> In your arguments against presales, you haven't said why you think that the other way is better. What's your reasoning?
In the traditional approach, reviewers who have no economic stake review a book or an excerpt and let the public know what they think. In most cases the public can assume the review is objective.
In an approach like this one, an author uses pre-orders or advance payments as evidence for the book's merit. But those pre-ordering haven't yet seen what they're buying. The problem should be obvious -- the author can say, "My book must have merit -- look at all those who have ordered it in advance of seeing it!"
Again, I am not saying any of this applies to this author or this book -- it's completely hypothetical.
I can't tell who you think is being served poorly by this. The people who can get their money back immediately if they are disappointed? The same people who might preorder any other kind of book on Amazon.com? The reviewers, who theoretically are less biased about something they got for free? The author, who you presume is using existing sales as a weak ipso facto ex post facto argument for the quality of the book-in-progress (which, as you admit, is purely hypothetical)?
In the traditional approach, reviewers who have no economic stake review a book or an excerpt and let the public know what they think. In most cases the public can assume the review is objective.
In an approach like this one, an author uses pre-orders or advance payments as evidence for the book's merit. But those pre-ordering haven't yet seen what they're buying. The problem should be obvious -- the author can say, "My book must have merit -- look at all those who have ordered it in advance of seeing it!"
Again, I am not saying any of this applies to this author or this book -- it's completely hypothetical.