You'll see a lot of statistics concerning the percentage comparison between preference for ebooks or physical books. There is a lot of discussion about the format people prefer to read ebooks on. Heck, there is a lot of discussion about whether people ACTUALLY read books anymore. Dueling statistics across various studies and mediums seem to be somewhat contradictory. The key takeaway is fairly simple: the technology enabling ebooks to be utilized exists, and they are cheaper than physical books, so it's only a matter of time until the right combination of technology and aesthetics come together to usher in a new era of reading (whatever that might look like).
In the meantime, we still have these studies and polls that provide conflicting information about the interest in physical vs. digital format. What these studies sometimes do not take into consideration is the purpose behind the particular book, and in market it is being written for: trade or academic/educational. While it is impossible to encompass the differences, and the significance of these differences, in a blog post, here is a short taste.
For those of you that haven't spent years of your life with your nose in books, theorizing whether (*SPOILER*) Henry James meant for us to think the governess is hallucinating or actually seeing a ghost in The Turn of The Screw, trade publishing refers to what most of us think about when we think of books: Fiction, Non-Fiction (not textbooks), Poetry, Haiku's, Literary Journals, and so on. The purpose behind these books is, quite simply, to entertain. Now, before you say “but some writers want to make a statement!” or “biographies aren’t meant to entertain!” keep in mind that entertainment doesn’t necessarily mean laying down on the couch reading an engrossing book series like Game of Thrones. Some people enjoy reading books that are deep and that they can learn something profound and philosophical from (Freakonomics, for example, or a biography like Steve Jobs).
Trade publishers continue to make money from providing entertaining content in a format that people enjoy reading. Any many cases, this still means physical books. For that reason, among others, the decline of stores that rely on that kind of publishing, like Barnes & Noble, can still make a living, because the people who love to read those books are slower to change, and still enjoy reading books in their hands. Since it’s all about entertainment, anyway, it stands to reason that their format of consumption is also a matter of aesthetic and personal preference.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd291/fd2910935103e51dd743e1c0e9e0f8bfa110f58d" alt=""
Therefore, this difference of purpose in trade vs. educational publishing, entertain vs. teach, explains why many educational publishers are hurdling over each other to form a more perfect technology product. Contemporary teaching methods, and new understanding of human learning behaviors, has begun an integration into technology. Furthermore, there are now better methods of collecting data that doesn’t assume that sheer fact regurgitation is the sole indicator of a person’s knowledge (see: any standardized test). Learning technology makes it easier to take notes, transfer notes into a preferable format, etc. and is moving towards personalized learning; when a company can discover learning trends that are demonstrated, rather than imposed, then they, or teachers, can use that to adapt their learning technology, lending itself to the true purpose of the content’s existence: to teach.This point has already been taken by companies that seek to find more efficient ways to educate their employees; an entire industry of e-learning has already been in existence for almost two decades!
This purpose explains why educational publishing is implementing technology more rapidly: it is less expensive than printing, it assists the goal of teaching more effectively, and the content can be altered to reflect quickly changing realities. Trade publishing is mainly an entertainment and aesthetic appeal, so it has less impetus to shift.