# Super Readers - We're a commodity now



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

http://qz.com/70389/the-simple-reason-amazon-scooped-up-goodreads/

The article itself is about Amazon's purchase of Goodreads and why it makes sense. The part I found fascinating is the degree to which this article suggests book purchases are being based more and more on personal recommendations and less on online algorithms or store displays. They also say that super readers account for 79% of books read and a disproportionate number of book recommendations to other people. I would hazard a guess that if they subdivided higher than 12 books per year, that top portion - where many of us reside - would account for a substantial portion of that 79% ...










_"In short, Barnes and Noble's in-store displays don't rule the book business like they used to, but they haven't been usurped by Amazon's algorithms either. Instead, the business model is moving further towards word of mouth. And, much as a very small portion of Americans do most of the book reading in this country, so too are they responsible for a vast majority of book recommending. Codex estimates that 11 percent of book buyers make about 46 percent of recommendations."_

Check out the article, it's pretty fascinating, I thought. It's nice to see that we book geeks are finally getting some recognition - even if it as a crowd-sourced marketing strategy. So, what do you think, is the article off base? Is it just stating the obvious? or, are we just fabulous?


----------



## dkgould (Feb 18, 2013)

It makes me feel like a book hoarder.   Really? almost half of the country didn't read a single book for recreation last year?  I think the question shouldn't be how to utilize super readers, it should be why aren't more people reading?  I mean I don't expect people to devour a book every day or anything, but not even one book?  With all the millions of worlds and adventures created in literature and all the important and fascinating things people can learn from picking up a non-fiction book, half of the country isn't even tempted once a year?  Why not?


----------



## musclehead (Dec 29, 2010)

dkgould said:


> It makes me feel like a book hoarder.  Really? almost half of the country didn't read a single book for recreation last year? I think the question shouldn't be how to utilize super readers, it should be why aren't more people reading? I mean I don't expect people to devour a book every day or anything, but not even one book? With all the millions of worlds and adventures created in literature and all the important and fascinating things people can learn from picking up a non-fiction book, half of the country isn't even tempted once a year? Why not?


I'm with you, dk. I don't consider myself a super reader, but I clear way more than 12 in a year. So _many_ people are missing out on so _much_ because they won't pick up a book.

As Mark Twain put it, "The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

In my family ( 4  sisters) - two  of us read a lot, one  reads occasionally ,and one doesn't read at all.  The one  that doesn't read at all is recently widowed after 50 yrs of marriage - cannot sit still for very long.      She would rather be out with her family  and friends,  working in her garden,  taking classes, etc...  all the activity takes her mind off the fact that she is alone now..  She  has  a Kindle Fire but only uses it to play games with her grandchildren.  So  I think  there are a lot of reasons some people  don't read but I agree they are missing out on a lot.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Well I guess I have a new title to put after my name. 
(I don't have to wear tights, do I?)


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

They're lumping 12+ in one category? That doesn't seem right. I used to read 3-4 books a week. I had more time to read before I retired, which doesn't make sense, but it's true. Now I'm lucky if I read a book a week, but that's still about 50 books a year.


----------



## KindleGirl (Nov 11, 2008)

As bordercollielady said there are probably a lot of reasons that people don't read, but I think part of it is there are so many other options these days. Electronic gaming, streaming of movies, etc.  These things have all become easier to do and are now in more homes. Although a reason I've heard lately from people is that reading a book takes more work than simply being entertained by a movie. Funny thing is, a lot of the movies lately have been based on books...although they don't get that the books are even better!


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Growing up the only people in my family I ever saw sitting around reading a book was my grandfather and my mother. My mother not as often as she was very busy. But none of my siblings I ever saw with fiction books. Now a couple of siblings went on to study engineering and such so they had to read those books. But not fiction. 
My father can't read well enough to read a book. In those days he left school very early to work. 

Don't know about the nephews and nieces as I haven't seen them in a very long time. It was my mother that got me started on reading. She let me read what was on the bookshelf. 

Today I don't really know many people that read. Maybe one or two a year. And I am aiming for 130 this year.  . Been busy with other stuff though so I am a bit slower. 

I guess I am wondering of all things considers, are more people reading today because of the technology available now? Ebooks and being able to read on the go easy. On the phone, tablets etc. Or is it still the same people reading that read when we were younger. I wonder how many picked up reading much later in life and are now enjoying the advantages.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

dkgould said:


> It makes me feel like a book hoarder.  Really? almost half of the country didn't read a single book for recreation last year? I think the question shouldn't be how to utilize super readers, it should be why aren't more people reading? I mean I don't expect people to devour a book every day or anything, but not even one book? With all the millions of worlds and adventures created in literature and all the important and fascinating things people can learn from picking up a non-fiction book, half of the country isn't even tempted once a year? Why not?


I can easily see that 50% have not read a book in any year. Since I do not know how they came up with that statistic I would say the number might be even higher.
I am a bookworm, but on the other hand I don't think my husband has read a book in at least a decade. I know many people that just don't read (either for lack of time or just no interest). And I know at least 3 of my neighbors do not read. Many people just prefer TV and Movies to books.

I would love to see that 12+ books a year broken down farther. Into say 2 books a month, 3 books a month etc.
Oh and I have at least 6 books going right now.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

I've never seen my husband read a book in the 25 years we've been together. Newspapers and magazines, yes - but not books. And he lives in a houseful of them with bookshelves in most rooms and a huge choice of material. Fortunately our daughter takes after me.

Hubby comes in sometimes and finds me and daughter at opposite ends of sofa, engrossed. He genuinely can't understand why the tv is off.

But I love him....


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

DebBennett said:


> I've never seen my husband read a book in the 25 years we've been together. Newspapers and magazines, yes - but not books. And he lives in a houseful of them with bookshelves in most rooms and a huge choice of material. Fortunately our daughter takes after me.


Same thing in my house. There are now more ebooks than paper books in my house but I've never seen my husband read a novel for pleasure in our 25 years together. If fact, he calls himself a book widow to our friends because I'm always reading something ...

But, I read enough to that he and 9 or 10 of our friends can be counted as super readers ....


----------



## CLStone (Apr 4, 2013)

I don't feel comfortable in a house unless I know there's a bookshelf inside. 

But I like that GoodReads is getting involved with Amazon. I connect more with readers on GoodReads and their recommendations/reviews. When I go 'shopping' for something new to read, I'm more than likely going to hit up GoodReads to see what others are reading.


----------



## drenfrow (Jan 27, 2010)

Interesting article. I know that since I've been on Goodreads I never pay attention to Amazon recommendatons anymore.

The fact that half of Americans read no books whatsover doesn't surprise me but does make me want to weep.



CLStone said:


> I don't feel comfortable in a house unless I know there's a bookshelf inside.


I actually remember being in college and walking into a friend's apartment and seeing that there was not one piece of printed matter in the whole place and being completely shocked. That was the first time I realized there were people who didn't read _anything_.


----------



## Steverino (Jan 5, 2011)

This just makes me think of how much I would read if I worked less.  I'd be at the very tippy top of that pyramid.  Darn job.


----------



## Brownskins (Nov 18, 2011)

CLStone said:


> But I like that GoodReads is getting involved with Amazon. I connect more with readers on GoodReads and their recommendations/reviews. When I go 'shopping' for something new to read, I'm more than likely going to hit up GoodReads to see what others are reading.





drenfrow said:


> I know that since I've been on Goodreads I never pay attention to Amazon recommendatons anymore.


I receive both GR and Amazon recommendations, but for some reason, word of mouth recommendation or a recommendation from someone I know here in KB influences me more in my purchasing. I do read Amazon customer reviews (and occasionally GR reviews, if its a new author) prior to purchasing. I wonder how the GR top reviewers will impact Amazon's top reviewer listings (some dominate both, but there are those that are only present in one eco-sphere)?

I know a lot of mid- and senior- management people in my industry read more than 10 hardbound books a year, so I don't know where they will fall under the pyramid illustration.


----------



## drenfrow (Jan 27, 2010)

Another article I read on this topic pointed out that ratings/reviews are tougher on Goodreads than on Amazon.  It will be interesting to see what happens if they try to blend these; e.g., when you write a review on either site, being able to one-click to have it post on the other site.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

CLStone said:


> I don't feel comfortable in a house unless I know there's a bookshelf inside.


My in-laws live in a house like that. It's like a show-home. Immaculate, with an unread daily paper placed just-so on the coffee table. And no books. Anywhere.

Which explains why my husband has never been known to read a book. Beyond sad - it's child cruelty not to give the gift of book-loving and reading.


----------



## Aya Ling (Nov 21, 2012)

My family doesn't read much either. My parents read occasionally, mostly non-fiction (which I think it doesn't count). My sister doesn't read anything except for Harry Potter and manga (which I don't think counts either). No wonder I'm the odd one in my family    This year I've already gone through 41 books, which is a record even for me! And I willingly attribute a big part of the reason to Goodreads. I keep adding books from recommendations, and the reading challenge widget is addictive!


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

I'm the only person in my family who reads fiction.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> http://qz.com/70389/the-simple-reason-amazon-scooped-up-goodreads/
> 
> The article itself is about Amazon's purchase of Goodreads and why it makes sense.


I see a lot of reasons why it makes sense for Amazon but none why it makes sense for readers. I was hoping to see some reasons why I, as a reader, might be a little more optimistic about this but the article offers nothing but a brief mention of better Kindle integration with GR but that's already been suggested by GR themselves.


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2013)

I think we need to remember that the concept of universal literacy is a relatively new idea. Compulsory education in the U.S. didn't start until the early 20th century. Reading for generations was a leisure activity for the wealthy. Books for centuries, even up until the 1930's-1940's, were luxury items of such value that heirs fought over them for inheritance and people used them as collateral for loans. 

So those numbers don't surpise me at all, and they are consistent with other studies that have been done over the years. The one bright point is that most studies I've seen show than the 18-24 demographic is starting to read much more, and this is attributed to the rise of digital media. So we can be hopeful.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Well, one good thing about the merge is that I no longer have to worry about adding data from Amazon.


----------



## Shaun4 (Jun 29, 2012)

I agree with the data saying that personal recommendations are a bigger factor than algorithms. Readers give each other books for birthdays or lend them to each other. There's a real sense of "I thought you would like this" between readers. My dad reads a book every week but they're almost always given to him as gifts from other people.


----------



## cekilgore (Oct 31, 2012)

Avid GoodReads user here (feel free to friend me  ) 

I used to be a very voracious reader. Then I was sidetracked by moving countries and other things and the lack of a local bookstore out here in the stix.. Then I found GoodReads. Since joining in Nov of last year, I have consumed about 55 books (the others on my list being ones I had before signing up) and 95% of those came from GoodReads recommendations. 

I can be a pretty picky reader, and GoodReads has allowed me, combined with easy Kindle one-click buying, to find books in the genres I like and read reviews I can trust. Reviews on GoodReads seem to be more honest about the books they review and the reviews tend to be more comprehensive. 

I am now devouring between 1 and 3 books per week depending on how much time my day job and my writing-time allows. 

I don't typically read or follow Amazon's recommendations because they always appear to be mass-market / publisher pushed recommendations.


----------



## Grace Elliot (Mar 14, 2011)

So, let's get this straight...my super power is....reading?


----------



## JDHallowell (Dec 31, 2012)

drenfrow said:


> Another article I read on this topic pointed out that ratings/reviews are tougher on Goodreads than on Amazon. It will be interesting to see what happens if they try to blend these; e.g., when you write a review on either site, being able to one-click to have it post on the other site.


I don't know if the ratings are tougher on Goodreads, or if it's simply that the 5-star rating system there has a different rubric associated with it than Amazon. Amazon considers a 3-star review to be a negative rating. On Goodreads, 3 stars means "liked it", 2 stars means "It was ok" and only 1 star means "did not like it". So it may be true that star ratings tend to be lower on Goodreads, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the reviews are intended to be any less positive.

This is the biggest obstacle I see to directly merging the ratings across the two sites. I think that Amazon might be wise to simply use the code that other websites use to include the Goodreads data on their product pages as a separate rating distinct from the Amazon customer ratings. I know that many Goodreads reviewers routinely bump their intermediate ratings up by one star when posting the reviews to Amazon.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

JDHallowell said:


> I know that many Goodreads reviewers routinely bump their intermediate ratings up by one star when posting the reviews to Amazon.


I don't. A three is a three is a three. I tend to like Amazon's terms better - Hate it, Don't Like it, OK, Like it, Love it - gives 2 bad, a neutral and two good. I rarely give a 5 or a 1 and most of my ratings for books that were fine but don't stand out is a 3 ... it was OK.

Goodreads gives 1 bad, a neutral and 3 good ratings but I give the same rating there I use on Amazon.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Geoffrey said:


> I don't. A three is a three is a three. I tend to like Amazon's terms better - Hate it, Don't Like it, OK, Like it, Love it - gives 2 bad, a neutral and two good. I rarely give a 5 or a 1 and most of my ratings for books that were fine but don't stand out is a 3 ... it was OK.
> 
> Goodreads gives 1 bad, a neutral and 3 good ratings but I give the same rating there I use on Amazon.


That is how I look at it. Although I have stopped reviewing books for now on Amazon. But a 3 is a good rating for me. Amazon and Goodreads. I don't like how a 3 is somehow perceived by some as something negative. Baffles my mind. I have read many 3 star books and continued to read a series for example. A 3 is a solid ok book for me. I do have a few more 5 stars I give than Geoffrey. . When a book just feels right for me, has that something special that speaks to me, then I give it a 5. Most of the books I love though are in the 4 star range. 4 and 5 are sometimes only separated by emotions. Or if I stay up all night finishing it because I just can't stop reading.

I don't think they will blend goodreads and amazon reviews. At least I hope not. I don't want my reviews on Amazon. If I did, I would have put them there. I feel safer among readers to review on GR.


----------



## JDHallowell (Dec 31, 2012)

Geoffrey said:


> I don't. A three is a three is a three. I tend to like Amazon's terms better - Hate it, Don't Like it, OK, Like it, Love it - gives 2 bad, a neutral and two good. I rarely give a 5 or a 1 and most of my ratings for books that were fine but don't stand out is a 3 ... it was OK.
> 
> Goodreads gives 1 bad, a neutral and 3 good ratings but I give the same rating there I use on Amazon.


I think Amazon's method is closer to what most people think of when presented with a Likert rating scale like this. If I didn't see the written descriptions of the rating choices, I'd automatically take the middle choice to be neutral, the top and bottom to be best ever and worst ever respectively, and the areas between the middle and the extremes to be grades of postive or negative.


----------



## Grace Elliot (Mar 14, 2011)

Oh dear, I didn't even realise there were written guidelines to what a star rating on Amazon and Goodreads mean.
Rightly or wrongly, I go on gut instinct.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Atunah said:


> That is how I look at it. Although I have stopped reviewing books for now on Amazon. But a 3 is a good rating for me. Amazon and Goodreads. I don't like how a 3 is somehow perceived by some as something negative. Baffles my mind. I have read many 3 star books and continued to read a series for example. A 3 is a solid ok book for me. I do have a few more 5 stars I give than Geoffrey. . When a book just feels right for me, has that something special that speaks to me, then I give it a 5. Most of the books I love though are in the 4 star range. 4 and 5 are sometimes only separated by emotions. Or if I stay up all night finishing it because I just can't stop reading.


I didn't review at Amazon all that often (and have largely stopped now), but I always used "3 stars" to mean "entertaining, but not mindblowing". 2 stars would be "didn't like it, but some redeeming factors". 1 star would be "utter crap". I don't think I've ever given one star, even a book I didn't like usually got two stars. It was only after I started hanging around with self-publishers that I realized that 3 star ratings were considered negative and might get books excluded from certain promotional opportunities. Still, giving everything that's not actively bad four or five stars doesn't sit right with me.


----------



## Amyshojai (May 3, 2010)

I grew up in a family that read all the time. All super readers. But my husband rarely reads for entertainment, more for continuing ed stuff (taxes urk!) and biographies and histories. But then, English is a second language for him--he says growing up he was a voracious reader of everything. 

I try to review books, especially when I liked them. Usually I'll review on amazon and rank on Goodreads and yep, slightly different scores for each.


----------



## AbbyBabble (Mar 16, 2013)

I like the idea of readers relying on word-of-mouth more than anything else--I certainly do.  But I'm not sure it bodes well for new authors who are breaking in with their first few self-published books.  How do you get noticed on the slush when only 5 or 10 people are recommending you because you've had a grand total of 15 readers?  That's a great rate, but a small selection pool.

I estimate that I read 50 books per year.  This might make me a super reader ... but I doubt many people are paying attention to my recommendations!


----------



## zzzzzzz (Dec 6, 2011)

Absolutely agree with this. Readers are the most important part of a book's lifecycle, but they're not just the end destination. Readers have become the gatekeepers, with their recommendations or reviews deciding what books survive and thrive and which sink into obscurity. Everyone wants word of mouth, but nobody knows how to "make" anything go viral.

Readers ultimately hold all the power, and now, in the current publishing environment, it's more evident than ever. And that's exactly how it should be.


----------



## StephenLivingston (May 10, 2011)

Agreed, more power to the readers  
Best wishes, Stephen Livingston.


----------



## Dan Harris (May 18, 2012)

Really interesting article, thanks.

I feel like I read about 12 books in the last year, what with other commitments. I need to pick up the pace so I can call myself a super reader! 

My wife, on the other hand, reads about three a week. It seems like whenever I leave the room I come back to find she's suddenly curled up with her Kindle, lost to the world...


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Dan Harris said:


> My wife, on the other hand, reads about three a week. It seems like whenever I leave the room I come back to find she's suddenly curled up with her Kindle, lost to the world...


Now you're sounding like my husband ...


----------



## dkgould (Feb 18, 2013)

^^^ my husband would say that too.  Maybe we should have a kindle widow/widower board community.  They have em for football!


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

dkgould said:


> It makes me feel like a book hoarder.  Really? almost half of the country didn't read a single book for recreation last year? I think the question shouldn't be how to utilize super readers, it should be why aren't more people reading? I mean I don't expect people to devour a book every day or anything, but not even one book? With all the millions of worlds and adventures created in literature and all the important and fascinating things people can learn from picking up a non-fiction book, half of the country isn't even tempted once a year? Why not?


I come from a family of avid readers. Well, at least half of us are. Out of 8 kids, 5 of us love to read and my dad is an avid reader. My mom reads occasionally. I married a man who never reads books for pleasure and now my two sons are like that, despite my best efforts. I homeschooled them each for two years in middle school and in that time, they both read many books they enjoyed, but as soon as they went back to school, they stopped reading. In fact, the books they read while homeschooling were their main source of book reports for highschool. 

I have about 13 coworkers in my department and only one of those reads occasionally. One of them recently found out about my books and said something about she'd have to buy one soon even though she never reads unless she has to. I just found that so sad because they are missing out on so much pleasure they could get from reading. My 12 yo daughter hated reading until about age 10, then she discovered The Warrior Cats series and she became hooked. She's reading Les Miserables now because she's obsessed with the movie. I have it on Kindle and she has a Kindle, but she wanted the paperback so she could carry it around school. lol.

I really think that's all it would take for anyone to love reading--to find that series that gets them hooked, and then be able to find more like it. One of my sons was so close to being hooked for life. He loved the HP series and we kept looking for books like it at the library and bookstores, but this was right after they had become popular in the late 90s, and series that were similar hadn't been published yet.


----------



## Libby13 (Jul 31, 2011)

I couldn't imagine going a full 12 months without reading a book.  12 months?  12?!


----------



## musclehead (Dec 29, 2010)

Oh yeah, well I couldn't imagine going 12 _minutes_ without reading a book! Hah!


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

AuthorDianaBaron said:


> I can't imagine going 12 hrs without reading a book...


Hear hear! I was soo antsy yesterday, I drove for 8+ hours. all I wanted to do at the end was curl up and read.


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

I've also listened to audio books (a good way to refer to them without dating yourself!) while driving, and they are awesome for passing the time.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I agree that listening to stories while driving passes the time. . . but I don't think it's a substitute for reading with your eyes.  

When my son was small, we got some tapes of old radio programs -- Lone Ranger and all that -- and would listen to them in the car when we went on a 'vacation drive'.  He loved 'em.  

Now we have a satellite radio and there are stations that play those old radio programs all day.  We were traveling once with my dad and put one on and he was thrilled.  He'd have been happy with music from the 40's but the radio plays were more interesting for the rest of us. 

If I were to listen to an audible book -- I'd make it one that I am not particularly keen to read anyway, or that I'd already read.  It'd still be interesting to listen to, but just knowing myself, then I'd probably never read it.  And I generally prefer to read than listen -- for me they're not interchangeable -- so if it's a book I really want to read, I'd not want to listen to it first.  

But in all those cases, I'd still want to wind down by reading once we got where we're going.  AND, I'd not want to read whatever it was I had been listening to -- one format per story for me, I'm afraid.  I don't want to switch between.  Plus, with an audiobook, while I don't mind 'reading' with my ears, it essentially becomes a shared experience when there are several in the car.  I wouldn't want to read ahead without the rest of the group. 

Of course, it goes without saying, it better have a good 'vocal talent'-- last thing you want on a long drive is a boring voice putting you to sleep!


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

I have always been an avid reader, but I had more time to read in my teen years before I got a job. Once you get out in the working world, it's a fact that you don't have as much time as you used to for reading. I still managed to read a book or two a month, but in the past few years my activity level has gone into hyperdrive and I am lucky if I have time to read a book every three months!

However, I use babysitting time with grandnieces and grandnephews to introduce them to classic picture books and slightly longer books. And am looking forward to introducing them to the books I loved when they are slightly older such as Heidi, Black Beauty, Tom Sawyer, etc. 

Some people simply don't have time to read and have to ingest their literature in other ways. I know one family who travel a lot and use audiobooks on CD to listen to on those long drives. I use this method myself when working on hobbies like knitting or making jewelry when pressed for time on a project that will be a gift for someone. 

So there are other ways to read without actually opening a book.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

Audio books are great. My daughter used to listen to them all the time when she was younger to get to sleep. She'd always joke that she knew the first chapter word perfect but still didn't know how it finished! We used them in cars too on a personal stereo. She's older now but I bought her The Great Gatsby that she was doing for her English exams and she listened to that at nights too - I thought if she heard it in her sleep, she'd remember it when awake!


----------



## rjspears (Sep 25, 2011)

I clearly used to be a super-reader and as a teen made it a goal to read a book a week.  College cut me down to two books a month and I probably hit that goal for years, but with work, family, and my writing, I might make 12 books a year -- if you don't count audiobooks.  If you counted audio books, I'd make two more books a month.  Sadly, I don't count audiobooks as books I've read.

--
R.J. Spears


----------



## 67499 (Feb 4, 2013)

That's a great chart, Geoffrey, thanks!  But I can't believe it.  90% of people don't read except for school or work.  I suspect a small % of the population reads a LOT of books (12 per year is a lazy few) and the rest drifts between on-line and magazine articles, and those, according to Farhad Manjoo in SLATE, they never actually finish!


----------



## MineBook (May 31, 2013)

How possible to collect such data numbers?  

I believe that there are regions where reading books is main hobby.
Because not everyone like TV gadget how Japanese - so they read and play ping pong.


----------

