I do agree that book publishers shouldn’t be the target of advertising sales departments, but…

I’ve spent the past several years polling my book reading friends and they simply don’t look to the Los Angeles Times Book Review section as a resource. My particular circle largely consists of well-educated, reasonably well-compensated women. Most have the kind of disposable income that advertisers want. Yet they aren’t reading the book review, so why would advertisers try to reach them there? It’s simply that these are not the best areas for eyeballs, and I think it’s the way these sections are written, not that people aren’t interested in the content.

Sue — yes, I read the Guardian’s coverage regularly. It’s broad and interesting. In fact, the breadth of literary coverage is a key selling point. The interesting, well, that’s a bonus. I like the way the paper approaches book coverage. If US newspapers created that kind of fun, I might have written a different post!

Jan — it’s okay, we’ll take you anyway! I don’t think newspapers will die, but I think they’re changing. And they need to change. It’s a different world than it was ten years ago. I think the process of reviewing is adapting as well. It’s good, it’s really good. But scary…

I also find the “publishers aren’t buying enough ads to support a book section” argument to be a bit silly. Just about every newspaper has a dedicated daily sports section, and how many of the ads in that section are bought by the teams covered in the section? Instead, the section is supported by advertising that targets the demographic that reads the sports section (in our paper, it’s liquor stores and auto parts stores). Why can’t the book section be supported by advertising targeted to the reader demographic? In addition to the book ads, bookstores could advertise, as could businesses that sell coffee, tea or chocolate. Then there are optical shops. And any other business that wants to target an educated, informed demographic.