<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On demand books published exceed the number of traditionally published books</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.teleread.org/2009/05/19/on-demand-books-published-exceed-the-number-of-traditionally-published-books/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.teleread.org/2009/05/19/on-demand-books-published-exceed-the-number-of-traditionally-published-books/</link>
	<description>News &#38; views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:24:13 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Steve Jordan</title>
		<link>http://www.teleread.org/2009/05/19/on-demand-books-published-exceed-the-number-of-traditionally-published-books/comment-page-1/#comment-1060824</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Jordan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 19:37:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.teleread.org/?p=22158#comment-1060824</guid>
		<description>On-demand targeting of your market is more point-efficient when you aren&#039;t held a slave to mass-market economies of scale.  That&#039;s one of the realities of the 21st century that publishers will have to get used to...

Anyway, on one hand it&#039;s nice to see the figures (someone should alert the &quot;people don&#039;t read anymore&quot; pundits).  On the other hand, I&#039;d still rather see more people going electronic instead of POD, and saving a few (million) trees.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On-demand targeting of your market is more point-efficient when you aren&#8217;t held a slave to mass-market economies of scale.  That&#8217;s one of the realities of the 21st century that publishers will have to get used to&#8230;</p>
<p>Anyway, on one hand it&#8217;s nice to see the figures (someone should alert the &#8220;people don&#8217;t read anymore&#8221; pundits).  On the other hand, I&#8217;d still rather see more people going electronic instead of POD, and saving a few (million) trees.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kerry</title>
		<link>http://www.teleread.org/2009/05/19/on-demand-books-published-exceed-the-number-of-traditionally-published-books/comment-page-1/#comment-1060812</link>
		<dc:creator>Kerry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 19:17:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.teleread.org/?p=22158#comment-1060812</guid>
		<description>I hate to sound dumb, but is this a comparison of new traditional titles to TOTAL books printed POD, or a comparison of new traditional titles to new POD titles? Less significant if it&#039;s the former case. And wouldn&#039;t there be significant overlap--i.e., wouldn&#039;t a new traditional title that&#039;s also printed POD count in both categories? Interesting numbers, either way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hate to sound dumb, but is this a comparison of new traditional titles to TOTAL books printed POD, or a comparison of new traditional titles to new POD titles? Less significant if it&#8217;s the former case. And wouldn&#8217;t there be significant overlap&#8211;i.e., wouldn&#8217;t a new traditional title that&#8217;s also printed POD count in both categories? Interesting numbers, either way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
