Poll: The Retro Nostalgia Film (#3) — What’s Next?
You decide!
Poll: The Next Retro Nostalgia Film (#2)? You Decide!
And now it’s your turn to decide which film I’ll watch for this Monday’s Retro Nostalgia feature. Choose wisely!
Poll: The Next Retro Nostalgia Film? You Decide!
Earlier, I asked for film suggestions for my Retro Nostalgia feature thinking that there would be some kind of simple consensus. Boy was I wrong! And so, in order to decide which film I’m going to watch for tomorrow, I’m creating this little poll, which you all get to vote in. It’ll run until midnight, since I need time to actually watch whichever film you all decide on. Anywho!
Poll: Would you watch or tune in to a live-writing event?
One of the interesting things I did with my friend Adam last year was a collaboration in which we more or less wrote a story live. While that story didn’t pan out (still have it and think it’s a wicked piece of work that we should one day finish — Andy Remic would love it), it made me think about how I might use Google Docs to let people sneak a peak at my writing process. Google lets you share a document with anyone, and it shows updates more or less as they are happening. Since I’m working on WISB-related stuff, I thought some of you might like to see me at work (and to see the rough drafts as they come into being). I could select a time (maybe a daily time or something) and give the link out on my blog. Even if you couldn’t make it to the live event, you could still check in on the progress. Would any of you be interested in this? Let me know by clicking on the little poll.
Poll Results (and My Thoughts): Do you think the $0.99 ebook will hurt authors?
Another poll down with some very interesting results. Here’s what you all had to say: 50% of you said they will hurt authors. 0% of you said maybe. 50% of you said no. That’s a very interesting divide. People are very sure of themselves. I’m one of those sure people. I think the $0.99 ebook will hurt authors, but not because it will hurt publishers. My problem with the $0.99 ebook is that it limits the ability for authors to make a living off their work and further erodes the potential for midlist authors (however you want to define that category in this new digital age) to fit within that “living writers” group. Midlist authors have been well served by digital publishing, particularly as it pertains to self-publishing. Being able to make 70% on a $2.99 book means they make a lot more money than they would with some traditional publishers provided they maintain that “midlist” status. That’s a good thing. Let the big fellas handle the bestselling authors and let the smaller guys take their work to the digital stream to make a living too. Maybe the $0.99 ebook will prove beneficial for midlist authors. I certainly hope so. Their numbers might go up, they might end up making more money in the long run, and so on. But if not, what we’ll end up with is a new price-point that consumers will demand. There’s nothing wrong with a demand, but part of the reason for keeping ebooks reasonably priced (in both directions) is to set a standard for consumers that is good for everyone else too. I don’t much care for the agency model in terms of its implementation, but it does give publishers more control over their properties. Amazon’s ebook model gives many writers more control over theirs (sort of). All these models are useful, and need to be played with, manipulated, changed, and so on until we come up with something that is good for everyone. I don’t think the $0.99 ebook is necessarily a good thing for everyone. It’s good for a few, sure. Amanda Hocking and others are bringing in huge sales and money from using that model. But they are a minority that will always exist. The rest will have to contend with increasing their sales by quite a bit to reach the same monetary level as before. But, again, I could be very wrong. I hope I’m wrong. $0.99 ebooks are far more likely to sell than $7 ones. Let’s hope what is happening right now turns out for the best. What are your extended thoughts on this issue?
Poll Results: If you had super powers, how would you use them?
The results are in and here’s what you all had to say: 25% said they would use their powers for good. 66.7% said they would use their powers for neutral purposes. 8.3% said they would use their powers for evil. Now the big question is this: when one says they will use their powers for neutral purposes, what exactly do they mean? Will they save the world only if they have to, but otherwise use their powers to improve the mundane aspects of regular life? Will they selectively choose when to use their powers publicly so as to avoid the morally ambiguous situations life might present? For me, I know I’d use my powers very selectively. Why? Because despite what the folks at Big Hollywood would like me to think, we don’t live in a world in which the lines between good and evil are always absolute or clear. I’d have to be very careful how I used my powers, whether in my personal life or in the service of humanity, because to fall victim to propaganda or dogmatism would do very little to actually rid the world of evil. In fact, I might actually become a part of the problem. That’s how I rationalize it. How about you?