Jeff Jarvis doesn't like Google's plan to rent books online because it devalues content:
Thus, they believe that the ideas and thought are worth one tenth the paper, distribution, and retail markup. And, of course, not all that would go to the guy who had the thought; she’d get a fraction left over after publishers, agents, and Google itself. Content is devalued yet further.
Extending that logic would suggest that public libraries eliminate the value of content altogether.
It isn't that simple though. The value of an idea bears little relationship to the paper it is printed on, or the aggregate costs of distributing and selling that paper. It would make more sense to say that the value of an idea is a function of the cost of the paper times the number of people who purchase it, yet that is more a measure of popularity than the value of an idea.
When I buy a book I get to keep it forever. By charging 10% of the cover price to rent it to me only one week, Google is actually generating more revenue out of that book than a purchase would have. It also makes that information available to customers who might otherwise never have purchased the book. Google might even do well to adopt the old Blockbuster model and charge late fees.
In much the same way as customers prefer to listen to and pay for a single song that they like from a CD, Google is offering people a chance to do that with books. Though it seems different, this can work with books too, especially reference works. This actually opens a potential new revenue stream where the customers would otherwise have been unable to access the books. Should publishers, and in turn authors, turn down this bonus revenue?
For years Reader's Digest has offered condensations of books in their magazine. Has this devalued the content? More likely it has given readers the added impetus to purchase a book.
At any rate, good ideas are viral. They spread without the book, and their value doesn't depend on a printed volume.
Tags: google book book rental