Well, well. A new study reveals that the average Canadian household spends 0.26% of its income on books. The sale of books was worth $1.1 billion in 2001, averaging $95 / household. If these numbers are altered to withdraw the 52% of Canadians who claim not to have purchased books at all in 2001, this leaves the average Canadian book-buying household spending $196. It's worth noting that this study tells us nothing about the way people actually read - just how they chose to spend their money on codex-like objects made from trees.
For the most part, as household incomes increase, so does average book
spending. In fact, as incomes increase, spending increases in almost
every division of household expenses, which is to be expected.
Households that spend less than $50 annually on books are considered
"low spenders," while $100 and over qualifies as "high." Those
households that spend over $200/year on books are considered the
highest spenders, and are responsible for 64% of all book spending in
Canada - $717 million, to be exact.
The most interesting thing about this study, I think, and the stuff that will be most studiously ignored by booksellers and study-thumping MLAs happy to proclaim that "Canadians are big readers" or some such bunk, is the divisions of costs between high book spenders and no or low book spenders.
The study quickly establishes that those who spend more money on books also spend more money on other forms of "high" art and culture like museums, performing arts, antiques and the like. Its official reccomendation is that "an effective book marketing strategy could target households that are active in arts and leisure activities." After all, high and highest spenders are responsible for 84% of all book spending in the country - from a marketing perspective it makes sense to continue to squeeze that market share. The ethics of this, however, are something else altogether.
A major disadvantage of this study is its failure to establish the average cost of a book in Canada, and correlate that cost to the average household income or even average book spending. Of course lower-income earners would spend less on books than those with higher income - each book is worth that much more of a percentage of the total household income for a lower income household! Here's an example:
Assuming the average cost for a book in Canada is $20 (roughly the cost of a trade paperback), this one purchase represents 80% of the average book spending of the low-spender group (identifed as between $1-50/year by the study). In contrast, $20 is, by a low estimate, less than 10% of the total book spending of a "high-spending" household - they can easily afford to risk a book purchase that may or may not be worthwhile. A low-spending household, in constrast (correlated with households that are low-income, making <$40K/year), can't afford to take such a risk. Why would you dole out 100% of your book spending on a single purchase, when you might end up with some sort of terribly precious Tom Wolfe novel? How many books can you get for $25 in this country? Go play on chapters.ca for a while and find out what kind of stuff ends up in the bargain bin. The short answer is not a hell of a lot.
But it costs an awful lot to be poor these days. As a percentage of household income, it costs five times as much for somebody in the lower income group to buy a book as it does someone in the higher income group. And yet, this issue of equity and accessibility isn't even on the public radar, seemingly because it's assumed that low-income people don't need books of their own, and that it'd be a waste to try to raise their market share. Instead, what the world really needs is more of those gifty books like "Cat Haiku" and "2001 Things to do with an Empty Milk Carton" - that's where the money is.
Just wait. Give it a few days, and Culture Minister Liza Frulla will be showboating Canada's reading habits all over the place, wearing that $1.1 billion number like a smug parent's happy father's day tie.
And the fact that the price of books has risen exponentially in the past twenty years will be ignored, as per usual.
