No, they don't get it, the way "The New York Times" doesn't get it! The way Barnes and Noble doesn't get it!
The "Times" lets one access (go to sleep, everyone who knows this already, wake up later) for free, but the extras you pay for--such as the puzzle. For the puzzle one has to pay for home delivery. But if one had home delivery, one would not be accessing the web site, which is not the best way to stay abreast of breaking news. "The Wall Street Journal" is smarter: It offers for an additional fee additional features.
Barnes and Noble had a great thing going, from a marketing standpoint. (We can bitch and moan about selection and the strangulation of the local interesting bookstore by the chains somewhere else.) What B&N has not understood is that amazon.com is not about books at all. Six months ago I shared my thoughts with someone--wasn't on SI six months ago, same friend told me about SI--amazon.com is aiming to be the WalMart of the Internet. Books are irrelevant, merely the entry point. |
