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

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Raphi'Elohim

Well, another small amount of Americans may be reading about the same amount but they probably aren't reading the same kind of books. ...

"Reading to a substantial degree" is basically a vague and meaningless claim. Adding that others "probably aren't reading the same kind of books," doesn't really clarify what you're trying to say either. It just means that Gates (whose 50 books a year are not impressive) and Buffet are single-minded about making money -- so, if greed equates to "reading to a substantial degree" I guess you might have a point with Buffet. But I'm guessing there are a lot of successful businessmen who "don't read to a substantial degree" and still manage to be successful.

I think what you really mean is that most Americans don't read the kind of books you think they should read. Oh well, get over it. I read because I enjoy reading. Probably about 75% of the books I read are novels ("non-substantial" reading) and about 25% are history, or religion or biographies or technical books. I don't read books on "how to make money" so probably not the kind of books Buffet reads. And I don't really care. Reading is not a business for me.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I read because I enjoy reading. Probably about 75% of the books I read are novels ("non-substantial" reading) and about 25% are history, or religion or biographies or technical books. I don't read books on "how to make money" so probably not the kind of books Buffet reads. And I don't really care. Reading is not a business for me.

This. Plus, I personally have not the slightest wish to be "successful" as per today's standards (i.e. ambitious, career-driven, rich and famous). What a horrid life that would be. My ideal is to live a quiet, peaceful, stress-free life and enjoy simple everyday pleasures. Like reading. Which I do because I enjoy it, not because I want to "succeed".

Granted, without ambitious people we would still be living in huts. So I respect them. But I've never wished to be one of them. To each his own.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

How many people still occasionally go to the bookstore, but don't find anything of interest?

.

I give.
What *do* they do then?
Go to Independent stores, online, or to Netflix? How many gave up on books but might come back?

That's the question: will they trade binging for reading or trade Non-chain or online for new, improved B&N?

Consider this:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...hing-industry/

Flat as a board.
Those are grosses, and trade publishing is at most half that, equally flat.
Population has grown 20-25% but sales haven't, despites price hikes.

That's what has me wondering.
Everybody wants a strong B&N but...
How much does publishing gain from a B&N revival if the netflix folks don't come back? Turning B&N into a chain of hyperlocal independents with the support of an efficient purchasing backbone would be great for B&N but will the sales come from netflix or non-chain stores?

How do you turn bingers to readers?
Can it be done?

No idea here.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I give.
What *do* they do then?
Go to Independent stores, online, or to Netflix? How many gave up on books but might come back?

That's the question: will they trade binging for reading or trade Non-chain or online for new, improved B&N?

Consider this:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...hing-industry/

Flat as a board.
Those are grosses, and trade publishing is at most half that, equally flat.
Population has grown 20-25% but sales haven't, despites price hikes.

That's what has me wondering.
Everybody wants a strong B&N but...
How much does publishing gain from a B&N revival if the netflix folks don't come back? Turning B&N into a chain of hyperlocal independents with the support of an efficient purchasing backbone would be great for B&N but will the sales come from netflix or non-chain stores?

How do you turn bingers to readers?
Can it be done?

No idea here.

This is of course what is called a false choice. The issue isn't can B&N get netflix subscribers to give up Netflix and shop in B&N, the question is can B&N get people who buy books to come into their stores and buy there. The answer to that question is it depends on what they do.

As far as the idea that sales are flat, not sure where statista gets their figures and have no interest in paying a bunch of money for a subscription there, but other sources report that print sales are actually up 1.3% and certainly publishers are reporting profits not loses. Since they end up going to jail if their corporate reports are false, I tend to believe them.

Here is a report of HarperCollins financials on May 10th, 2018

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...ercollins.html

For those who don't want to click it reports that
- revenue rose 6% for the quarter for HarperCollins over the same quarter from previous year.
- sales gains were led by the general and Christian publishing divisions
- Backlist sales did particularly well
- downloadable audiobooks where up 5%
- digitial sales accounted for 22% of consumer revenue


For the first 9 months of fiscal 2018, sales were up 3%

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Raphi'Elohim

Check the reliability of the authors you read: A theologian is a less- reliable source of information than a scientist.

I would be glad to discuss in the opt-in section of MobileRead.

Originally Posted by Raphi'Elohim

Observe who is willing to debate, and who is not: The former are most likely to be telling the truth, while the latter are probably trying to keep their lies from being exposed.

I don't agree with this at all, but it would be hard to find proof one way or the other -- except -- debates where there is significant math involved are worthless.

Originally Posted by Raphi'Elohim

With all due respect barry, I suspect that you are innumerate because people who are not good at math have a strong tendency to personalize things.

Do you have a study on this? And is it any kind of math, and any kind of personalization?

I wonder if any difference in "tendency to personalize things" might be greater between people skilled in various mathematical specialties than it is between math nerds, and the innumerate, in general.

I feel that I can read medical journal articles critically. But it is a real challenge for me to master the literature on even narrow questions, and so time-consuming that I've only ever tried to do it on two or three questions. On the rest of what my doctors may advise, there aren't enough hours in the day not to rely on extremely dubious rubrics involving credentials and personality, almost as if I was borderline illiterate.

Economics? I lack knowledge of the sort of statistics commonly found in economic journals and thus have to rely on popularizations I have no means to independently access. I suspect that it goes the other way -- lots of great economists would find critical reading of New England Journal of Medicine articles impossible.

You say you are are elitist. I myself am sometimes a bit of an elitist. My point is that no person has elite level knowledge of more than a tiny handful of subjects.

I think that, even by your elitist standards, someone who reads fifty well-reviewed fiction books a year ranks much lower in knowledge than someone who never reads books but spends the same time reading academic journals, middlebrow magazines, and newspapers.

[cgsmom]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

This. Plus, I personally have not the slightest wish to be "successful" as per today's standards (i.e. ambitious, career-driven, rich and famous). What a horrid life that would be. My ideal is to live a quiet, peaceful, stress-free life and enjoy simple everyday pleasures. Like reading. Which I do because I enjoy it, not because I want to "succeed".

Granted, without ambitious people we would still be living in huts. So I respect them. But I've never wished to be one of them. To each his own.

I agree with you. I read purely for enjoyment.

I feel bad because I want B&N to survive but I am not doing much to help that along. I have purchased my 4th Nook (new 7.8") but I do not buy books from them. I don't buy paper books because I don't like to read paper books anymore. I don't buy Nook books because I cannot liberate them anymore. I went to the store to buy my Nook but have not been back since. If I am a typical customer, B&N is doomed.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by cgsmom

I agree with you. I read purely for enjoyment.

I feel bad because I want B&N to survive but I am not doing much to help that along.

Perhaps a better way to look at this is that B&N hasn’t done anything to entice you to spend money there. You aren’t obligated to save them from themselves afterall.

There are plenty of successful models B&N could follow. Instead they are doubling or tripling down on methods they’ve tried and which have failed to save them or anyone in their position.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

How many people still occasionally go to the bookstore, but don't find anything of interest?

Probably not many. Or at least I doubt that the inability to find anything had to do with the bookstore not being relevant to their local audience.

Originally Posted by Fbone

The smaller blueprint in new high traffic areas may bring in more reading shoppers.

Plus, any cost savings may help stabilize the looses.

That's what I think would work for B&N.Smaller stores in malls/shopping centers/airports, places like that. Where I live there are three successful malls (or whatever you call those upscale outdoors shopping centers that are basically malls to me) and there's only one bookstore among them all.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Bookstooge

All I can say is thank goodness for the block/ignore user option...

His posts make me smile. But then I liked Countdown with Keith Olbermann and occasionally enjoy bits of Rush Limbaugh or Dennis Miller. Sometimes I enjoy a good blowhard rant, regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

How many people still occasionally go to the bookstore, but don't find anything of interest?

A better question might be: "How many people who used to occasionally or regularly go to the bookstore stopped doing so and are unlikely to return regardless of reason?"

My wife and I used to go to the local B&N at least weekly and sometimes more often. We stopped when we discovered that we could buy the same book for significantly less at B&N's online store. I wrote Riggio at the time and asked why a benefit of being a B&N member isn't getting the lower price, whether it be the online price of the bookstore price when shopping at the bookstore. The only response I got was that the online store was owned by a separate company, which was no answer at all, especially as you could return an online purchase to the local store.

Now, many years later it would make no sense to return to the local store to buy books because the local store either doesn't have the book I want in stock or won't sell it to me for the online price if the online price is less. There is no advantage to going to the local store.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

If B&N can make their bookstores more relevant to their local audience, or more welcoming, maybe more of those people will actually buy something.

For people who have already abandoned physical bookstores, perhaps word of mouth or community initiatives, book clubs, coffee mornings, that sort of thing, to get people remembering that B&N is a thing that still exists, and might have something of interest.

None of the things that you mention would be an incentive to go to the local store and buy. Nowadays, thanks to Amazon, price is what matters.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by rcentros

. . . I read because I enjoy reading. Probably about 75% of the books I read are novels ("non-substantial" reading) and about 25% are history, or religion or biographies or technical books. I don't read books on "how to make money" so probably not the kind of books Buffet reads. And I don't really care. Reading is not a business for me.

except my figures are roughly 35% novels and 65% history, philosophy, religion, biography, and language (and some other nonfiction), but never "how to make money" books. Like Rcentros, "reading is not a business for me"; I read for pleasure, to expand my universe, to let my imagination have a wild moment or two.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

. . . That's what has me wondering.
Everybody wants a strong B&N but...
How much does publishing gain from a B&N revival if the netflix folks don't come back? Turning B&N into a chain of hyperlocal independents with the support of an efficient purchasing backbone would be great for B&N but will the sales come from netflix or non-chain stores?

How do you turn bingers to readers?
Can it be done?

No idea here.

In the case of B&N, I think much of the answer lies in what steps are taken to make the customer, rather than the chairman, the focus of the company.

For many years I refused to buy books at Amazon, even if I could save a couple of dollars, preferring to give my money to B&N in hopes of keeping an Amazon competitor alive. But in the last couple of years I shifted when I realized that Riggio was not the least bit interested in doing anything to keep customers like me happy.

Consequently, I have slowly shifted my purchasing of books from B&N to Amazon. I still buy from B&N, just not as much; Amazon is now getting most of my money.

If Daunt doesn't address the problems and make B&N more competitive with Amazon, customers like me won't return.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by rhadin

My wife and I used to go to the local B&N at least weekly and sometimes more often. We stopped when we discovered that we could buy the same book for significantly less at B&N's online store. I wrote Riggio at the time and asked why a benefit of being a B&N member isn't getting the lower price, whether it be the online price of the bookstore price when shopping at the bookstore. The only response I got was that the online store was owned by a separate company, which was no answer at all, especially as you could return an online purchase to the local store.

Now, many years later it would make no sense to return to the local store to buy books because the local store either doesn't have the book I want in stock or won't sell it to me for the online price if the online price is less. There is no advantage to going to the local store.

B&N will price match their online price in-store, if you are a member. Just go to the cashier with your items and after entering your membership number ask the cashier for the comparison price and they will match it. I've heard somewhere that the registers have it programmed so that it's done quickly. There is no need to show them on your phone.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by rhadin

None of the things that you mention would be an incentive to go to the local store and buy. Nowadays, thanks to Amazon, price is what matters.

If that is true to the exclusion of all else, then they are doomed whatever they do.
A physical bookstore cannot compete purely on price with Amazon.
If they do well, it has to be by offering something people don't get with an online store.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Now, many years later it would make no sense to return to the local store to buy books because the local store either doesn't have the book I want in stock or won't sell it to me for the online price if the online price is less. There is no advantage to going to the local store.

None of the things that you mention would be an incentive to go to the local store and buy. Nowadays, thanks to Amazon, price is what matters.

Catalog size matters.
That is how Borders and B&N decimated the standalones and it's how Amazon has been taking the market away from B&N.

There is still a B&M market for frontlist Everywhere Books--it's how Hudson and the smaller Newsstands survive--but a lot of readers have adapted to the expanded catalogs of online and they happen to be the center of gravity of the market. For those readers limited catalog sizes won't do.

But for casual readers, there is still a market.
Problem is, casual readers aren't typically "showroom trollers" roaming the aisles for any book that catches their eyes but more likely to be guided missiles looking for the hot, popular book of the day.

That is why bigger loses to online but smaller survives. Smaller is cheaper and better fitted to what the remaining B&M shoppers seek. That is why Daunt placed Waterstones on the small hyperlocal side: existing market. He wasn't exactly looking to grow the market, just concentrate the remaining traffic into *his* stores.

And that is why I suspect any B&N reconnaissance is more likely to come at the expense of the non-chain stores than the newsstands or online. People have learned new habits and getting them to change back is going to be a hard wall to climb.