Quote:
Originally Posted by leebase
That the book store has revamped itself and revived the selling of physical books is not directly related to the slow down in sales of kindle readers. That surely falls into you "they worked to sell more pb and they did, fill at 11"
|
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said. Thanks for the back up.
My point was that it's not very surprising that a store that "revamped itself and revived the selling of physical books" actually sold more physical books. That they sold less Kindles is immaterial. I'm happy that a B&M chain has found a way to keep themselves afloat--and perhaps even thrive--in an era where many B&M stores are struggling.
It is also my contention that Kindle sales volumes (or any dedicated reading device for that matter) are becoming less and less of an indicator of how pbooks are selling in relation to ebooks--
because of the the things you mentioned like tablets and phones.
"We sold more pbooks and almost no Kindles" just doesn't have the impact whoever was being quoted wanted it to have. It's a bit apples and oranges. Like you said; "plummeting" Kindle sales speaks more to the state of the current eink market than it does to how well pbooks are holding up to ebooks (or vice versa).
The story should have been Waterstones' revitalization. Period. It's a good story. No need to junk it up with irrelevant Kindle sales hooey.