After my last post was reposted on Teleread (thanks to Paul over there for doing that, btw), an engaging discussion was started there. I spent a few stolen minutes throughout the day participating in it. However, my last comment, which I was excited about, wouldn’t post to their site, for whatever reason. I doubt it was a moderation thing, since my other comments made it through. Maybe it was a technical issue, maybe my comment was too long. Anyhow, this is what I wanted to say in response:

“I see no reason that free ad-supported versions and non-ad-supported(paid) versions of an e-book can’t coexist.

Secondly, you’re right. I don’t know the prices. I can’t predict things that don’t exist, let alone what the margins would be. I’m advocating an idea, and although I’ve dropped a few numbers for the sake of discussion, I was reticent (and still am) to do so, simply because I don’t know how it would work without an experiment. No one does.

As for a market of would-be thieves, I think that’s an unfair description. I don’t buy books anymore. In fact, I don’t spend a single dime on my two book a week habit. I haven’t bought a book in over a year. But I don’t steal them, either. I use the public library, which is just down the street.

But I’m also lazy and don’t like walking to the library. If I had a way to get an e-book for free, on-demand, legally, without walking down the library, I would do it and I would be happy to do it. I’m not a would-be thief, but I don’t pay for books since there are other options open to me.I have too many student loans to pay. I can’t afford to buy books. So I either get my books for free or I don’t get them at all. The library is my only option to support my reading habit.

Now, maybe you do pay for books, you like paying for books, and you can afford it. That’s fine. But not everyone can afford it, and not everyone wants to buy books even if they can afford them. So why is it a problem to give this idea a chance? The most important thing the net has taught us is that there should be multiple ways to get content and that it’s OKAY to have multiple content streams.

Is Pepsi interested in supporting the arts beyond a “PEPSI SUPPORTS THE ARTS” PR standpoint? No. I agree with you. Pepsi wants to sell Pepsi. I believe that sponsoring e-books is a way for them (or someone else, since Pepsi is just an example here) to do that. Advertising is about reaching multiple demographics in different ways. Take me: I don’t even own a television. My content streams are printed books and the internet. Pepsi doesn’t reach me, because they don’t advertise on Slash Dot or in the copy of “Heechee Rendezvous” that I’m currently reading from the library. But maybe if they did, I would be more likely to drink their product.

Or maybe not. But who knows until it’s tried?”

One more thing. @Levi Montgomery, who commented on original post (here on mispeled), instead of on the Teleread repost:

I feel ya, man. Content control is an issue that would scare me, too. I wouldn’t want a sponsor to dictate what the content would be about. I don’t care about formatting as much as you do (except with respect to ad placement), but I respect that concern, because how writing is formatted can make or break a reading experience. That’s why I didn’t try to put my novella on Amazon’s store. I uploaded the PDF, noticed the formatting was all borked to hell, and said screw it.

Also, I flipped through your site a little and liked what I saw. I’ll be back. I added you to my sidebar, too. I don’t imagine you’ll mind. Thanks for the comment.