BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WJC" data-source="post: 3163858" data-attributes="member: 25191">I will try to answer questions from the last 3 questioners—before one disappeared:“Can you define your target audience and estimate its size?”The publishers I have approached have all wanted me to narrow my audience to the one THEY wanted to cater too. That might make them happy, but it is too restrictive for me. My primary audiences are, in order:1 Bird Watchers2 Amateur Astronomers3 Hunters &4 Deepwater SailorsEssentially, everyone who wants to know MORE than the pabulumic garbage magazines and “experts”— who aren’t—have been feeding them for years, and making them think that all there is.Size? ‘Don’t care. I’m in it for the long hall. I’ve given my original research and experience away on BF, CN, and other for YEARS. The book will just make it a more efficient and beneficial read. Yes, I WANT to make some money. BUT, if I sold 1,000 copies at $30 each, I would still be losing money; I want to help my neighbor.Why should you buy the book? I have answered that realistic question for Willmann-Bell, CRC, and Springer. The answer relates to something already said: “Essentially everyone who wants to know MORE than the pabulumic garbage magazines and ‘experts,’ who aren’t, have been feeding them for years, and making them think it’s all there is.” I hope to take the audience’s thoughts in new directions.“Bill Cook doesn’t tell you what you WANT to hear, he tells you what you NEED to know.”In sales, I intend to lean heavily on word of mouth. I will offer it on an Internet site and at telescope making and birding events. The mantra: “If it sells, it sells.” I am steeped in branding and advertising. But, while I need the money, I refuse to use so many techniques (read: tricks) of “modern” selling. It was all the lying about “auto-focus” binoculars—that people actually believed—that caused me to go off the deep end and I will starve before I will follow suit!Having had a contract for De-MYTH-tifying Binoculars since 2000 or 2001, I’m not worried about Mythbusters, since their show first aired in 2003.Yes, there will be ample photos and illustrations.I will not be spending much space on MTF curves, rayfans, OPDs, Strehls, and the like. Doing that, I would lose ALL my audiences, immediately. Case in point: in a current thread people talked about catadioptric binoculars. When I mentioned a few of the realities of super-fast mirrors with secondary’s having 70%+ obstruction and costs of polishing and figuring, forum members left that ludicrous notion and just jumped over talking about “off-axis” systems. Are you kidding: in hand-held binoculars!? People have a proclivity for wanting what they shouldn’t want, and wouldn’t want if they had realistic experience. I realize that BF has a few “experts” who make the rounds. But, I will deal in reality. Hang political correctness! Or, to steal from Arthur, “Bread is not enough; we demand circuses.”I won’t be dealing with today’s cutting edge optics. For years, at every lecture, people have wanted me to recommend their next binocular. I won’t do it; the book won’t do it.I dispel crap and replace it with useful data that people can use no matter what the market is doing.“Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.”—Chinese ProverbFinally, ebooks. That might be an issue for once the physical book is selling.Thanks all; now back to my editing.Bill</blockquote>

Verification