"Barnes & Noble Set To Be Sold To Elliott Management For About $683 Million"

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Anabana

A bit more on OT Frustrations...

Here are some excerpts from a Forbes article written by Brittain Ladd (forbes.com Jul 29, 2018):

[Amazon is big, but it controls only 5% of all retail sales in the U.S. and only 1% globally, according to Jodi Seth, head of policy communications for Amazon. By 2020, the number is estimated to increase to 10% of all retail sales in the U.S.]

[According to the United States Department of Justice, "as a practical matter, a market share of greater than 50% has been necessary for courts to find the existence of monopoly power."]

Perhaps some divisions (BOOKS?) will reach 50%(?) and be subject to scrutiny. Would the books that are sold by Amazon be separate from those sold by Amazon sellers? Not sure what the % might be for each side of that market...

Now if they wanted to start a suit about eyeglasses they might have a case. I understand that business is almost (if not) a monopoly and that that's why the cost of glasses to the consumer is so high.

[MGlitch]

If I recall the Nook split was more Barnes and Noble opting to outsource everything which means they’ still paying for it, but presumably they’d be paying less now then they were when they were doing everything themselves. So it’s still something that Elliot might nix especially if it’s not profitable on its own. The utter lack of Nook support in many B&Ns across the country would seem to indicate that despite the above change Nook doesn’t turn a profit but it’s been awhile since I paid attention to Nook.

[Froide]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The deal closed this week.

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...se-of-b-n.html

It's final.

Thanks! (I got called away before getting a chance to add the follow-up news that the deal's now final.)

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It is very unlikely though not impossible.

It has happened once, that an antitrust judge allowed a trial by accepting a biased and carefully sculpted definition of "relevant market" designed to exclude most competitors. Despite this, the judge was forced to issue a judgment of no harm done and had to settle for branding the target as a "monopolist". It cost them respectable money but they survived, outlived the instigators, and are currently prospering. Unlike the judge's reputation. Abusing the legal system quietly ended his career. No citations, no significant cases.

It might happen again but as I said it is unlikely.

A more relevant case was the merger of Random House and Penguin who at the time controlled the copyright of half the BPH books, not just retailed them. The feds shrugged, said the publishing world is much bigger than trade books, and rubberstamped the deal.

Moral: the relevant market for antitrust in publishing is *all* the books sold in the US, $27B, not the $14 billion sold to consumers through trade books,of which Amazon moves about half. That's maybe $7B of the $27B market, or about 26%. Nowhere near a monopoly even in publishing alone.

Not even a hanging judge can pretrend there's a case there.

Besides, the real issue isn't that Amazon is too strong but that everybody else is too weak.
Maybe Daunt can do something about that.

Dream on. Anti-trust is as much political as it is legal, i.e. who the feds choose to file charges again. Bezos might just find that dabbling so much in politics has a cost. Is there a legit case on anti-trust with Amazon? Of course. You can spin the numbers however you like to try to favor your beloved Amazon, but they do control significant portions of the book market and Amazon's preference of playing hardball can come back to haunt them.

It does very much depend on the judge. Some judges favor the Bork view of anti-trust, i.e. who is harmed. This view holds that for it to be anti-trust, the consumer has to be harmed, not just competitors. The more traditional view is that certain practices are per se violations regardless of who is harmed or not.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Maybe I'm reading too much into this but, considering that Waterstones dropped eBooks, I have to wonder if this is the end of the Nook.

Like you I hope not. I'm a big fan of Kindles but I worry that they don't have enough competition. Nook and Kobo are all the real competition they have and they're barely competing. I want to see more competition for Kindles, not less.

Barry

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by rcentros

My emphasis on "physical." Maybe I'm reading too much into this but, considering that Waterstones dropped eBooks, I have to wonder if this is the end of the Nook.

Right off the bat, Daunt has three major decisions to make that will define his regime:

1- Keep or ditch payola.
2- Keep or ditch Nook.
3- Keep or ditch the boycott on APub books.

He's also talked of the US being "under-bookstored", as if he intended to drastically expand the number of stores. Aside from being dangerous, that is not something he can do right away, if ever.

We'll know of the first three by next spring.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

He's also talked of the US being "under-bookstored", as if he intended to drastically expand the number of stores. Aside from being dangerous, that is not something he can do right away, if ever.

We'll know of the first three by next spring.

I can see him closing the remaining oversized BNs and turning the savings from those into many more small to medium size stores.

Hopefully he also ditches the cookie cutter store style that BN has been trying to push on the consumer. As if every part of a city is going to want the same books much more different areas of the country. I believe Waterstones has more freedom to customize their stores to their community which is undoubtedly going to increase sales as long as you don’t stay stagnant on it.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

I can see him closing the remaining oversized BNs and turning the savings from those into many more small to medium size stores.

Hopefully he also ditches the cookie cutter store style that BN has been trying to push on the consumer. As if every part of a city is going to want the same books much more different areas of the country. I believe Waterstones has more freedom to customize their stores to their community which is undoubtedly going to increase sales as long as you don’t stay stagnant on it.

That would work.
But I don't think he has to close *all* the big stores; there is room for a dozen or two bigstores in the mega cities, as showcases and destination stores.

It's the cookie cutter thing that doesn't work. With or without restaurants or booze.

[misling]

I don't know which bits of B&N show a profit but I've always wondered about the toy stores taking up 20% the floor space in our remaining local one. And the CD/DVD store also taking up maybe 15%. The bookstore could be a lot smaller if those are not profitable sections.

Not sure how many people would go to a bookstore to buy toys anyway, though I think they were trying to capitalize on the gap left by the closure of most physical toy stores. But don't most parents buy toys online? And CD/DVD sales can't be very good any more.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by misling

I don't know which bits of B&N show a profit but I've always wondered about the toy stores taking up 20% the floor space in our remaining local one. And the CD/DVD store also taking up maybe 15%. The bookstore could be a lot smaller if those are not profitable sections.

Those are in the store because they are higher margin than books and *theoretically* bring in more shoppers.

Of course, it means that in addition to Amazon they also have to compete with Wal-Mart.

If anecdotes are to be believed, some of their lost traffic is from shoppers who don't like their kids wailing for expensive toys instead of the popup and educational books the 'rents want to buy.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

If anecdotes are to be believed, some of their lost traffic is from shoppers who don't like their kids wailing for expensive toys instead of the popup and educational books the 'rents want to buy.

The toys I see it my local B&N seem to be aimed at adults rather than kids. Does any kid play with Funko POP! figures?

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by FrustratedReader

And related:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...ve-bookselling
People resigning from Waterstones because pay is too low. (Same owner now).

I can't see this being good for people working in Barnes & Noble. It's bad for ANYONE to be owned by a hedge fund or Venture Capitalists. No vision. Short term bottom line and often asset stripping. I'm not suggesting Elliot does those, just a general observation. Hanson Trust asset stripped UK Ever Ready. They and Energiser are now owned by a Pet food company.

I worked for a bookstore at 18-19, and minimum wage was typical. In fact, one was fighting for her salary to be raised to minimum wage since the pay had rose federally but they were still somehow trying to pay her under and get away with it somehow. I'd think most of the bookstore chains stay at this low pay.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

The toys I see it my local B&N seem to be aimed at adults rather than kids. Does any kid play with Funko POP! figures?

No, you're right. Most collectible items and "toys" in these bookstores are catered to adults instead of children.

[MGlitch]

Barnes and Noble starts you at minimum wage and allows for annual raises though it’s going to take someone quite awhile to make anything significantly over the minimum they are legally required to pay.

Many B&Ns have toy sections usually in or near the kids department. These are not the collectible pop figures and such.

[Gardenman]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

No, you're right. Most collectible items and "toys" in these bookstores are catered to adults instead of children.

I thought they for children so i never looked at them.