Please join me in my campaign

I should read his book to find out what space hasn't already been open up to advertisers.
And aren't you suppose to be on your way to Cambodia right now?

He was on On The Media last week talking about how books would be saved if they started running advertisements in them. Can't wait. Guy is hailed as a genius because he articulated what has been obvious to anyone not completely immersed in mass culture for a long time: yes, there are plenty of smaller affinity groups who create their own media. Some people have called these media outlets "zines" for the past few decades.

And yes, why aren't you en route to Cambodia, Anne?

Ads in books! Great, genius, because everyone will flock to a medium with the promise that they will be hawked to at every turn. What's next, ads placed in the middle of songs? Ads engraved into the insides of prescription lenses?

So, in other words, just like a magazine.

Jay-Z had some choice, true, disparaging things to say about magazines. I wish I could remember the quote properly. He's awfully clever.

yes but i almost had to cancel my trip, because of really wanting to cage match chris anderson. it's not just books he's worked up about putting ads in, it's *everything.* And why? because he thinks that will make more things *free*.

Of course, what he's overlooking is the actual cost of such ads, the nion-financial cost, as well as the actual history that opening up space to advertising has inflicted on the surrounding media. All of which he will hear when I give him an earful, which I hope will happen soon except he will have to stay up really late at night cause it's like 12 hours later here and lord knows i'm not messing with my sleep schedule for no Chris Anderson.

And, no, putting ads in books does not make them like magazines. Magazine have a diverse variety of contents already, adn a long history of accepting advertisements, as do all the other periodical publications out there.

As publications that are not periodicals, books have no such history, (although what allows me to sleep at night is that in their history several different book publishers have toyed with this stupid, stupid idea and always thrown it out again immediately, due to its dumbness.)

Angelina Jolie says hi,

Didn't Sigue Sigue Sputnik sell ad space between each song on their debut album?
That worked out so well.

Magazine content is there to entice advertising. Content is secondary to the bottom line. It's a tool. This has been the case with every magazine I have ever written for. The fact is that we can complain all day about this, but books, music, and film are all popping up on the internet for free now. So, how do we still make a living doing what we do?

I'm probably the only writer out there who doesn't see books as the last bastion of pure art out there. They are not. Publishing has been corrupt for so long now, putting ads in books isn't that much worse than what goes on now.

and ads in books do have a history.
even if it is ads for other books by the same author or publisher (those blurbs praising the author on the back of the book by stephen king or clive cussler have been paid for, in essence ads), plus books published by university presses and theory presses like Zone or Semiotext(e) have always featured ads in them for upcoming releases.

Plus did we not all grow up on scholastic series books with their teaser forthcoming covers in the last furtive pages and the scrolls of title checklists?

Still, I understand that the type and condition of the ads we are discussing would fundamentally interrupt and challenge the space of the text, which presents a host of problems, mostly celebrated by the meta-hyper-text advocates.

I think the greater issue, as Anne, points out is the faulty wiring in the assumption that advertising will reduce cost and make more shit free for the consumer. The fact that such a stupid argument is allowed to start at all illustrates the sorry state of intellectual discussion surrounding these issues.

I think the greater issue here is that outrage over ads in books is too little too late, when there should have been outrage all along over the state of publishing in general. It's akin to going to war, and then quibbling later on over how people were killed. The fact is that the war shouldn't have happened in the first place. To act as if it is consecrated ground that must not be soiled is silly. Given the sort of trite meaningless drivel that is published and publicized, does it make it any worse to read Harry Potter or The Nanny Diaries, or in fact most of what is considered "underground" prose, with ads in the middle? We already have advertising on television, before movies in theatres, all over magazines, on every website (such as this one); why are books afforded this sanctity? They are just as bad.

The issue of free content needs to be addressed too, since that is where the future lies.

you aren't wrong about any of it. I think that the aura of the book is fading, though not fast enough as it seems that the sanctity of the book seems to have always been a question - especially for the illiterate.

The cross marketing and expansion of books, product placement, beautiful author head shotz, etc all factor in as well, to undermine and degrade the idea that books are somehow above the cultural fray.

As someone who has maintained a free content policy for the entirety of my publishing endeavors (until recently where I was forced into charging for postage), I can attest to the deep seated fear and suspicion people have to free content. They look at you in shock and horror when you try to hand them something for free. but that is just print.

On the internet, free = greed. Thus the whole peer to peer motions. Those sites, like blogs, that offer content that is unchecked by gatekeepers, is also chaotic and winkingly careerist. Not to mention overwhelmingly inaccessible and ad riddled.

So.