New Research Suggest Google Book Search Helps Publishers A Lot More Than It Hurts

from the nice-to-see-some-data dept

For years, we've suggested that the fears of various publishers, that Google's book scanning/book search project was somehow a bad thing, were way overblown. We'd seen reports noting that putting your books into Google's book search often helped increase sales, and some enlightened publishers have started to realize the same thing. Yet, to hear some publishers and Google critics talk about it, you would think that the Google book scanning offering was the worst thing ever -- with some comparing Google to the Taliban. Yet, if you take a step back, and realize just how powerful and useful a universal searchable library of books would be, it's difficult to see how that's a bad thing.

But, now we've got a bit more evidence. Michael Scott points us to a new research paper from law professor Hannibal Travis, that tries to look at the actual economic impact of Google's book scanning on publishers, and finds that the falling sky claims from publishers and critics simply isn't supported by the evidence:
First, it finds little support for the much-discussed hypothesis of the Association of American Publishers and Google's competitors that the mass digitization of major U.S. libraries will reduce the revenues and profits of the most-affected publishers. In fact, the revenues of the publishers who believe themselves to be most aggrieved by GBS, as measured by their willingness to file suit against Google for copyright infringement, increased at a faster rate after the project began, as compared to before its commencement. Their profits also increased significantly more on average from 2005 to 2008 than from 2001 to 2004. The increased rate of growth by publishers most affected by GBS does not disappear when one compares it to the growth of the U.S. economy or to the growth of retail sales. The continued rise in sales is remarkable when one considers the soaring sales and prices of other entertainment products that may compete with books.

Second, this Article finds some support for the view that mass digitization and expanded access to book previews may increase the revenues and profits of the most-affected publishers. The evidence for this proposition takes the form of large increases in revenues and profits for publishers affected by GBS who did not opt out of Google's publishing partner agreement for broader access to previews of works still in copyright.

Third, it seems that GBS may simultaneously vindicate the public interest in expanded access to the world's cultural heritage and the pecuniary interests of authors and publishers in recouping the substantial fixed costs of book and periodical production and distribution. Analyzing this virtuous circle can help us begin to theorize the relationship between the Internet industry, the producers of cultural products, and the wider public. This relationship is also visible with other advanced Internet services such as YouTube or DailyMotion, which may increase viewership of copyrighted works that they may infringe, such as television shows.
Obviously, this seems to go beyond just Google's book search, in showing that greater access can certainly lead to greater revenue and profits for those who embrace it. Definitely another worthwhile paper to read on the subject.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, data, economics, google book search, publishers
Companies: google

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 12:12pm

    Re: Ah I wouldn't be so quick to jump on this bandwagon

    I can think of a dozen books that I didn't buy because Google displayed the 10 pages in each that I needed to read for my project. If Google Books weren't around, I probably would have bought five of them. And that's in the last year.

    No one said that it means you would buy the same books as before. And no one said that there wouldn't be some cases where it would lead to a book not being purchased. But that's a false standard.

    This is a pretty political hot button. Mike, could you confirm that you don't get any revenue from Google? Oh wait, you get Google Ad money. Do you do any private consulting for them? Any private corporate intelligence?

    Google ads represent less than 1% of our revenue and I've never done any private consulting for them. I once spoke at a Google event years ago and Google once sponsored an event that I ran -- but the amount of money made was again less than 1% of our revenue.

    I am critical of Google when I feel it's appropriate, just as I am critical of any company that advertises on the site or hires us when appropriate. Amusingly, when I am critical of our advertisers, the same trolls say "oh my, don't you think someone should tell so-and-so not to advertise on your site any more since you trash them." In fact, one of the reasons why companies hire us is because our positions are brutally honest and we tell companies what they need to hear.

    Either way, this particular post was not pro-Google. It was writing about a specific research project. What I find telling is you don't dispute the actual findings in the research and the data, but instead pretend that a single datapoint (you) disputes the findings and then accuse me of some unfair bias.

    Nice try.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.