<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: THE ART OBJECT, Part II: How to sell a book that costs $7,000</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.flatmancrooked.com/archives/3477/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.flatmancrooked.com/archives/3477</link>
	<description>Reëstablishing the ubiquity of quality literature</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 05:15:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Aaron</title>
		<link>http://www.flatmancrooked.com/archives/3477#comment-994</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:05:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.flatmancrooked.com/?p=3477#comment-994</guid>
		<description>I thought it was funny when, in Part II, you posed the Chihuly question hypothetically. Because if &quot;a novel about flowers with a [Chihuly] cover of, say, blown glass flowers sell as well?&quot; the answer is obviously: yes. Wasn&#039;t that what the rest of Part II was about? When you connect enough big names and brands, you sell a lot of Star Wars-themed Legos. 

Which is why I think this whole convo boils down to AUDIENCE. And the economics of audience. Kaelan, selling your first novel for a dollar (or giving away, say, a thousand copies) broadens your potential audience, because fewer people will do what Gladwell calls &quot;having to make a judgment.&quot; 

The ins and outs of more people reaching for something cheaper are obvious and boring, but I think the ways Scribd and other elegant, new distribution processes can link more art to more people&#039;s phone-devices raises a new issue: fairness. What price is fair for a product from and unproven artist/publisher?

This is where (I think) artists and publishers need to swallow their pride and really think hard about the supersaturated present. I don&#039;t think the assumed quality or historical price point of a thing should determine the price (the $10 album, for example, doesn&#039;t make sense to me). 

Especially when the ultimate size of an audience can determine a career: get more people in the tent, and there will always be another, newer way to monetize (like a limited edition of ten where Vincent Gallo impregnates each person that buys a copy for $500K!).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought it was funny when, in Part II, you posed the Chihuly question hypothetically. Because if &#8220;a novel about flowers with a [Chihuly] cover of, say, blown glass flowers sell as well?&#8221; the answer is obviously: yes. Wasn&#8217;t that what the rest of Part II was about? When you connect enough big names and brands, you sell a lot of Star Wars-themed Legos. </p>
<p>Which is why I think this whole convo boils down to AUDIENCE. And the economics of audience. Kaelan, selling your first novel for a dollar (or giving away, say, a thousand copies) broadens your potential audience, because fewer people will do what Gladwell calls &#8220;having to make a judgment.&#8221; </p>
<p>The ins and outs of more people reaching for something cheaper are obvious and boring, but I think the ways Scribd and other elegant, new distribution processes can link more art to more people&#8217;s phone-devices raises a new issue: fairness. What price is fair for a product from and unproven artist/publisher?</p>
<p>This is where (I think) artists and publishers need to swallow their pride and really think hard about the supersaturated present. I don&#8217;t think the assumed quality or historical price point of a thing should determine the price (the $10 album, for example, doesn&#8217;t make sense to me). </p>
<p>Especially when the ultimate size of an audience can determine a career: get more people in the tent, and there will always be another, newer way to monetize (like a limited edition of ten where Vincent Gallo impregnates each person that buys a copy for $500K!).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kaelan</title>
		<link>http://www.flatmancrooked.com/archives/3477#comment-988</link>
		<dc:creator>kaelan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:52:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.flatmancrooked.com/?p=3477#comment-988</guid>
		<description>For whatever insane reason, design is more salable than content. I think that the internet has helped to de-value, in monetary terms, the written word because of the sheer volume of words online. And yet the internet has helped with the dissemination of texts. We know that we&#039;re going to have a more and more difficult time marketing content, and we have to look at others ways of packaging that content so we can make a profit. Otherwise, how do we do this for a living?

Opium 8 is a great example of using design as a method for increasing sales. The same number of people who actually read Opium 7 will read Opium 8, I would assume, but five or six times as many people will buy Opium 8, or at least the issue will leave Todd&#039;s apartment five or six times faster. They&#039;re almost sold out already, and the magazine came out two months ago.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For whatever insane reason, design is more salable than content. I think that the internet has helped to de-value, in monetary terms, the written word because of the sheer volume of words online. And yet the internet has helped with the dissemination of texts. We know that we&#8217;re going to have a more and more difficult time marketing content, and we have to look at others ways of packaging that content so we can make a profit. Otherwise, how do we do this for a living?</p>
<p>Opium 8 is a great example of using design as a method for increasing sales. The same number of people who actually read Opium 7 will read Opium 8, I would assume, but five or six times as many people will buy Opium 8, or at least the issue will leave Todd&#8217;s apartment five or six times faster. They&#8217;re almost sold out already, and the magazine came out two months ago.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew O. Dugas</title>
		<link>http://www.flatmancrooked.com/archives/3477#comment-987</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew O. Dugas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:30:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.flatmancrooked.com/?p=3477#comment-987</guid>
		<description>Reading the bit about the cover artists bringing their own renown to bear on the valuation of the book as object, I can&#039;t help but think about the recent cover for Opium Magazine Issue 8 that artist Jonathan Keats came up with, a nine-word story that will be revealed one word a century (due varying layers of ink that should fade accordingly) over the next millennium. The cover has gotten a lot of press, home and abroad, including two mentions on NPR. 

Of course, not one of the press items mentions anything about what&#039;s between the covers of the issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reading the bit about the cover artists bringing their own renown to bear on the valuation of the book as object, I can&#8217;t help but think about the recent cover for Opium Magazine Issue 8 that artist Jonathan Keats came up with, a nine-word story that will be revealed one word a century (due varying layers of ink that should fade accordingly) over the next millennium. The cover has gotten a lot of press, home and abroad, including two mentions on NPR. </p>
<p>Of course, not one of the press items mentions anything about what&#8217;s between the covers of the issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
