I’ve discovered some truly fine crime fiction through book blogs I trust – crime fiction I would never have heard of had it not been for blogging. For instance, I’ve become a fan of the work of Angela Savage, Geoffrey McGeachin, Anthony Bidulka and of course Elizabeth Spann Craig. I could give a long list of other examples too. And I would never have ‘met’ these particular authors if it weren’t for blogs.

But ‘word of mouth’ is much more than blogs. It’s also in places such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social networks. Dozens and dozens of posts and tweets mention this or that author, this or that release and this or that great new book. In a lot of ways, this new kind of ‘word of mouth’ has made it more possible than ever for authors who aren’t exactly household names to get their work out there.

. . . .

But here’s the thing. That much word of mouth can also have drawbacks. One of them is ‘noise.’ Let me explain what I mean. In her post, Spann Craig mentions 50 Shades of…well, you know what I mean, as an example of a book that got a huge amount of attention. As the saying goes, it went viral. That also happened with Stieg Larsson’s Millennium trilogy. I’m not going to debate the merits of that particular series, other than to suggest that once something like that does ‘go viral,’ there’s a great deal of pressure – call it peer pressure if you want to – to read, review and even enjoy the newest sensation. It’s everywhere in bookstores, it’s everywhere on reviews and so on. Are those ‘sensations’ good books? Some are. Some aren’t. But what happens is that that huge flurry of attention could well mean that other excellent books don’t get any.

That sort of ‘noise’ also means that there’s a great deal of pressure on other crime writers to ‘do what’s worked.’ If you’re a publisher or agent, that makes sense. A certain book happened to catch on (whether it’s a good book or not) and made a lot of money. Why wouldn’t a publisher or agent want to repeat that success? So it’s not surprising that what sometimes happens is that these folks begin to look for the same kind of thing from other writers.

Link to the rest at Confessions of a Mystery Novelist

Here’s a link to Margot Kinberg’s books

Meet Jack and Jack, the Vine stars who are quietly topping the iTunes charts

8 September 2014

This tip was submitted by Matthew, who said:

I think it’s worth having a look at the rise of something akin to indy publishing that most of your readers are probably not aware of: the rise of YouTube and Vine celebrities. These are mostly kids who have generated enormous followings on these platforms and become celebrities with millions of followers without the intervention of the legacy music or TV industries. For instance, there are Jack and Jack, a couple of kids from Omaha.

From GigaOm:

18-year-old Jack Johnson and 17-year-old Jack Gilinsky are so anonymous on the internet that, as a skeptical reporter, I immediately questioned the veracity of the pitch I received about “two of Vine’s hottest stars” and their upcoming performance. I also wonder how the hell two no-name teenagers booked a headlining gig at The Regency, a major concert venue in San Francisco.

But I was curious enough about the nature of teen stardom in the social age that I attended anyway. Sure enough, as my Lyft pulled up Van Ness street, my jaw dropped as I spotted the massive crowd of giggling preteen girls looped around the corner, clutching signs and fan paraphernalia in white knuckled grips of excitement. I saw a ridiculous neon tour bus splashed with the faces of these supposed Vine celebrities. And I realized that being famous in the age of social media means you can have a giant tour bus with your face on it and a line of screaming teenage fans, even if no one else in the world cares.

. . . .

Jack and Jack –- as their Vine fans affectionately call them — represent your classic new millennial celebrities. They are slowly building an empire for themselves, shrewdly and carefully plotting their path to stardom and leveraging social media and technology to get there. Johnson and Gilinsky started out where many self-made social celebs do: Filming Vines to make their friends laugh.

. . . .

The duo says they’ve been approached by “every” major record label,  but at the moment they have no interest in signing. Instead, they want to go it alone. After all, they haven’t needed any help up to this point. “Why get our money stolen, or make less money, when we can get our songs on the exact same spot on the charts ourselves?” Johnson says. “We’re going to stay independent as long as we can, until we see the benefit from the record label.”

It’s a testament to the self-made ethos that brought them their fame. It’s also sheer ballsiness that would rarely have been imagined, let alone attempted or pulled off, in previous generations of performers. The music industry gatekeepers have lost their edge and can thank the internet for that. Johnson and Gilinsky know they can market directly to their fans without a middle man.

Link to the rest at GigaOm

And here is the Jack and Jack Vine Channel (click on the sound icon in the upper left corner to listen)

Marketing the author properly is a challenge for the book publishing business

5 September 2014

From veteran publishing consultant Mike Shatzkin:

A few years ago, trying to explain the difference between how books had weathered digital change compared to other media, I formulated the paradigm of the “unit of appreciation” and the “unit of sale”. The music business was roiled when the unit of appreciation (the song) became available unbundled from the prevailing unit of sale (the album). Newspapers and magazines presented individual articles that were appreciated within a total aggregated package that were the unit of sale. The ability of consumers to purchase only what they most appreciated shattered the business models built on bundling things together.

. . . .

This played out in a more complicated way in the book business. For novels and narrative non-fiction, where the unit of sale equaled the unit of appreciation, simple ebooks have worked. That’s been great for publishers, since the ebooks — even at lower retail prices — deliver them margins comparable to, or even better than, what they got from print books.

But there is a big challenge related to this paradigm that the industry hasn’t really tackled yet. The “unit of appreciation” for many books is the author. And the “unit of appreciation” is also the “unit of marketing” and therein lies the problem. Because the industry hasn’t figured out how to bring publishers and authors together around how to maximize the value of the author brand.

Marketing requires investment. For an author, that means a web site that delivers a checklist of functionality and appropriate social media presences, as well as what any competent publisher would do to make the individual book titles discoverable.

But authors inherently do not want publishers to “control” their personal brand, particularly when so many of them have more than one publisher or self-published material in addition to what they’ve sold rights to. And publishers don’t want to invest in marketing that sells books they don’t get revenue from or to build up an author name that could be in some other house’s catalog a year or two from now.

. . . .

Where the solution must start is with authors (which also means agents, but also means all writers with by-lines, whether they’re now writing books or not) recognizing that the author brand is a proprietary asset that, if properly nurtured, can grow in value over time. The value is reflected in email subscribers (to newsletters or notifications or whatever an author cares to offer that fans will sign up for), social media followings, and web site traffic. When it becomes large enough, the following becomes monetizable.

. . . .

But we’ve also found flaws in the web presences of authors that publishers asked us to evaluate. When that happens, we — actually they — often hit a brick wall. The marketing people don’t have access to the authors; those are relationships handled by the editors, often through agents. Editors don’t have the same understanding of web site flaws that marketers do, even after we explain them, and the agent-author relationships have other elements that are more important to the editor to manage. It is difficult for a publisher, with whom an author signed so they would market the book, to spell out a list of tasks the author should do to market their books (or themselves). It opens what can be a difficult conversation about who should do what and who should pay for what.

. . . .

Perhaps there will never be an “industry answer” to maximizing the marketing clout of our core “unit of appreciation”: the author. But we know that every author who has more than one published piece (book or article) on the Web under their name and who has the intention of publishing more should have the following built into a web presence they control and manage:

* a list of all their books making clear the chronological order of publication (organized by series, if applicable)
* a landing page for each book with cover, description, publisher information (including link to publisher book page), reviews, excerpts, and easy to find retail links for different formats, channels, and territories
* a clear and easy way for readers and fans to send an email and get a response
* a clear and easy way for readers and fans to sign up for email notifications
* a clear and easy way for readers and fans to connect and share via social media
* a calendar that shows any public appearances
* links to articles about or references to the author

They must have an active and up-to-date Amazon author page and Google Plus page; that’s critical for SEO. Twitter and Facebook promotional activity might be optional, none of the rest of this is if an author is serious about pursuing a commercially successful career.

. . . .

My marketing whiz partner Pete McCarthy’s recommendation is that the authors own their websites but that the publisher run a parent Google Analytics account across author sites. That would enable them to monitor across authors, use tools like Moz to improve search (that would be beyond most authors’ abilities to manage and understand), and provide real support to authors optimizing their own web presence. This kind of collaboration is particularly appealing because it is reversible; the author can at any point install their own Google Analytics and remove the site from the publisher’s visibility. What this takes is for a publisher to set up the “parent” Google Analytics account and make a clear offer to authors of the support they can provide. As far as we know, only Penguin Random House — using an analytics tool called Omniture subsequently acquired by Adobe — offers this capability.

Link to the rest at The Shatzkin Files and thanks to Loretta for the tip.

PG says publishers might provide a value-add for an author if the publisher covered the expense of creating, maintaining and updating a web and social media presence for the author. After all, the publisher receives the large majority of the income from the author’s books.

But Mike’s approach mirrors the typical publisher’s attitude – the author should do all the online marketing and promotion. We might call it self-marketing.

The question that immediately comes to mind is, if the author is doing self-marketing, why doesn’t it make sense for the author to do self-publishing?

The list of tasks that publishers ask authors to perform continues to grow and the list of things that authors can’t do for themselves pretty much boils down to getting print distribution through physical bookstores.

As is usually the case after reading about publishers and marketing, PG wonders if there is any other industry that is as far behind the curve and clueless about the online world as traditional publishing is.

When does giving the reader what they want turn into clickbait?

31 August 2014

From GigaOm:

The conventional wisdom is that clickbait is the bane of internet journalism, a kind of desperate pandering by revenue-challenged media companies aimed at racking up eyeballs — driven by the relentless economics of pageview-driven advertising. But what is it really? Everyone thinks they know it when they see it, and Facebook is even trying to ban it from the network, but defining it is harder than it seems. In fact, the dividing line between clickbait and serving the interests of the reader is a lot more blurry than the conventional wisdom suggests.

. . . .

Many argue that an obsession with metrics has put journalists on a “hamster wheel” and driven the quality of online journalism to new depths (an argument I’ve tried to refute a number of times), to the point where some media outlets don’t even allow their writers to see the metrics related to their work, for fear of distorting their motives. But in many ways, “clickbait” is just a natural outgrowth of the evolution in journalism from a one-way broadcast approach to a two-way model — in other words, from push to pull, or from supply-driven to demand-driven.

. . . .

In her piece, Christin quotes Richard Darnton, who was a reporter for the New York Times in the 1960s, and wrote about what the news business was like before the internet: in those days, he says, “We really wrote for one another.” As Christin puts it:

Darnton reminds us that, in the printed world, the quality of one’s articles was mostly assessed by one’s peers and superiors. Journalists had somewhat abstract representations of their reading public. The letters to the editor were often left unread. Then came the Internet.

What Darnton describes is an almost completely one-way approach to media — in the old days, news stories and other content were produced because an editor or editors decided they should be, either because they were trying to appeal to certain readers, or because they believed an issue was important and their audience should know about it, or some combination of those two factors. For the most part, what readers were actually interested in, or what they were actually reading (as opposed to what they said they were reading in focus-group surveys) had little or nothing to do with what appeared in a newspaper or magazine.

The ability to see every click, every page load — even the “scroll depth,” or how far down a reader has made it in every story — has completely up-ended that traditional model, not to mention data on where readers come from (increasingly social platforms such as Twitter and Facebook rather than search) and what they choose to share. And that in turn has completely changed how media outlets produce content.

Link to the rest at GigaOm

Paulo Coelho, Fiction’s Digital Alchemist

16 August 2014

From The Wall Street Journal:

When Mr. Coelho’s novel, “Adultery,” comes out Tuesday, the publicity will be handled almost entirely by the 66-year-old writer, a self-styled spiritual guide who has sold more than 165 million books in some 80 languages. The Brazilian-born author has become an international celebrity due in no small part to his knack for the provocative and his immense social-media following. An early blogger and Facebook poster, he knows how to cast clickbait (breezily endorsing illicit affairs during business trips) and shape his image.

Mr. Coelho (pronounced “Coe-AIL-yoh”) has more than 25.6 million fans on Facebook in three languages and over 9 million followers on Twitter. He has more followers on those platforms than Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, James Patterson, John Green, Dan Brown, Danielle Steel and John Grisham—combined.

Many readers have come to see a writer’s Internet persona as a digital extension of their books. For some fans, a personal tweet from their favorite novelist is more thrilling than a signed copy. Social media’s influence on book sales has publishers pushing authors to put more of themselves online than ever before.

Mr. Coelho didn’t get to the top of the digital pyramid by accident. His niblets of inspiration about life’s challenges and personal fulfillment fit neatly with a link and a picture on a phone screen. He connects daily with readers, sending private messages of encouragement and comfort, while updating his blog and public feeds with snapshots from his life and aphorisms from his books. Fans describe being profoundly moved by his online affirmations, professing their love for him in retweets and comments.

. . . .

Years before other novelists joined Twitter and Facebook, Mr. Coelho was reaching out to fans on MySpace and, later, putting short videos on YouTube. He has accounts on Instagram, Tumblr, Vimeo, Google+ and Pinterest. He often posts during high-traffic intervals in the U.S. to reach the most readers. Since 2012, he has more than tripled the number of @paulocoelho followers on Twitter. He doesn’t follow many people back—those he does include Jeremy Piven, Jessica Simpson and Deepak Chopra.

He speaks and writes in Portuguese, English and French and posts in Spanish through a translator. He also keeps up a presence on Russian and Chinese social media.

. . . .

Clearly, though, the right kind of digital engagement moves sales. When Grijalbo, an imprint of Random House Spain and Latin America, put the first chapter of “Adultery” online last month, it drew 10,000 views. Mr. Coelho then posted the link on Facebook and within 12 hours the tally jumped to more than 200,000, says his agent, Mônica Antunes.

Link to the rest at The Wall Street Journal (Link may expire)

You Are So On (Because They Are, Too)

15 August 2014

From Writer Unboxed:

My address is 2025 Avenue of the Stars.

This is as it should be, of course. 90067.

With my sunglasses so firmly in place that I can barely read anything on the screen, I’m writing to you on the eve of Phil Sexton’s Writer’s Digest Novel Writing Conference in Los Angeles. It’s at the Hyatt Regency Century Plaza again this year, the kind of hotel that’s designed to look good on you.

. . . .

There are certain dangers here, naturally. If the paparazzi are spotted, you can be trampled by starlets running toward them. And parts of LAX still seem to be undergoing the same renovation project that put Hangar No. 1 into place in 1929.

But one of the side benefits of being in Tinsel Town from time to time is a reminder that being on is no longer just something stars and motivational speakers worry about.

The more we talk about authors needing to market themselves, their brands, their work, the more we’re really saying that they need to be aware, be alert, stay on top of issues, to position themselves in and around the going media story about publishing and books and writing.

In short? Like a Hollywood hopeful, you want to be…on.

. . . .

In today’s edition of The Bookseller, my fine London colleagues Tom Tivnan and Felicity Wood are writing with special timeliness about what publishers’ growing understanding of consumer data might mean to how those publishers work with their authors.

“Publishing’s increased focus on consumer insight and customer data,” they write, “is set to drastically change relationships with authors, informing decisions around acquisitions, contracts and publication itself.”

And if that line didn’t fully get your attention, go back and read it again. You may not be quite on, baby. Grab the sunglasses for better viewing and I’ll give you more:

Rufus Weston, insight director at HarperCollins [UK], explained: “Publishers are realising what Amazon realised much earlier: that our own data is a business asset. As physical sales become less important, it is more difficult to use the TCM to calibrate what a successful book or author is.

“We can now look at the social trajectory of a potential acquisition and use that to our advantage to set the advance. We’re seeing authors becoming more data-savvy, and I think we will see a further recognition that data is part of the business process. I can see us asking for a regular amount of tweets from a celebrity as part of their contract, for example.”

Note that this all is being phrased in a positive light. I mean, eureka!, right? Well, of course right. More data on how readers are reacting to authors’ interactions on this or that social medium? — means more info on how to enhance those authors’ readership with such knowledge. Big smile, darling, they’re all watching. Right now.

Author care will also be further improved by the rise of consumer insight, Weston said, with publishers better equipped to expand author brands through feedback. He added: “We can monitor an author’s interactions on Twitter and then say when is the best time for them to tweet, and who they should be interacting with. It will increasingly become part of the service we offer and [it] will also help to emphasise authors’ obligations for social media.”

Catch that last line? About emphasizing “authors’ obligations for social media?”

. . . .

Never does one hear, “It also can show us which authors to cut off at the knees if they’re not toeing the line and workin’ it the way our data says they should.” Heaven forbid. It’s all as bright as an ingenue’s grin on premiere night. Just before she tweets that selfie to her fans.

. . . .

And in case you haven’t felt personally digitally disrupted so far as an author? Let me suggest you feel harder.

When your publisher — or your self-publishing platform which may or may not be your friend — learns to gauge how well you’re getting out there to the folks, then you will begin hearing…things. About about your “profile,” your “visibility,” your “presence,” your “reach,” your “connection,” your “commuuuuuuuuuunity,” and your….on-ness.

. . . .

I’m saying the world has changed. And is about to change more. You don’t have to “worry about all that,” no. But somewhere, somebody is going to be worrying about all that for you, if you do want to have a bit of a career, a salable, going little thing here in the marketplace. They have to worry. So you may want to worry first, worry faster, worry better.

Link to the rest at Writer Unboxed and thanks to Louisa for the tip.

PG was about to let slip the dogs of snark, but he’s running behind this morning, so he’ll just ask a few questions:

If you had notable talent for understanding consumer data, why in the world would you work for an antediluvian organization like a publisher instead of a sexy modern company where you could do really cool stuff, get paid well today and receive stock options that might be worth a lot of money tomorrow?

If you’re an author who wants a publisher so you can just focus on writing, do you really want to focus on writing tweets in addition to writing books?

And receive critiques on your tweets? And quotas for how many tweets you must send each week?

If you’re an author who is data-savvy and tweet-savvy and can build your own brand, what, exactly is your publisher doing for you that justifies giving it the large majority of the money your books earn?

Particularly when all this online marketing, etc., is more likely to lead to sales on Amazon and other ebookstores than sales in traditional bookstores?

If your horde of followers on Twitter sees a tweet about your new book, any social marketer will tell you to include a link. Where is that link going to point? If you say to Joe’s Bait Shop and Book Store instead of Amazon, you flunk Social Marketing 101.

And if your hordes of followers click on the link, would you rather receive 70% of the money they spend on your book at Amazon or 17%? (Even less after your agent’s cut)

 

Publishers Turn to the Crowd to Find the Next Best Seller

12 August 2014

From The New York Times:

Sandy Hall was nervous. Ms. Hall, a librarian in Morristown, N.J., was preparing one recent night to lead her weekly book club meeting with a group of 14 teenagers. The book being discussed, a young-adult romance titled “A Little Something Different,” was her own debut novel.

“I’m still in the ‘I hope they like it’ phase,” she said an hour before the meeting.

But Ms. Hall, 33, has more cause for confidence than most other first-time authors. Her novel is the first book to be published by Swoon Reads, a new young-adult imprint that lets fans vote on manuscripts to choose which ones are published.

About 9,000 readers have already sampled her story online, and it drew the highest possible rating of five hearts. Her publisher is so bullish about the book that it is planning a hefty first print run of 100,000 copies in the United States and simultaneous releases by its sister imprints in Britain and Australia.

Swoon Reads, a young-adult imprint that is part of Macmillan Publishing, is upending the traditional discovery process by using crowdsourcing to select all its titles. By bringing a reality-television-style talent competition to its digital slush pile, the publisher is hoping to find potential best sellers that reflect not editors’ tastes but the collective wisdom and whims of the crowd.

. . . .

So far, Ms. Feiwel has acquired six debut novels out of the 237 manuscripts posted on Swoon Reads’ website. The novels, which range from contemporary realism to paranormal romance, were chosen based on comments and ratings (from one to five hearts) from the site’s 10,000 registered users. Readers also vote on audiobook narrators after listening to digital audio samples, decide which cities the authors visit on their tours and choose the books’ covers. Writers published by Swoon Reads receive a $15,000 advance, plus royalties.

. . . .

Some question whether fans will have greater success finding undiscovered gems than the publishing industry’s traditional gatekeepers. Two years ago, Avon Romance, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, created a site for aspiring romance writers to share their novels and get feedback, in the hope that great new novels would surface. A handful of editors comb through the site every week to evaluate the manuscripts that are getting the most “loves” — the equivalent of Facebook “likes.” So far, 500 works have been posted, but none have been acquired for publication.

Erika Tsang, the editorial director of Avon, said she was a bit skeptical of the rating system. “Honestly, a lot of the time it’s the writers’ relatives who are ‘loving,’ ” she said.

It is also unclear whether involving fans in the editorial evaluation process is any more efficient than sorting through unsolicited manuscripts or relying on submissions from agents. In Britain, HarperCollins created a website where writers can upload their manuscripts and evaluate one another’s work. The site, Authonomy, now has about 100,000 registered users and more than 15,000 manuscripts. Every month, a team of HarperCollins editors reads the five highest-rated manuscripts, but so far just 15 of the novels posted on Authonomy have been published.

Link to the rest at The New York Times and thanks to Josie for the tip.

Josie notes that the story somehow omits agents and publishers scouring Amazon’s bestseller lists looking for top-selling indie authors.

That strategy does have problems, however, because an indie author’s response to the offer of a $15,000 advance might be something like, “I made more than that last month.”

Facebook is Adding Buy Buttons to Ads – Do You Think They Could be Used to Buy/Sell eBooks?

20 July 2014

From The Digital Reader:

This crossed my desk yesterday:

Facebook is trying out letting you pay for ecommerce purchases from other businesses without leaving its site or app. For now it won’t be charging the few small and medium-sized businesses in the US to test this new Buy button on their News Feed Pages posts and ads. When I asked if Facebook would be charging businesses for the feature eventually, it said “it was not disqualifying that option” in the future.

Facebook is getting ready to take a cut of the retail sales made on their site, something I thought they would have done years ago.

. . . .

So do you think the new ads could prove useful for buying or selling ebooks?

Link to the rest at The Digital Reader

Next Page »