B&N CEO on the future of Nook

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

What they did was never raise ebook prices above 'cover price'.

Look man, I'm not one of those that thinks that Amazon can do no wrong. But I'm not convinced that, but for agency, we would be paying more for ebooks. I'm just not seeing it.

So? No one sells for list price. In general, eBook prices are less than paper prices. Bolton's new book has a list price of $32.50. The Hardback price is $19.42. The Kindle price is $16.99.

As I said, we know what Amazon was selling eBooks for when they didn't have agency.

[Tarana]

Originally Posted by Apache

I stopped buying from them when I could no longer download and backup my purchases.
Apache

Same here. You CAN still do it but finding where they are stored is hard to remember and if your credit card expired, pretty much impossible now.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

So? No one sells for list price...

So, there is no proof of your claim:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

In the US, what restrains Amazon's eBook pricing is the publishers since due to agency pricing, they are setting the prices.

As you've repeatedly said yourself:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

...we know what Amazon was selling eBooks for when they didn't have agency.

Yes. We do know. And it was at or below cover price. So how does agency restrain Amazon's ebook pricing?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

So, there is no proof of your claim:

As you've repeatedly said yourself:

Yes. We do know. And it was at or below cover price. So how does agency restrain Amazon's ebook pricing?

Sigh. It was basically the same price as what the publishers charge under agency. The only difference was a handful of bestsellers they sold for $10. We have gone through this many times. I get bored having to re-present evidence every couple of years because it disappears down the memory hole. The publishers compete with each other, that is why the ebook is way, way below the cover price and is typically below the dead tree price (which doesn't use agency).

[barryem]

Originally Posted by rcentros

or by moving his factories to Asia where he can make use of wage slaves — that's greed.

A very good example of putting greed to good use; or at least it might be. There are, of course, bad examples of this as well.

Here in the US wages are relatively high and in some Asian countries they were very low so companies shut down plants here and moved them there. American workers were hurt by this but not greatly, at least most of the time. We have an economy that can deal with this.

Asians, on the other hand, were put to work, often for long hours and too little pay, kind of like what happened in the USA a century or two ago. And like us, the workers negotiate and wages go up and the standard of living goes up, which means people want more and local economies improve there and they start looking more and more like us. Most still have a way to go. Some Asian countries are now pretty strong.

I hope you see this before you leave for Texas. And I hope you enjoy your trip. I lived there about 65 years. It's a great place.

Barry

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Sigh.

I'll let it go after this. You aren't the only one that gets bored.

It was basically the same price as what the publishers charge under agency. The only difference was a handful of bestsellers they sold for $10. We have gone through this many times.

So again. No proof that:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

In the US, what restrains Amazon's eBook pricing is the publishers since due to agency pricing, they are setting the prices.

All you can really say is perhaps agency didn't have the impact on ebook prices that people might think.

But there's no proof that agency actually kept ebook prices low or restrained Amazon in any way.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I'll let it go after this. You aren't the only one that gets bored.



So again. No proof that:



All you can really say is perhaps agency didn't have the impact on ebook prices that people might think.

But there's no proof that agency actually kept ebook prices low or restrained Amazon in any way.

Look, I'm not going to play the old internet debating game where someone keeps asking for proof ever few years of something . I posted the prices I was paying for books at Amazon for a period of years predating Agency pricing, including Agency pricing, during the Cote years and then the resumption of Agency pricing. If you don't want to go to the effort of pulling that up, it's on you. I'm under no obligation to keep putting it out there every time someone wants to pretend it was never put out there.

Since you are arguing against a strawman, I will restate what I was saying. Agency pricing is about allowing the publishers to set the prices. It is about letting the publishers find the point on the cost curve where they get the biggest profit. That is it.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Since you are arguing against a strawman, I will restate what I was saying. Agency pricing is about allowing the publishers to set the prices. It is about letting the publishers find the point on the cost curve where they get the biggest profit. That is it.

And the consequence of that will be higher prices to the consumer.
That was initiated as a cartel, and that is what cartels do, keep prices high.
We had this in the UK with the net book price agreement, where publishers required book stores to sell paper books at fixed prices. When the agreement was ruled to be illegal, prices fell, which should surprise no-one.

[Apache]

Publishers can set their book prices at what they want. They can also force book stores to sell at those prices. They can not conspire with other publishers to do so.
Apache

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Apache

Publishers can set their book prices at what they want. They can also force book stores to sell at those prices.

That isn't true for paper books.
It isn't true in general for any physical goods.
(Where I live.)

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

That isn't true for paper books.
It isn't true in general for any physical goods.
(Where I live.)

It comes down to contract law. However, the US does have what's known as first sale doctrine which means that they can't set the price in secondary stores such as book discounters or used book stores.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by barryem

A very good example of putting greed to good use; or at least it might be. There are, of course, bad examples of this as well.

A very good example of greed at work.

Originally Posted by barryem

Here in the US wages are relatively high and in some Asian countries they were very low so companies shut down plants here and moved them there. American workers were hurt by this but not greatly, at least most of the time. We have an economy that can deal with this.

No we don't. Have you taken a look at the shuttered factories in Detroit lately? Or the former steel mills around Pittsburgh? Or the shuttered factories in New England (where they used to make shoes)? Moving factories overseas has devastated whole regions of our country. I'm guessing you happen not to live in one of these regions, which skews your view. A country can not survive in the long term relying on the "service industries." At some point it collapses. The only reason our country hasn't collapsed yet is because we are trillion$ and trillion$ in debt. That also can't be sustained in the long term. Real wages go down and a smaller and smaller percentage control more and more of all capital. It's not healthy and it's not sustainable.

Originally Posted by barryem

Asians, on the other hand, were put to work, often for long hours and too little pay, kind of like what happened in the USA a century or two ago. And like us, the workers negotiate and wages go up and the standard of living goes up, which means people want more and local economies improve there and they start looking more and more like us. Most still have a way to go. Some Asian countries are now pretty strong.

Basically most Asian factories rely on wage slaves. They even put up netting around some of the factories to keep these wage slaves from jumping out of windows and committing suicide. Personally I can't condone this. It is greed and not necessary for capitalism.

Originally Posted by barryem

I hope you see this before you leave for Texas. And I hope you enjoy your trip. I lived there about 65 years. It's a great place.

I've lived here for a while. It's probably where I'll end up because I want to be near my kids and grandkids. But, if I had my rathers (and my children near), I would live somewhere a little cooler, like Idaho or even Montana (where I lived when I was a kid).

[barryem]

Originally Posted by rcentros

No we don't. Have you taken a look at the shuttered factories in Detroit lately? Or the former steel mills around Pittsburgh? Or the shuttered factories in New England (where they used to make shoes)? Moving factories overseas has devastated whole regions of our country. I'm guessing you happen not to live in one of these regions, which skews your view. A country can not survive in the long term relying on the "service industries." At some point it collapses. The only reason our country hasn't collapsed yet is because we are trillion$ and trillion$ in debt. That also can't be sustained in the long term. Real wages go down and a smaller and smaller percentage control more and more of all capital. It's not healthy and it's not sustainable.

Right now we're in a very different kind of situation with the virus. In any case I think we're talking about the past 30 or 40 years, not the present. Yes we were hurt by factories moving but we handled it. People in some areas of the US had to relocate and they did. Overall, though, the economy here did okay.

Some of those Asian countries have gone from impoverished to developing status and have become important trading partners for us. We got hurt a little. We handled it. The world was better in the long run because of it.

Basically most Asian factories rely on wage slaves. They even put up netting around some of the factories to keep these wage slaves from jumping out of windows and committing suicide. Personally I can't condone this. It is greed and not necessary for capitalism.

That's true and in some countries it's probably still true. In others things have gotten better. It led to democratization of some countries. Also when we learned about bad conditions in some places we did what we could to alleviate them. Sometimes it helped.

I've lived here for a while. It's probably where I'll end up because I want to be near my kids and grandkids. But, if I had my rathers (and my children near), I would live somewhere a little cooler, like Idaho or even Montana (where I lived when I was a kid).

I'm living in a retirement home in Arkansas now and have for the past nearly 16 years. I couldn't afford where I was living in Houston and life is easier here. I can't really say I miss Houston but I always liked living there till I moved away.

Barry

[cgsmom]

Wow! This topic sure went down the rabbit hole.

Oh well, I like my Nook very much and I hope the Nook survives. But I will adjust to whatever the future holds in ebooks.

[fjtorres]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

https://www.retaildive.com/news/barn...arters/580610/

Barnes & Noble Thursday told Retail Dive in an email that "a number of employees in the corporate office" have been laid off. A spokesperson declined to say how many people are affected.

The company also said that a New York State WARN notice that 64 employees are being laid off involves a store in New York City's Upper East Side. The location at 86th St. and Lexington Ave. operated for 12 years "but is now too large, and too expensive, for our needs," according to a spokesperson. The store will close by September, according to the notice.

Plans for new stores in smaller formats are ongoing, however, with two opening this month, a spokesperson confirmed to Retail Dive.

https://shelf-awareness.com/issue.ht...ue=3768#m48975

Barnes & Noble has laid off many of its buyers and plans to reconfigure its buying approach in the Waterstones' style, which shifted to a more centralized model last year, Shelf Awareness has learned. Other headquarters staff and "some" store employees have apparently also been let go.

The B&N buyers, many or all of whom have been furloughed since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic in the U.S., include such longtime employees as literary fiction buyer Sessalee Hensley, who had been with B&N about 35 years; SF/fantasy and graphics novel buyer James Killen, who had been with B&N 41 years; buyer David Garber, a 25-year veteran; and Lisa Echenthal, a 28-year veteran.

Asked for comment, B&N stated: "It is with great regret that a number of employees in the corporate office have left our employment. As with so many companies, we evaluate our needs in circumstances much changed by the Covid-19 pandemic. We now have almost all of our bookstores reopened and must align our head office requirements to our store priorities. These are wonderful employees whose dedication and service over the years to Barnes & Noble has been exemplary. We thank them sincerely and are working with them to help them through this transition."

Much more at the sources.