Quote:
Originally Posted by charmian
Can B&N's share really have declined that much? In that case, wouldn't more of their stores have been in trouble?
Or is it that the non-book merchandise is picking up the slack?
|
It might have but that is not what the chart says; rather, what it says is that book buying is migrating from the big chain stores (of which there are only a thousand or so) to other, more abundant locations, usually closer at hand. And expecially to online, which is *always* at hand, these days.
But "online" includes B&N.com and Nook.
So, while B&N has clearly lost some market share, a lot of their lost traffic has simply shifted their purchases from the storefronts to Nook or B&N.com.
Especially the latter. B&N customers have shown themselves to be pretty loyal so their first choice for online is still B&N. The problem for B&N is that as their customers migrate to online the stores get less productive as a whole. So they're still making as much money off pbooks as ever but their share is now split between B&M and online and the split is making the stores into dead weight.
That is *exactly* as expected, which is why they've embarked on their shift to "lifestyle goods" and store closings. The reason they don't close more stores is their hands are tied by their leases, much as Borders' were. The only way they can break those leases is by a dip into chapter 11 bankruptcy court and they are unwilling to go there just yet.