Two editors on amazon.com

Whole Earth,  Spring, 2001  

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

Book Brawl: Act 6

Dear Peter,

I want to thank you again for the wonderful opportunity to guest edit this magazine. I think you did a favor to the readers by allowing me to trot out my current obsessions.

However, I think you did a disservice to the readers by stripping my reviews of their mention of Amazon.com. I included the tag "or Amazon" for any item I reviewed (if Amazon carried it) for the same reason the early Catalogs and Review carried the review tag of "or Whole Earth Access" on most items. Whole Earth Access was a for-profit merchandiser not connected with the magazine in any way but by name, nor did the magazine receive any economic benefit from the mentions of the store. The entire intent of CQ/WER listing the Access company name after the publisher's information was to provide options to the reader, If you the reader had a bunch of things you wanted to order and you wanted to conserve your resources you could order them all from one source. Or if you didn't want to deal with very small-time outfits, who are often not the most reliable, you could order what you needed from a trusted source--Whole Earth Access. On the other hand, if you wanted to patronize the smaller outfits, you could order directly from the publisher, manufacturer, or supplier and avoid Whole Earth Access altogether. The important point is that the Catalogs gave you a choice. They listed the original source and the convenient source. I continued the same practice with Amazon. I wanted the reader to know the exact original source, and I wanted them to haw a convenient source as well in case they wanted to gang a number of disparate items together to save shipping costs and resources. Amazon was not only the source that carried more items (they carried the videos, music, and many tools as well as the books) but they were doubly convenient because of their superior online service. (There are legitimate reasons why someone might not want to use Amazon, but nobody can complain about their reliable and easy-to-use service. They are easily the best in the world.)

But when you unilaterally stripped all mentions of Amazon, Peter, you were stripping away options and information. It's a kind of unnecessary preaching. Instead of letting the reader decide whether they want to support the small publisher, or maximize efficiency and use the common carrier, you were deciding for them.

As an avid reader of Whole Earth, I am pro information and pro choice. I want to know how to get something from the originator, and I'd love to know how to get something conveniently, whether it's from K-Mart, Sears, or Amazon. If I knew that you knew I could get all the items easily from one source, but you weren't going to tell me because you objected to that source, I'd be pissed because you weren't letting me make that decision. I'm an adult. Tell me the issues, give me the choice, and let me decide. Most importantly, serve me, the reader.

Kevin Kelly Guest editor, Winter issue

Dear Kevin,

Whoa! You know I cherish your ability to stir up enthusiasm, your futuristic intelligence, and the time you generously spent as guest editor. But this is the magazine's fourth discussion of Amazon.com, and I'm surprised by your passion.

First, we did not "unilaterally strip all mentions of Amazon." We did our homework. We left Amazon.com when it was the best or the only source for a product. Page 58 on films on video reads: "All are fairly easily available ... from the usual online sources like Amazon or eBay or for rent from Netflixs ... representative prices are mostly from Amazon."

We did strip Amazon.com from other references. It was just too obvious an option. It's like telling readers they can get cash from ATM machines or buy tofu in supermarkets. Perhaps you are still fighting battles for e-commerce, which has long since become mainstream. Times have changed. Our readers can't help but know Amazon.com (and many other sources), and they use each source when it's appropriate. We respect their intelligence. They don't need to be coaxed or rah-rahed, or hear the never-ending litany of it's fast, it's cheap (which it isn't), it's on tap.

Second, I find the analogy to Whole Earth Access difficult to accept. Our highest value is not one-stop, convenient shopping, nor info-access isolated from other aspects of life. Whole Earth Access Company is not comparable to Amazon.com. Our support of the Access Company combined info-access with a much richer texture which included empowering a small business, individual and independent entrepreneurs, and a geographically defined community. Whole Earth is also loved for giving readers info and stories about unknown products and small businesses. Whole Earth Access was local, unknown, and at the time it provided a unique service, not like Amazon which provides a marginally more convenient one. At its start, at least, the Access Company provided only the "best." Amazon.com will sell anything; quality is not a criterion.